Comment Re:Rationalization (Score 1) 165
Chris,
I appreciate your thoughtful comments.
First, I assume you mean *in*alienable, and I would argue that intellectual property protection *is* an inalienable right guaranteed by the Constitution, and rightfully so. It is simply a part of the right to property and the right to your own life. There has been a Patent Office since the Founding. Just as the fruits of your physical labor belong to you, the fruits of your mental labor do, too.
Your argument that as distribution costs fall, IP value falls to nothing is not true. In a free market, the value of something is the price at which the market clears. Since production and distribution costs fall so drastically in the digital age, the producers may be willing to sell at cheaper prices in order to increase unit sales to make more total profits, but they will always charge something. And it does still cost them time and effort to create the IP. If there is no compensation available for IP, much less of it will be created.
The difference between a record club and Napster is that the record club owns the rights to the songs they're publishing and Napster does not. If the record companies think that's a good way to promote, it's their right to allow that. If they don't think Napster is a good way to promote, it's their right to deny it. They own the music, which they bought by voluntary agreement with the artists, and it is theirs to do as they see fit with.
I have that old-fashioned notion that if somebody else has the skills to create something that I would like to have, I should ask nicely and negotiate terms with him. I shouldn't sneak into his house at night and steal it (or even just dub a copy from his home recordings).This is also true if I'm dealing with someone he contracted to distribute his invention or production.
I'm not sure what you think is so crazy in the world of IP. Certainly there are weird things going on: patents of business processes and patents on gene discoveries are a couple that strike me as questionable, but this is more a question of whether someone actually *invented* the thing they're asking for protection for. Obvious ideas should not be patentable.
What I advocate is protecting absolutely the rights of those who have actually created something of value to profit from what they have created. "Social good" and "public domain" can have the scraps after the copyrights or patents have expired.
I appreciate your thoughtful comments.
First, I assume you mean *in*alienable, and I would argue that intellectual property protection *is* an inalienable right guaranteed by the Constitution, and rightfully so. It is simply a part of the right to property and the right to your own life. There has been a Patent Office since the Founding. Just as the fruits of your physical labor belong to you, the fruits of your mental labor do, too.
Your argument that as distribution costs fall, IP value falls to nothing is not true. In a free market, the value of something is the price at which the market clears. Since production and distribution costs fall so drastically in the digital age, the producers may be willing to sell at cheaper prices in order to increase unit sales to make more total profits, but they will always charge something. And it does still cost them time and effort to create the IP. If there is no compensation available for IP, much less of it will be created.
The difference between a record club and Napster is that the record club owns the rights to the songs they're publishing and Napster does not. If the record companies think that's a good way to promote, it's their right to allow that. If they don't think Napster is a good way to promote, it's their right to deny it. They own the music, which they bought by voluntary agreement with the artists, and it is theirs to do as they see fit with.
I have that old-fashioned notion that if somebody else has the skills to create something that I would like to have, I should ask nicely and negotiate terms with him. I shouldn't sneak into his house at night and steal it (or even just dub a copy from his home recordings).This is also true if I'm dealing with someone he contracted to distribute his invention or production.
I'm not sure what you think is so crazy in the world of IP. Certainly there are weird things going on: patents of business processes and patents on gene discoveries are a couple that strike me as questionable, but this is more a question of whether someone actually *invented* the thing they're asking for protection for. Obvious ideas should not be patentable.
What I advocate is protecting absolutely the rights of those who have actually created something of value to profit from what they have created. "Social good" and "public domain" can have the scraps after the copyrights or patents have expired.
