Computers and the internet come out of public expenditure through the state system? Where did he get that fact from?
Chomsky on Intellectual Property
111–120 of 133 posts
Re: Chomsky on Intellectual Property
#112Comparative advantage is generally not understood. It does not mean that countries only manufacture those things that they are best at. From the piece: >But those of us who would be here would be pursuing our comparative advantage and exporting fish and fur. That's what economists tell you is right. Pursue your comparative advantage. That was our comparative advantage. We certainly wouldn't have had a textile industr…
That's true ONLY IF America started to produce textiles. But the textbook trade models (e.g. Ricardian, Hecksher-Olin, etc) all pretty much recommend that America should just stick to producing fish and fur to maximise its gains from trade, and forget about a homegrown textile industry.
Re: Chomsky on Intellectual Property
#113Earlier quoted context omitted.
Competition has a way of ensuring that scarce things become abundant. Look at, say, automobiles or computers or food or most normal goods. Sure, monopolies exist, but we also have laws to limit their harm as well. You don't just get to wave your hands and make things "abundant", someone has to do the work, and in order to do the work they have to make a living at it, at the very least.
Counter example - affordable new AIDS medicines Or better internet connectivity/speeds in America. While competition does have its place for helping humanity, it should also be recognized as not being useful in the production of other types of goods.
How is throwing out IP laws completely going to get you those things? I don't see it. Who's going to bring drugs to market? Sure, government sponsors basic research, but to get there to the market is not exactly a walk in the park.
Re: Chomsky on Intellectual Property
#114Does anyone seriously still listen to Chomsky? This guy has zero credibility as far as I'm concerned.
Chomsky is just one man, and thus subject to the same intellectual failings as other individuals, but his integrity is well beyond the vast majority of people with a pulpit. You should definitely read and consider what he has to say, because otherwise you may be hearing only lobbyists' perspectives.
I find his perspective really refreshing. Most articles that I encounter nowadays are very US-centric, or Europe-centric. They look at the consequences for a certain country or group within it, not the world at large, and are thus very polarized. Chomsky's reasoning feels truly international. And his comments about IP and medicine are appropriate as ever with the ACTA treaty (and sons) being pushed on us all by the US.
I wish there were more people with a clear vision such as his. It could make the world as a whole a better place.
Re: Chomsky on Intellectual Property
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
Counter example - affordable new AIDS medicines Or better internet connectivity/speeds in America. While competition does have its place for helping humanity, it should also be recognized as not being useful in the production of other types of goods.
How is throwing out IP laws completely going to get you those things? I don't see it. Who's going to bring drugs to market? Sure, government sponsors basic research, but to get there to the market is not exactly a walk in the park.
I've read the thread again, could you tell me where I came across as "throwing out IP Laws completely"?.
I think - A) Competition is good for some types of goods, not all. (I don't remember/know the correct economic criteria to define this.)
B) IP laws are good/great for some research, and bad/terrible for others.
C) I do not see the current system incentivizing humanity's good over personal/shareholder profit.
D) The current system has 'Human Good' occur as a side effect of rewarding people to do their best. It is vastly better than any system which has existed before. it will be better if we can fix C).
Re: Chomsky on Intellectual Property
#116Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is throwing out IP laws completely going to get you those things? I don't see it. Who's going to bring drugs to market? Sure, government sponsors basic research, but to get there to the market is not exactly a walk in the park.
I've read the thread again, could you tell me where I came across as "throwing out IP Laws completely"?. I think - A) Competition is good for some types of goods, not all. (I don't remember/know the correct economic criteria to define this.) B) IP laws are good/great for some research, and bad/terrible for others. C) I do not see the current system incentivizing humanity's good over personal/shareholder profit. D) Th…
The original article was about Chomsky saying IP was a bad thing, and a lot of commenters here seem to like the idea of ditching it, lock stock and barrel.
I agree with your points, and think that D and C are incremental improvements to the existing system to try and make with time, rather than a reason to junk the entire thing.
Re: Chomsky on Intellectual Property
#117Earlier quoted context omitted.
Counter example - affordable new AIDS medicines Or better internet connectivity/speeds in America. While competition does have its place for helping humanity, it should also be recognized as not being useful in the production of other types of goods.
How is throwing out IP laws completely going to get you those things? I don't see it. Who's going to bring drugs to market? Sure, government sponsors basic research, but to get there to the market is not exactly a walk in the park.
There are proposed alternatives to IP protections. For example, a society could decide to fund these as public goods. (Say, in a participatory bottom-up manner.)
Then you don't have the stick-filesharers-in-jail problem.
Re: Chomsky on Intellectual Property
#118Earlier quoted context omitted.
Relativity theory isn't patentable as there is no business model which could commercialize it. Patents were originally intended as a way to encourage innovation because they created a give and take relationship between private interests and the public. The inventor had to disclose the invention's inner workings, and in exchange they were given a relatively short period of exclusivity. The public benefited because the…
> Relativity theory isn't patentable as there is no business model which could commercialize it. 1. Make Nukes 2. Threaten other countries 3. ??? 4. PROFIT
[deleted]
Re: Chomsky on Intellectual Property
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
How about file formats? Graphics manipulation algorithms? Where's the line between things like relativity theory and things like Photoshop?
Relativity theory isn't patentable as there is no business model which could commercialize it. Patents were originally intended as a way to encourage innovation because they created a give and take relationship between private interests and the public. The inventor had to disclose the invention's inner workings, and in exchange they were given a relatively short period of exclusivity. The public benefited because the…
What if GPS was a commercial project?
Re: Chomsky on Intellectual Property
#120First this: They don't make any economic sense or any other sense. Then this: They should be working for the public good. (Applause) And that means it should be available to the public. So... So...why aren't any of these (his 145 books): http://www.amazon.com/gp/search/ref=sr_tc_2_0?rh=i%3Astripbo... in the public domain?
There's always someone trying to make everyone out to be a hypocrite. It is not a conflict to both have a belief and not act within that belief. If the world suddenly started working the way he described and he still tried to sell things he expected others to give away then it would be hypocritical behavior.
There's always someone trying to make everyone out to be a hypocrite. It is not a conflict to both have a belief and not act within that belief.
It is only not a conflict if you are, in fact, a hypocrite, and do not bother to judge yourself by your own standards.
If the world suddenly started working the way he described and he still tried to sell things he expected others to give away then it would be hypocritical behavior.
This is the shelter that most hypocrites hide under, claiming that they can't possibly be expected to live by their own high ideals until all men are good and fair and wise. It is the claim of every communist dictator who hoards the wealth he denies his citizens, and every capitalist who colludes with government for protectionism and corporate welfare while crying for free-markets, and every cheap preacher who slinks around with prostitutes while bleating about the sexualization of our culture.
If you dedicate yourself to high ideals, then dedicate yourself to them, and show the world that they are ideals that humans can live up to. If you are too enamored of worldly ways to do so, then be willing to forgive others of the same.
The great Oz has spoken.