Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Down

Author Topic: Intellectual Property  (Read 17079 times)

Sylvain Poirier

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 35
    • Liberal theory of power
Intellectual Property
« on: September 26, 2002, 06:24:18 pm »

Suppose the Free State project succeeds and obtains autonomy. 8)
Then a new company opens in the Free State a business like Napster.  ;D
The RIAA makes a trial against it and wins in terms of the federal US legislation. :-X
What will happen ? ???
Logged

JasonPSorens

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5726
  • Neohantonum liberissimum erit.
    • My Homepage
Re:Intellectual Property
« Reply #1 on: September 27, 2002, 09:28:43 am »

Very good question.  If this happens within the first few years, there's nothing we can do.  In fact, the Constitution gives the federal government the right to issue patents.  In other words, we won't be able to deal with intellectual property issues unless we seek independence or can pass a constitutional amendment giving that power to the states.  The best we can do till then is to use our free state's representatives in Congress to try to get federal legislation passed that is more reasonable on patent & copyright protections.  At least we will have some representation in Congress on this hypothetical scenario.  (And we will have some allies too, not every congressman is in the pocket of the RIAA.)
Logged
"Educate your children, educate yourselves, in the love for the freedom of others, for only in this way will your own freedom not be a gratuitous gift from fate. You will be aware of its worth and will have the courage to defend it." --Joaquim Nabuco (1883), Abolitionism

Mr. Roboto

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8
  • I'm a llama!
Patents in the free state
« Reply #2 on: October 20, 2002, 07:36:59 pm »

In a truly free state, would there be patents.  If not, wouldn't  the profit motives which drive R&D be seriously reduced.
I'm specifically thinking about the development of new medications
Logged

Jeffersonian Democrat

  • FSP Participant
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 32
  • The Truth will set you free
Re:Patents in the free state
« Reply #3 on: October 20, 2002, 08:44:29 pm »

Patent are addressed in the constitution.  They are handled at the federal level by the Patent Office and it is done in accordance with the our constitution, hence wouldn't be subject to change.
Logged

admin

  • FSP Participant
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3
Re:Patents in the free state
« Reply #4 on: October 21, 2002, 11:31:54 am »

While I haven't come to a firm conclusion in my own mind, I'm afraid the deal with patents isn't as simple as you present it Joe.  Patents are granted like crazy to people who have no intention of ever making anything, as well as for things that are extremely obvious.  In these cases, the patent holder just waits for someone else to come along who actually wants to build something, and parasites royalties off of them for no reason.  

From what I've read, being first to market is the overriding concern in most industries.  Patents are needed sometimes to keep someone else from blocking you out in the future.  The exception seems to be in medicine, where patents are claimed to be necessary for profitability.  The thing I haven't figured out is, is it really that easy to reverse engineer a drug just from some pills?  I don't know the answer.

A number of people who have thought about this more than me are opposed to patents but in favor of copyright.  I haven't figured it all out yet myself.

Charles
Logged

Sk1llz

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3
  • 1'M 3leE7
Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness & Copyright
« Reply #5 on: October 22, 2002, 01:45:11 pm »

It has always interested me that the term "copyright" no longer means what the actual words in the term mean, literally "the right to copy". When did it change to "prevent copying until a century after my death?"

Apparantly it was the will of the people that my descendants would be able to profit from my idea almost a century afterwards. Perhaps longer since congress can continue lengthening the terms.

Is this what the framers had in mind? Were they not attempting to protect our "RIGHT" to copy information, while still supplying a motivator for innovation? When did it flip to "protect my right to make money with my creation, while denying someone elses RIGHT to copy it".

Seem like a conflict between the last two major "rights", liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Personally I have always ordered things in such a way that "life" is the foremost important right, liberty second and the pursuit of happiness third.

Thus, I have the right to live. I have liberty so long as it does not interfere with the lives of others. And I have the right to pursue happiness, be it through artistic or business endeavours so long as it does not interfere with other peoples liberties or lives.

Does this make sense? Or am I nuts. Just throwing it out there for discussion.
Logged

JasonPSorens

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5726
  • Neohantonum liberissimum erit.
    • My Homepage
Re:Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness & Copyright
« Reply #6 on: October 22, 2002, 02:27:31 pm »

I think you're right.  Patent and copyright law needs to be recalibrated in the interests of consumers.
Logged
"Educate your children, educate yourselves, in the love for the freedom of others, for only in this way will your own freedom not be a gratuitous gift from fate. You will be aware of its worth and will have the courage to defend it." --Joaquim Nabuco (1883), Abolitionism

admin

  • FSP Participant
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3
Re:Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness & Copyright
« Reply #7 on: October 22, 2002, 04:17:24 pm »

Can you explain why you think you ever have the right to get for free, or profit from, the unique creations of someone else?

I'm not saying I have a strong position on this at this point, but it's certainly not obvious in what way your liberties are being violated if you are disallowed from copying unique music, or even hearing it at all for that matter.

This is far different, in my mind, from patents, which frequently grant a monopoly to "inventors" of trivial/obvious contraptions that someone else will likely come up with on their own.

