Intellectual property law

[Vanguard]

Re length of copyright.

It is interesting to note that, in the 19th Century, the US didn't enforce copyright on non-US authors. Dickens, however, did just fine in the US by giving readings of his work. And he still churned out book after book.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by moominparatrooper
In fact, it's very, very hard indeed - the general problem of positively identifying running code is NP-complete.

I don't think that's what Ned meant. He was merely referring to DRM, which will be embedded as part of M$'s *cough* Secure OS *cough* [I just found it to be an oxymoron to put MS and "secure" in the same sentence without any sort of negation in between ]

Originally posted by moominparatrooper
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.

It depends on what you mean by viable. What does "properly rewarded" entail? Right now the RIAA and MIAA are making obscene amounts of money that they do not deserve. Why should a customer pay USD20 for a CD just for two or three songs he likes? This is simply legalised robbery.

[Vanguard]

But even if you were to prove your arguments you still don't show that there is an advantage to granting exclusive rights to inventors. At best you prove that it is no worse than eliminating patent protection. Except that you never deal with the question of enforcement cost.

Just to clarify my own posting here, I should state that there is probably some advantage to innovation and invention in intellectual property protection. My point really is that an advantage to innovation is not neccessarily an advantage to society.


Also let me point something out about demand curves. I think they are very useful. But only within a limited range. This sort of analysis is okay for comparing a couple of choices or even a whole market.

But asking a single equation to compare the entire universe of possible choices is asking too much. At a global level the ends of the curves generate more noise than signal and at some point well short of the actual economy the choice information of the curve becomes useless.

[Ned]

Vanguard, Rather than try to rethink whether Intellectual Property is Good. Why don't you simply make the observation that the countries with the best patent systems are the most industrialized: US, Germany, England and Japan. Japan in the last century sent observers to the West to see what made the West industrious and successful. They reproted back that a major reason for the success of the United States (and Germany and England) were their strong patent systems. Japan then adopted a strong patent system. In no time, Japan too became an industrial power.

[Vanguard]

The US had rather poor intellectual property law protection in the 19th Century, but our growth rate was much greater then than it is now. Japan used to be famous for reverse engineering-----stealing intellectual property, in essence. This didn't seem to hurt them in the 1950s or 60s.

Germany does has strong patent protection. But the Germans aren't famous for innovation----or for high growth rates. They make their money on very solid engineering of tried and true principles.

These countries do not have strong industrial economies because of their good patent protection. They have strong patent laws because their powerful industries demand protection from overseas competitors.

The high national incomes of both the US and Japan seem to be due primarily to the long hours their citizens work. Greater economic freedom probably plays some part however. That's why I'm in favor of it.

But regardless, why would I expect that these countries would not have large IP economies? I argue that these countries subsidize their IP industries (well, actually they give them a concession, but let's just say subsidize for simplicity).

If you subsidize an industry, then sure, it will usually get larger. But just because an industry is larger or "stronger" does not mean that it is a fully efficient asset. We also have a strong sugar farming industry in this country. The only ones who are happy about it, however, are sugar farmers.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Vanguard
The US had rather poor intellectual property law protection in the 19th Century, but our growth rate was much greater then than it is now. Japan used to be famous for reverse engineering-----stealing intellectual property, in essence. This didn't seem to hurt them in the 1950s or 60s.

Germany does has strong patent protection. But the Germans aren't famous for innovation----or for high growth rates. They make their money on very solid engineering of tried and true principles.

These countries do not have strong industrial economies because of their good patent protection. They have strong patent laws because their powerful industries demand protection from overseas competitors.

The high national incomes of both the US and Japan seem to be due primarily to the long hours their citizens work. Greater economic freedom probably plays some part however. That's why I'm in favor of it.

But regardless, why would I expect that these countries would not have large IP economies? I argue that these countries subsidize their IP industries (well, actually they give them a concession, but let's just say subsidize for simplicity).

If you subsidize an industry, then sure, it will usually get larger. But just because an industry is larger or "stronger" does not mean that it is a fully efficient asset. We also have a strong sugar farming industry in this country. The only ones who are happy about it, however, are sugar farmers.

Vanguard, put your venture capitalist hat on for a second. You have two potential opportunities for investment - both in the United States. Market analysis indicates each product will be enormously successful.

Company A has a number of patent and applications covering its new product.

Company B has none.

You choose. Where do you place your money.

[- Groucho -]

Originally posted by Vanguard
Re length of copyright.

