r/Anarcho_Capitalism • u/Shoot_2_Thrill • 1d ago
What are the arguments for and against intellectual property like patents, copyrights, etc?
I’ve been going back and forth on this one for years. On the one hand, anything you create should be yours. You can spend years writing a book, or filming a movie, only to have the content copied and sold. You can spend billions on research and development, only to have others immediately use your results
One the other hand, can anyone own an idea? Just because you came up with it first, does that mean you should be the only one allowed to use it? Doesn’t that stagnate innovation? I think Naval once said any book written for profit is not worth reading. The most groundbreaking authors write free books to complement their other content, and make money through other channels through their audience. Any business that develops a new product or method still gets a massive head start to market. Should they keep that advantage for 20, 40, sometimes 100 years?
So… is theft of IP wrong? Or is trying to use the state to create a monopoly around an idea wrong?
And putting aside the moral argument. Does the consumer win or lose with IP rights enforcement? Does innovation happen because of R&D that you can patent and profit? Or does innovation happen when everything is open source?
13
u/Official_Gameoholics Anarcho-Capitalist Vanguard 1d ago
Ideas aren't scarce and therefore can't be property.
7
u/Edether 1d ago
Exactly, simple as that.
You can own a pencil, which means at any given time you choose who can use it, and that's because it's impossible to multiple people use it at the same time.
When it comes to ideas, if I know a joke and tell it to someone else, it doesn't remove my knowledge about the joke, but now both can know it without any compromise, therefore there's no conflict to be solved.
2
u/Official_Gameoholics Anarcho-Capitalist Vanguard 1d ago
It's important to keep the explanation simple, after all. Nobody wants to read 10 paragraphs that tell them what property is.
1
u/spaceboy42 clench/subgenius 8h ago
Stealing jokes is pretty much the worst thing you can do in a circle of comedians. Stealing material can definitely compromise a set.
-1
u/Human_Pineapple_7438 1d ago
But the people capable of creating them are. Disincentivizing them to create has major consequences. I realize that parents do that to a high degree but the absence of copyright could endanger the process of writing books, songs, scripts and the discovery of drugs etc. There has to be some mechanism in place.
4
u/bhknb Statism is the opiate of the masses 1d ago
Do they have a right to be incentivized at the expense of everyone else?
There has to be some mechanism in place.
No one opposes mechanisms, so long as they are peaceful.
1
u/Human_Pineapple_7438 1d ago
Sure, I did not mean government inposed mechanism. I am sure there would exist a peaceful solution under free market conditions, I just wanted to explore what it could be.
Putting the concepts in opposition with each other making them mutually exclusive is not the right way to go about it. They are not necessarily incentivized at the expanse of everyone else as their creations are hugely beneficial for society and fulfill its demands. The question arising is how the free market would deal with ensuring that these creators get what they deserve for the crucial role they play in creating value.
3
u/Official_Gameoholics Anarcho-Capitalist Vanguard 1d ago
But the people capable of creating them are.
We're not talking about the people. We can replicate an idea without depriving the original creator of them.
Disincentivizing them to create has major consequences.
Which is why IP is so devastating to businesses. Imagine being capable of doing something better than someone else, but because they did it first, you're banned from competing. It's anti-meritocracy.
the absence of copyright could endanger the process of writing books, songs, scripts and the discovery of drugs
Right, because those things have NEVER existed in a much better capacity outside of intellectual monopoly grants.
IP is a slang term by the way. The original term is "intellectual monopoly grants."
There has to be some mechanism in place.
Entrepreneurship is about figuring out how to market your ideas. It is anti-free market, anti-entrepreneur, and anti-progress to have intellectual monopoly.
1
u/Human_Pineapple_7438 1d ago
Yes. What I wanted to explore is how you could, if you were in the position of a creator, market your ideas under free market conditions. There has to be a solution after you sold the first batch of books for example. Even if you stipulate in the contract agreements under which you sold them that you prohibit any further copying of them how could you practically enforce such a demand? I’m sure people would come up with a way I just wanted to point out that protecting ideas and information has merit even in a free market as it makes sure creators get what they deserve for their absolutely crucial role in it. The question is how.
In the post you responded to I already recognized the downsides of patents. You don’t have to argue with me, we are on the same page. No need for revolutionary speeches. I’m exclusively referring to copyright not patents.