Charles
Logged

JasonPSorens

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5726
  • Neohantonum liberissimum erit.
    • My Homepage
Re:Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness & Copyright
« Reply #8 on: October 23, 2002, 10:12:00 am »

I don't believe the original poster was claiming that there should be no such thing as copyright, only that the term should be cut back.  But I'll let him speak for himself - that's my position anyway.
Logged
"Educate your children, educate yourselves, in the love for the freedom of others, for only in this way will your own freedom not be a gratuitous gift from fate. You will be aware of its worth and will have the courage to defend it." --Joaquim Nabuco (1883), Abolitionism

maestro

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 854
Re:Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness & Copyright
« Reply #9 on: October 23, 2002, 06:14:44 pm »


Can you explain why you think you ever have the right to get for free, or profit from, the unique creations of someone else?

I'm not saying I have a strong position on this at this point, but it's certainly not obvious in what way your liberties are being violated if you are disallowed from copying unique music, or even hearing it at all for that matter.

This is far different, in my mind, from patents, which frequently grant a monopoly to "inventors" of trivial/obvious contraptions that someone else will likely come up with on their own.

Charles


Ideas, in the form of copyright-able works and patent-able devices, are by nature an item of public domain.  This is implied by the constitution and detailed more specifically by other documents of the founding fathers, if I'm not mistaken.  The entirety of human culture and technology is based upon ideas that would have been copyrightable or patentable at one time.  

The laws were written to restrict our rights to use ideas _for a brief time_ in order that those ideas might generate profit, and therefore incentive to create, for the creators.  As such, extending copyright is a further restriction to my rights to use ideas freely, and thus must be justified as being better than _not_ restricting my rights.  

As such, the burden of proof is upon the person who wishes to restrict my rights, and not upon myself who merely wish to defend my rights.  
Logged

maestro

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 854
Re:Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness & Copyright
« Reply #10 on: October 23, 2002, 07:12:00 pm »

Speaking as another creator (although a lesser one than a pure artist) you know as well as I, that the majority of creative work is derivative from older works.  Without that older work being freely usable, culture and technology would be stagnant.  

Beyond that, there is no inherent or natural right to possess an idea as there is to possess material goods.  

You are free to profit off your creative work, but so is anyone else.  The only thing that binds this is an unnatural, but useful set of laws that grants a short-term monopoly on that use.  
Logged

admin

  • FSP Participant
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3
Re:Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness & Copyright
« Reply #11 on: October 23, 2002, 08:06:49 pm »


Speaking as another creator (although a lesser one than a pure artist) you know as well as I, that the majority of creative work is derivative from older works.  Without that older work being freely usable, culture and technology would be stagnant.  

Beyond that, there is no inherent or natural right to possess an idea as there is to possess material goods.  

You are free to profit off your creative work, but so is anyone else.  The only thing that binds this is an unnatural, but useful set of laws that grants a short-term monopoly on that use.  


Can you be more specific?  What "right" of yours is being violated?  You can certainly be influenced by prior music or art, or reference prior intellectual works.  This does not require you to violate a copyright or even to compensate the previous author/artist.  All you can't do is flat out copy their work verbatim for your own benefit.  I fail to see how your rights are being violated.

Charles
Logged

JasonPSorens

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5726
  • Neohantonum liberissimum erit.
    • My Homepage
Re:Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness & Copyright
« Reply #12 on: October 23, 2002, 08:16:46 pm »

When an author dies but his works are still copyrighted, it can often be very difficult to get them reprinted.  Sometimes copyright is transferred to large corporations (especially with music) and they intentionally restrict supply to garner monopoly profits.
Logged
"Educate your children, educate yourselves, in the love for the freedom of others, for only in this way will your own freedom not be a gratuitous gift from fate. You will be aware of its worth and will have the courage to defend it." --Joaquim Nabuco (1883), Abolitionism

maestro

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 854
Re:Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness & Copyright
« Reply #13 on: October 23, 2002, 09:52:04 pm »



Speaking as another creator (although a lesser one than a pure artist) you know as well as I, that the majority of creative work is derivative from older works.  Without that older work being freely usable, culture and technology would be stagnant.  

Beyond that, there is no inherent or natural right to possess an idea as there is to possess material goods.  

You are free to profit off your creative work, but so is anyone else.  The only thing that binds this is an unnatural, but useful set of laws that grants a short-term monopoly on that use.  


Can you be more specific?  What "right" of yours is being violated?  You can certainly be influenced by prior music or art, or reference prior intellectual works.  This does not require you to violate a copyright or even to compensate the previous author/artist.  All you can't do is flat out copy their work verbatim for your own benefit.  I fail to see how your rights are being violated.

Charles


I retain the right to do anything not specifically forbidden by the constitution.  As copying intellectual works directly harms none (IP is not _real_ property as viewed by the constitution, partially because it cannot be stolen), I have an inherent right to do so.  This right is counter-balanced by a specific constitutional law which restricts copyright for a brief period explicitly for the purpose of furthering the production of intellectual works.  Once that period is over, as per the agreement, I recover that right to do as I will with any intellectual work, or idea within.
Logged

maestro

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 854
Re:Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness & Copyright
« Reply #14 on: October 23, 2002, 09:59:25 pm »

I have been discussing this based on the premises described in the constitution.
On the more general question of the cost and benefits of copyright, there's an amazing pair of speeches that explain it far better than I ever could.

http://www.baen.com/library/palaver4.htm
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Up