It is interesting to note that, in the 19th Century, the US didn't enforce copyright on non-US authors. Dickens, however, did just fine in the US by giving readings of his work. And he still churned out book after book.

I was going to stay out of this but on this particular point ... Dickens would spin in his grave if he knew you cited him in an anti-copyright argument. He was pirated constantly in the US and one of the reasons he made his speaking trips to the US was to argue vociferously for international copyright laws. In the accounts I've read, Dickens claimed to have never received a single penny in royalties in the US, despite that fact that he was so popular there he was mobbed on the streets whenever he ventured out of his hotel.

[Ned]

Echinda, surely copyright laws existed in the United States in the 1800s. Why didn't Dickens receive any royalties?

[- Groucho -]

The US didn't enforce international copyrights till IIRC the early 1900s (I think it was the early twenties, but I would have to look it up). Prior to that, it enforced national copyrights only. So Dickens, as a UK citizen, was out of luck in the US.

[Vanguard]

Dickens...grave

You're right. I didn't say he liked it, only that he did well and continued to write books.

Why didn't Dickens receive any royalties?

The US didn't ratify the international copyright treaty (Bern treaty?), mainly due to opposition from publishers and copysetters.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Adalbertus

... not purchased or otherwise got the permission to use. For things in the public domain you don't have to pay.

Only things that are legally in the public domain. If I download music from the public domain that was originally stolen, I'm an accomplice to the theft. Its possible to legitimately confuse something that might be legally in the public domain for something thats not, but if you download civ3 or the latest Creed CD from a newserver, its theft.

[Vanguard]

Vanguard, put your venture capitalist hat on for a second. You have two potential opportunities for investment - both in the United States. Market analysis indicates each product will be enormously successful.

Company A has a number of patent and applications covering its new product.

Company B has none.

You choose. Where do you place your money.

There are, like, five things wrong with this question. But I'll try to answer what I think is your point.

First of all you postulate that both products will be "wildly successful". Assuming that all other things are equal, and that both products are equally "successful", then obviously both investments are the same. "Success" cannot be postulated here because protection can have a major effect on success.

So this then is the real problem; How does protection affect the success of the product?

This is, unfortunately, a complex and, ultimately, probably insolvable question. GP asserts that economics predicts that product success depends of the value of the product to the economy. I assert that economics does not prove this, but merely predicates it, from assumptions that have nothing to do with the actual economy, and that have proven to be unreliable in practice.

So then, speaking as a venture capitalist, I would invest in the company that would, in my evaluation, generate the higher profit, regardless of patent protection. If there is a big market for the product then this would very likely be the company with patents. So, yes, I would probably invest in company A.

But how does my ability to extract monopoly profits from the economy contribute to the public good? It might not actually harm the economy, per se, but there is no reason to think that it benefits anyone except me.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Vanguard


There are, like, five things wrong with this question. But I'll try to answer what I think is your point.

First of all you postulate that both products will be "wildly successful". Assuming that all other things are equal, and that both products are equally "successful", then obviously both investments are the same. "Success" cannot be postulated here because protection can have a major effect on success.

So this then is the real problem; How does protection affect the success of the product?

This is, unfortunately, a complex and, ultimately, probably insolvable question. GP asserts that economics predicts that product success depends of the value of the product to the economy. I assert that economics does not prove this, but merely predicates it, from assumptions that have nothing to do with the actual economy, and that have proven to be unreliable in practice.

So then, speaking as a venture capitalist, I would invest in the company that would, in my evaluation, generate the higher profit, regardless of patent protection. If there is a big market for the product then this would very likely be the company with patents. So, yes, I would probably invest in company A.

But how does my ability to extract monopoly profits from the economy contribute to the public good? It might not actually harm the economy, per se, but there is no reason to think that it benefits anyone except me.

Vanguard, If it was your money, you made the right choice. If if was money you were managing for others, you made the right choice.

If you want to change the system, don't do it with you money - do it with your votes. But until the system changes, you should simply try to maximize your returns.

The patents make the Company A the more secure investment.

[Adalbertus]

Only things that are legally in the public domain

"In the public domain" is a legal state. Something is or is not, but "illegally in the public domain" isn't possible. Something that is stolen is not in the public domain even if it can be downloaded from PD sites. And Freeware or Shareware is not in the PD even if the way to distribute is that of PD channels.

[Vanguard]

If you want to change the system, don't do it with you money - do it with your votes. But until the system changes, you should simply try to maximize your returns.

Okay. So I should copy mp3s then? That certainly maximizes my returns better than paying for music.

That's what I thought, but thanks for your approval!