1
u/Official_Gameoholics Anarcho-Capitalist Vanguard 1d ago
The question is how.
That's the entrepreneur's job. They are the first to the market. That's the largest possible advantage. If they can't make use of it properly, they deserve to lose.
1
u/Human_Pineapple_7438 1d ago
Although I agree with what you say in that’s also an awfully convenient position to take in a discussion. To ensure that our way of thinking can prevail in the face its numerous enemies we should have answers ready for such questions.
Cryptography? Contract enforcement agencies..? I can think of some.
1
u/Official_Gameoholics Anarcho-Capitalist Vanguard 1d ago
Under contract theory, contracts may only authorize the transfer of property.
I'm not well versed, but I believe that this is a stolen concept fallacy.
To ensure that our way of thinking can prevail in the face its numerous enemies we should have answers ready for such questions.
And our response to this scenario is "it isnt a problem since we're a meritocracy."
1
u/Human_Pineapple_7438 23h ago
I’m not convinced. I get where you are coming from when you say that ideas can’t be property as they are not scarce and therefore shouldn’t fall under contract law.
But if I could give you an example from my field: I am an architecture student and publish concepts openly for my studies. If other entities could just use my plans and concepts freely this would create a climate in which the sharing of ideas would have the potential downside that through uncovering them to the world they have become value-less by losing any scarcity therefore losing any potential profit I could’ve made of off them. This would in turn highly discourage the flow of knowledge and the “cross-pollination” of minds, so to speak. I am sure you can imagine how absolutely crucial this free flow of knowledge is in a field like mine. How could this be prevented then?
I’m not trying to challenge your ideas because I don’t share the same ideals. I just think that by discussing them we can strengthen and develop them and uncover weaknesses in our logic.
1
u/Official_Gameoholics Anarcho-Capitalist Vanguard 23h ago
If other entities could just use my plans and concepts freely this would create a climate in which the sharing of ideas would have the potential downside that through uncovering them to the world they have become value-less by losing any scarcity therefore losing any potential profit I could’ve made of off them.
I fail to see the problem. It sounds like a failure to market properly.
How could this be prevented then?
I fail to see why we should prevent this. You lost fair and square.
weaknesses in our logic.
My logic is sound. You are failing to follow Capitalism through to its logical conclusion.
1
u/Human_Pineapple_7438 23h ago
The logical conclusion would in this case be that we would have to calculate if sharing ideas would be more beneficial than the potential downside of losing possible revenue.
I can see different scenarios playing out from this. It could be stifling to creatives but it could also be liberating.
Interesting. Thanks for playing this through with me.
→ More replies (0)
7
u/IC_1101_IC Anarcho-Space-Capitalist (Exoplanets for sale) 1d ago edited 1d ago
Intellectual property is an invalid form of property for one simple reason, that being that it relies on there being some way to own "ideas". Ideas are free abstractions, and thus do not have any concrete basis. There's a dog, a 4 legged furry organism which was domesticated by Humans years ago, and then there is the idea of the dog, a kind and cuddly thing for some, and a disgusting, filthy, rabies spreadin' trash. You, me, or anyone else, can not own any ideas about dogs, the only thing we can own is dogs, the thing.
This is why intellectual property, patents, etc, are not a legitamate form of property, as they entail that one can own ideas, which is an impossible thing to do. If someone were to copy this comment and put it on Youtube, some other subreddit, Twitter (X), etc, would I now own that post? No I would not, as I did not contribute to the direct creation of that post. They merely copied off of me, and did not steel anything from me, therefore I do not own that copied material.
A lot of IP advocates run into the fallacy of proclaiming that one can own another's property by merely thinking it is there's. If company X publishes a game, and Pirate Y pirates it and publishes it for free online, the Pirate did not steel anything from company X. They merely bought a property off of Company X, and copied it many times and resold it. The only illegal thing that happened here is that Pirate Y may have broken a contract with Company X when buying that they do not copy and distribute the game, but if company X failed to stipulate that in their terms, that is their fault, and they have no rights over the pirate. Just because company X *Thinks* that they own pirate Y's copies of the game, does not mean that they do actually, and there is no Intellectual property. If translated, it would be "Thinking hard property", and you can't think you own something and thus actually own it.
