Intellectual property law

[Vanguard]

Intellectual property is a subsidy, and subsidies are usually pointless when granted to whole industries. While they don't decrease economic efficiency in every case (in certain cases they can vastly increase it), they probably allocate resources inefficiently.

Overall, it is probably better and cheaper to just let people develop whatever they inventions and artwork that they decide to develop without patents then it is to maintain the huge legal and inefficiency costs needed to enforce intellectual property rights.

Re Malaria: I'm not sure what the answer you're looking for is (well, I'm pretty sure that the answer is "because it only affects Third Worlders), but the reason we don't have a cure might simply be that malaria isn't curable by vaccine or easy drugs. This is a possibility after all. I agree with the idea that IP does not always do a good job of allocating research for the public good, however.

Re codes: If record companies can sell coded songs then they have a perfect right to do so. But why should the government compel hardware manufacturers to make machines that only play unlocked songs? What public interest is served by granting a massive subsidy to record companies?

[TCO]

Originally posted by Vanguard
Intellectual property is a subsidy,

1. No argument.
2. Did you follow my comments about fixed and variable costs?

and subsidies are usually pointless when granted to whole industries.

huh?

While they don't decrease economic efficiency in every case (in certain cases they can vastly increase it), they probably allocate resources inefficiently.

This is an interesting type of subsidy. It's really a wealth transfer from consumers (of that particular product) to the developer. There is a deadwiaght loss ONLY if you assume that the product would exist at all. If not, than it is not a deadweight loss...but a net societal gain.

Overall, it is probably better and cheaper to just let people develop whatever they inventions and artwork that they decide to develop without patents then it is to maintain the huge legal and inefficiency costs needed to enforce intellectual property rights.

How much research (clinical trials) will the market do for non-patent drugs. It's easy to check. Just look at off-patent drugs and see how many clinicals are done for new indications. (donut hole)

[Vanguard]

These arguments are only true if you don't consider the effects of increase transfers from consumers to certain producers on other transfers. Naturally if you increase the amount consumers spend on drugs then you decrease the amount they spend on other forms of health care, or computers, or space exploration or whatever.

I admit that it is impossible to actually solve anything about the economy when you make the system this complex. But the whole point is that the system is this complex. Simplifying it only results in falsehood.

[TCO]

Have you ever taken a micro-economics class? know how to draw supply and demand curves?

[TCO]

If the product would have been developed anyway, than the patent creates a net societal detriment (deadweight loss). If the product would not have been developed than the producer surplus and consumer surplus created are societal benefits. You don't need to worry about alternate spending since the choice is a free choice (wrt other products). Review the assumptions wrt supply/demand curves and you will understand.

[Vanguard]

Supply demand curves are useful for helping a drug company decide whether it is worthwhile to research a new drug or not.

But they are absolutely no use helping a society decide whether or not to invest in researching drugs or instead invest that money on any of the approximately one billion other things that they might like to research or buy.

don't have to worry about alternate spending

Only if the choice is free choice do you not have to worry about alternate spending. By definition, however, exclusive rights reduce freedom of choice.

[TCO]

You didn't listen to me. I was adressing your issue of choices between the monopolyn product and other products.

Have you ever taken a micro class?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ned
moomingparatrooper, We don't have to do anything, anyting at all. The next edition of Windows, Solaris or Linux could simply refuse to play or encode unlicensed MP3's. Over time, the problem would vanish as people upgraded.

You mean DRM (digital rights protection), a hare-brained scheme that's cooked up by the MIAA/RIAA to protect their own interests?

Two points. First of all, there is no unbreakable copy protection scheme, and this extends to licensing. Anything you can read from a medium, you can copy. Do you know that the protection scheme on CD's has been defeated by masking tape?

Secondly, why do you think people will constantly upgrade? As it stands, personal computer capabilities have already outstripped the requirements of most users. Who really needs a P4 2.5GHz?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by GP
Review the assumptions wrt supply/demand curves and you will understand.

