Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

There Are No Good Arguments for Intellectual Property (2010)

c4sif.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 106 posts

Re: There Are No Good Arguments for Intellectual Property (2010)

#51

Post by cturner »

slver wrote: post #48
cturner wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Of course you can steal ip ... you reduce the value of their ip”. This is a circular argument, and invalid. Then default state is for ip to have no value. The only thing that gives it value is far-reaching laws that diminish the real property rights of anyone who owns a pen or hard disk. The existence of those laws cannot be an argument in favour of those laws.

By that same logic, why have property rights at all? You invest to produce IP, to you this still results in "IP has no value by default". So I guess investing to buy a house, also results in "this house has no value by default" by that same logic.

Scarce things have limited use.

Re: There Are No Good Arguments for Intellectual Property (2010)

#52

Post by slver »

cturner wrote: post #51
slver wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By that same logic, why have property rights at all? You invest to produce IP, to you this still results in "IP has no value by default". So I guess investing to buy a house, also results in "this house has no value by default" by that same logic.

Scarce things have limited use.

?

Re: There Are No Good Arguments for Intellectual Property (2010)

#53

Post by zby »

slver wrote: post #31

Nobody would invest billions in IP if someone from the street can walk by and take it.Is that such a complex subject to understand? IP is not a different concept than property. People like to say "you can't actually steal IP, you get to keep yours". Of course you can steal IP, by using it or redistributing it without compensating the creator, you reduce the value of their IP. You stole from them by taking part of the…

That falls under point 5 - no real evidence, just thought experiments.

I don't really agree with that argument - 'real evidence' is always elusive - at some point we always have to do thought experiments - but I think you need to go a bit deeper. Your examples assume the business model of current copy right related businesses - it is obvious that in a world without copy rights they would not function, but that does not mean that we would not get the things that those businesses produce - they could be produced in other business models.

Re: There Are No Good Arguments for Intellectual Property (2010)

#54

Post by aequitas »

slver wrote: post #45
jayd16 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you fail to understand is that investment in IP is not the goal, so saying it would no longer be invested in is non-convincing. You have to actually prove that research would slow down but your hypothetical scenarios are not proof. I can just as easily assert that investment and research would happen with or without temporary exclusive legal rights as. Market forces still push for improvement even without exclus…

Research the origins of IP. IP didn't exist forever. It was introduced because it was needed. If you think this is subjective, let me ask you think: you have a popular YouTube channel, your content requires paying writers, actors, VFX teams and editors. Bunch of other people copy your content freely and legally and get most of the ad revenue. You protest: you made this content, you paid for it. Please just link to me…

If people truly value the effort you put in and appreciate you making more content for them they can always subscribe to your Patreon and give you money directly. No need to go through a platform that uses advertising. And if the content can be freely distributed there is no need to go watch it on a platform where someone is leeching large amounts of money through advertising, unless the platform itself provides some actual value.

3D printers is a bad example by the way, as one of the most successful 3D printing companies works completely opensource: https://github.com/prusa3d

Why do people still pay them a large sum for their printer when they can build one themselves or buy a cheap clone off of Aliexpress?

Re: There Are No Good Arguments for Intellectual Property (2010)

#55

Post by RobertoG »

slver wrote: post #31

Nobody would invest billions in IP if someone from the street can walk by and take it.Is that such a complex subject to understand? IP is not a different concept than property. People like to say "you can't actually steal IP, you get to keep yours". Of course you can steal IP, by using it or redistributing it without compensating the creator, you reduce the value of their IP. You stole from them by taking part of the…

That argument it's not the reason why IP exist. The justification is that IP will create more value for society through incentives, not that the inventor would loss value. Otherwise you could justify eternal IP.

So, the only defense for IP is "it creates more value for society than the alternative". If we look into it, and the alternative is better (I don't know), the inventor should loss their privileges.

IP is not a right, it's a monopoly, a privilege given by law, and can be changed by law if judged not convenient anymore.

Re: There Are No Good Arguments for Intellectual Property (2010)

#56

Post by Gehinnn »

staticassertion wrote: post #50
Gehinnn wrote: post #44

The approval of a patent registration request should work like this: The issuer provides a public description of the problem the patent solves and a secret description of the solution. They pay $10k in advance to request a patent registration. The patent institution then publishes the public problem description. External challengers can submit additional solutions for $100. After some time (e.g. a month) submission c…

> They pay like $10k to test their patent. Cool, so patents are (even more so) for rich people exclusively. Also, what you're describing soudns a lot like the existing system to me, but with more upfront money.

How can ordinary people challenge patent registrations in a fair way? It is easy to claim that a solution is trivial, but it is almost impossible to prove that if you know the solution already.

Feel free to adapt the sums I listed, that would not change the procedure. I do think that there should be a decent financial burden to protect an idea though. If your idea is good, you can still borrow money (or split patent revenue with investors).

Re: There Are No Good Arguments for Intellectual Property (2010)

#57

Post by cturner »

slver wrote: post #52
cturner wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Scarce things have limited use.

?

Once you have eaten an apple, it cannot be eaten again.

If you plant a crop of wheat on your field this season, your brother cannot also plant a crop of barley there.

When you ride your bicycle to work for the day, your neighbour cannot ride the same bicycle to the gym at midday.

The quality of scarceness does not come from law, it is inherent.

Through owning your house, you get to decide what goes on there and have the use of it.

IP does not work that way because there is no inherent scarcity. A million and one people can listen to the same music track, and the first listener loses no value from its use by the other million.

Re: There Are No Good Arguments for Intellectual Property (2010)

#58

Post by staticassertion »

Gehinnn wrote: post #56
staticassertion wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They pay like $10k to test their patent. Cool, so patents are (even more so) for rich people exclusively. Also, what you're describing soudns a lot like the existing system to me, but with more upfront money.

How can ordinary people challenge patent registrations in a fair way? It is easy to claim that a solution is trivial, but it is almost impossible to prove that if you know the solution already. Feel free to adapt the sums I listed, that would not change the procedure. I do think that there should be a decent financial burden to protect an idea though. If your idea is good, you can still borrow money (or split patent…

Yes, I suppose my judgment was too harsh, sorry - I don't have a better solution, I just think it's an extremely difficult problem, perhaps not one that's solvable in a financial system like what exists today.
Post reply on HN