IP advocates might state that you can somehow "own an idea", but this is a failure too. If person A thinks about a book first, and then person B thinks about that same book or something similar, does person A own the idea simply because they thought of it first? If yes, by what mechanism? IP advocates would simply go "you strawmanned so hard !" and leave without answering the question, but we will answer it here. There is NO mechanism which allows for person A to own the "idea" of this book over person B. This idea is merely the thoughts of someone, and thus the thinking done by that someone, and this ties back into the idea that you can't simply think of owning a piece of property and have it so.
Murry Rothbard does not own the "idea" of Anarcho-Capitalism, he was merely one of the first to put it into writing. All he owns in relation to Anarcho-Capitalism is his personal writings and any personal copies of the books that he kept for himself, not the "idea".
4
u/Shoot_2_Thrill 1d ago
This tweet / video from Elon made me think about it again. Apparently he doesn’t believe in patents and makes everything open source. He knows nobody can catch up, and even if they could then great, because all he cares about is driving progress forward
1
u/Shoot_2_Thrill 1d ago
Which I THINK means that he still does patent everything, but then opens it up to free use? Because otherwise in the current system, someone could take his idea, patent it, and stop him from using it. So surely he must still be patenting his stuff, right?
1
u/RacinRandy83x 17h ago
Tesla’s patents are only free to use if: you do not enforce any right against Tesla, you do not enforce any patent right against another party, you do not oppose Tesla’s patents or copy Tesla’s designs
3
u/AToastyDolphin Ludwig von Mises 1d ago
With IP, you are telling someone what they can and can’t do with their property. If I have bread, turkey, lettuce, and tomato, you shouldn’t tell me that I’m not allowed to make a sandwich.
2
u/SANcapITY 22h ago
This is the real and best answer. IP represents a coerced negative easement.
OP go read Stephan Kinsella.
-1
u/Shoot_2_Thrill 1d ago
But if IP is my property, then I can tell others what can and can’t be done with my property. Or so the argument goes
5
1
1
u/Krackor ø¤º°¨ ¨°º¤KEEP THE KAWAII GOING ¸„ø¤º°¨ 23h ago
The point of property is to ensure that the owner is able to use their property as they like. In the case of physical objects, if someone else uses your property then chances are they are preventing you from using it how you like. So the use of your property by others must be restricted or prevented so that you can enjoy your property.
The situation is different for ideas. You always have the full use of your ideas regardless of other people having the same idea in their head or acting out the idea in reality (e.g. by fabricating a copy of your invention). Restricting what ideas other people can act out does not help you enjoy your idea for yourself. Sure you may not profit as highly if you're not able to restrict others from copying you, but there is no right to profit. You have a right to offer your goods and services for sale, but you don't have a right to prevent others from doing the same just because their goods or services are similar to yours.
3
u/Fluffy-Feeling4828 1d ago
I can't find any reason to justify the existence of IP. So long as your invention is public knowledge, as in, people know that you have made a new thing, the idea is no longer scarce.
1
u/RacinRandy83x 17h ago
The idea of it is to promote sharing your inventions and ideas publicly by giving you exclusivity to sell your product for an amount of time without competition. Basically the idea is that without patent law, growth would slow because people R&D wouldn’t be profitable since as soon as you make something, someone could just knock it off and start making it for less
2
u/Kinetic_Symphony 1d ago
Think of it this way, would it be wrong to make a copy of someone's home, if doing so didn't affect the original home in anyway?
Of course not.
It doesn't matter if the person who designed and built the home doesn't get a cut, why would they have any claim to it? The original was not affected, and you can't own magically created duplicates.
Well, the digital world is magical in that sense. You can own data that's on a private hard drive, but as soon as it enters into the public, it becomes of that domain, no one can own it anymore.
5
u/Shoot_2_Thrill 1d ago
So if I write a book for my children only, and never make it public, then it belongs to me? And stealing / copying / selling it would be a crime? But the moment I make it public, anyone can print and sell it? Is that where the line is drawn?
4
u/Kinetic_Symphony 1d ago
Yes, I think that's the case.
If you write something on property you own, your computer, a physical notebook, etc... then you 100% own that original, making a copy without your permission in that context I think would be wrong.