That doesn't work here, because IP laws create monopolies.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by GP
The problem is that the individual copies of songs or drugs are very cheap...but the development costs expensive.

Songs and drugs are very different. Artists can create music with almost no monetary cost at all.

Originally posted by GP
It's simlar to telecom where the infrastructure costs are huge (big fixed cost) but negligeable variable cost. (Telecom is a "natural monopoly" as such.)

I don't buy that. Otherwise there wouldn't be so many regional carriers.

Originally posted by GP
You can either offer a monopoly for intellectual content or can subsidize or can just do without. I think patent law is a reasonable compromise.

Music is not covered by patent law, which is in a laughable state anyway. Software patents? Patenting genes? Can we get silly than that?

[Roland]

Re: Intellectual property law

Originally posted by Colon
I'd also like a question of mine answered. Suppose an employee designs a machine and the plans are obtained by another firm without prior permission. I assume this is industrial espionage and punishable as such but is this also an infringement of or another intellectual property law? Which one?

Depends on how the IP right is created. Some are based on filing, like patents, some are automatically with the creator. I do not think a machine design is protected beyond patents in europe.

Should the "stealing" company get a patent on it that patent should be voidable (if that's a word in english).

[moomin]

Originally posted by Ned
moomingparatrooper, We don't have to do anything, anyting at all. The next edition of Windows, Solaris or Linux could simply refuse to play or encode unlicensed MP3's. Over time, the problem would vanish as people upgraded.

[moomin's stress]

I take it you're not a CS guy or programmer yourself, then. That's quite all right - but it means you'll simply have to take my word for the fact that there's nothing simple about what you suggest. In fact, it's very, very hard indeed - the general problem of positively identifying running code is NP-complete. Let's just say that unless somebody shows me the goods - an OS that can reliably identify any piece of code as doing "illegal" encoding/decoding and block it - I rather belive we're talking pure SF tech here.

Unless you are suggesting the OS only be able to run approved binaries by some digital licensing scheme - that kill computing overnight.

But let's consider that moot for a moment and say that the considerable talent MS has in-house actually figures out a way to do that. Do you see it being implemented in WinXP3? I don't. You see, the genie is out of the bottle for OSes as well. Perhaps MS could be leaned upon to "share" their clever trickery other closed-source systmes such as Solaris and "canned" versions of Linux, like Red Hat - but there's nothing in the whole wide world that prevents anyone from downloading Linux source and compile it from scratch without adding in the IP protection mechanisms.

And MS knows this very well. There has been talk about this supposedly secure digital infrastructure it's about to unleash at least since Win ME - mostly to appease the recording industry, I believe - but we notice anyone can still play mp3s under WinXP. MS is fully aware of the fact that implementing such technologies would instantly spell doom for their desktop monopoly.

So you need to regulate not only what apps people can run but what OSes they can. And make source code and compilers an illegal resource too. Even China doesn't do that, and I feel the overall loss of productivity and creativity would far outweight the benefits to the record companies. Not, remember, that I think the technology is possible to begin with.

In addition, non computer MP3 or equivalent encoders could be banned.

You know, there's a deep irony in the fact that a society that sees fit to protect the right to weild firearms considers mp3 walkmans so scary that it feels the need to ban them.

I fully belive in IP laws and theit usefulness myself, but I would rather not give up all other benefits of democracy and freedom over them.

For all of these reasons I think mp3s are here to stay, and those interested in ensuring the continuation of commercially viable music will have to come up with other means of ensuring that creators get their work properly rewarded. I'm just at a loss about how such a viable mechanism would actually work.

The industry needs to find out pronto though. Or the Hollywood dominance that EU countries are always compaining about simply wont be there to rant about. If you think the recording industry has it bad, just consider Hollywood studios a few years down the line.

[- Groucho -]

Originally posted by Vanguard
Intellectual property is a subsidy, and subsidies are usually pointless when granted to whole industries. While they don't decrease economic efficiency in every case (in certain cases they can vastly increase it), they probably allocate resources inefficiently.