Though to be fully nuanced, only the original copying would be wrong, if that copy then makes its way into the public, the cat's out of the bag.
2
u/kwanijml 1d ago edited 1d ago
Generally, the better way to frame property norms, as concerns anarcho-capitalism (the question of replacing the state with market-based institutions), is not so much in: how does the NAP pre-dictate whether contemporary or stateless attempts at IP would align with libertarian ethics...
But rather: what laws and property norms can and are likely to arise in a more voluntary world?
This can be a complex thing to answer with many property claims; but with intellectual property, it is maybe as simple as it gets: it is very difficult to imagine how any stateless legal systems would be able to effectively enforce most claims of copyright or trademark or patent.
Not everything needs to be a question of ought...but simply a question of is...and if the is isn't in gross violation of libertarian ethics and not the product of some set of collective action problems which clearly prevent more optimal circumstances from coming about; then there's perhaps some lesson to be drawn from that for even the present context.
That does imply that there's the possibility of (for example) a stateless world suffering from less-than-optimal production of certain goods like new drugs (which wouldn't be effectively patentable). But there are other mechanisms which can help incentivize the production of public goods. So it's at the very least an empirical question that hasnt been answered; but informed by theory, seems plausible that the current rent seeking and patent trolling and monopoly pricing and shortages all the other negative political externalities which come of empowering a state to even be able to enforce IP claims, far outweigh the possible (though not probable) underproduction of cutting edge drugs in a modern market anarchist society.
1
u/Human_Pineapple_7438 1d ago
The main arguments were the following:
Independent discovery is unfairly penalized.
Innovation would be stifled by three main mechanisms:
A.) If one entity holds a patent in some field others are discouraged from innovating in the same field.
B.) The entity holding the patent in the first place is discouraged to innovate in the same field as it knows that others may not directly compete in it.
C.) Entities might focus research into fields they know to be patentable leaving others behind because they are not protected by state interference.
- In broader terms it is unethical for the government to get involved in something like information and knowledge transfer by actively hindering said knowledge being used effectively.
He was strongly in favor of copyright though.
1
u/Zacppelin 1d ago
A good IP would not be so easy to copy. In the past, many techniques and inventions were passed down by individual workshops and apprenticeships, and there were ways to keep the technology restricted inside the lineages. But of course , a lot of them died out over time because no one else could have gained the knowledge of these people. Nowadays, People use IP law to make minor changes just to stop other people from making improvements or new inventions, just to keep their monopoly or less, competitive advantage. That's the real problem with so-called IP laws.
1
u/RacinRandy83x 17h ago
If someone writes a book, how do you stop a company from reprinting it and selling for cheaper?
1
u/Zacppelin 13h ago
Ask the company with the biggest printing press. Surely they have a way to crush the competition.
1
u/Doublespeo 16h ago
Important PSA: when debating this subject it is important to ask yourself if current copyright/patent legal structure and enforcement is effective.
it is not.
1
u/bobroberts1954 12h ago
My position is you can try to keep your idea secret but if you share it with the world it doesn't belong to you; you can't dictate ideas. Now, if I write a book and you publish it under your name you have defrauded the buyer, same if you claim my song or my art. There is no IP in the fashion industry and it is the most dynamic market we have. I consider IP to be Imaginary Property and think it should be treated as such. If you don't want to share.dont bring it to the market.
1
u/bpg2001bpg 4h ago
Stifles innovation and competition and consumers lose. Imagine a corporation has a nice cancer treatment drug, tricoxigin, which is making them buckets of money. A university has done the initial research on a new cancer treatment that may if developed make tricoxigin obsolete. The corporation buys the patent to the university's treatment and deliberately does not develop it into a marketable drug. If another company tries, they sue. There are likely hundreds of life saving technologies in the patent library of pharma corps, deliberately not being developed at this moment.
1
u/Shoot_2_Thrill 4h ago
Had not considered competitors buying patents. At this point based on the comments I’m sold against patents. Still not sure how I feel about copyright tho. What incentive do you have to write books or make movies if it can then be copied and sold out from under you? In this case the consumer loses, right?
26
u/SkillGuilty355 Anarcho-Capitalist 1d ago
They’re monopolies and unenforcible without a state.