How you can say this when earlier you were advocating government pharma research instead of private?!? Those positions are completely inconsistent.

I would argue back but I'm wise to your tar baby ways, grasshopper.

[Sava]

Since musicians make most of their money from touring, I don't understand why the objection to Napster-like systems. MP3's and all other computer files are the property of the owner of the computer. If people like your music, they will come to your shows. The only people losing money from CD burning and peer to peer file sharing are the greedy record companies. They should focus more on promoting their artists instead of harassing people. I feel no pity for the companies that copy music genres and mass product bands and artists. Creed becomes popular, so the record companies pump out 30 bands that sound just like them. Where's the originality? The diversity?

Here's how I see it. Your thoughts, ideas, and creativity are your own. But they leave the realm of your mind and enter the world, you cannot expect to control all aspects of it; including reproduction. You don't own the air that the sound waves reverberate. Now, if you sign a contract with somebody giving them the right to sell your music, then nobody else should be able to PROFIT off of it. But if some kid is burning CD's for his friends, that person is not commiting an immoral act of theft.

[Ned]

Originally posted by moominparatrooper

I take it you're not a CS guy or programmer yourself, then. That's quite all right - but it means you'll simply have to take my word for the fact that there's nothing simple about what you suggest. In fact, it's very, very hard indeed - the general problem of positively identifying running code is NP-complete. Let's just say that unless somebody shows me the goods - an OS that can reliably identify any piece of code as doing "illegal" encoding/decoding and block it - I rather believe we're talking pure SF tech here.

Unless you are suggesting the OS only be able to run approved binaries by some digital licensing scheme - that kill computing overnight.

But let's consider that moot for a moment and say that the considerable talent MS has in-house actually figures out a way to do that. Do you see it being implemented in WinXP3? I don't. You see, the genie is out of the bottle for OSes as well. Perhaps MS could be leaned upon to "share" their clever trickery other closed-source systems such as Solaris and "canned" versions of Linux, like Red Hat - but there's nothing in the whole wide world that prevents anyone from downloading Linux source and compile it from scratch without adding in the IP protection mechanisms.

And MS knows this very well. There has been talk about this supposedly secure digital infrastructure it's about to unleash at least since Win ME - mostly to appease the recording industry, I believe - but we notice anyone can still play mp3s under WinXP. MS is fully aware of the fact that implementing such technologies would instantly spell doom for their desktop monopoly.

So you need to regulate not only what apps people can run but what OSes they can. And make source code and compilers an illegal resource too. Even China doesn't do that, and I feel the overall loss of productivity and creativity would far outweigh the benefits to the record companies. Not, remember, that I think the technology is possible to begin with.



You know, there's a deep irony in the fact that a society that sees fit to protect the right to wield firearms considers mp3 walkmans so scary that it feels the need to ban them.

I fully believe in IP laws and their usefulness myself, but I would rather not give up all other benefits of democracy and freedom over them.

For all of these reasons I think mp3s are here to stay, and those interested in ensuring the continuation of commercially viable music will have to come up with other means of ensuring that creators get their work properly rewarded. I'm just at a loss about how such a viable mechanism would actually work.

The industry needs to find out pronto though. Or the Hollywood dominance that EU countries are always complaining about simply wont be there to rant about. If you think the recording industry has it bad, just consider Hollywood studios a few years down the line.

Moomingparatrooper, I believe the technology is a combination of hardware and software. In this environment, a call to play music would invoke license authorization software. Ordinary MP3’s that did not have associated licenses would simply not play.

Microsoft already has systems in place to “grandfather” existing multimedia files that have lost their licenses or where the license files have become corrupted. There may be ways to grandfather existing MP3 files.

As well, if hackers break the protection system, they can be prosecuted even under current law if they distribute the hack.

If Congress required that all sound cards or players sold in the US have this technology incorporated, even Linux would have to comply.