They are, actually. The point of patents and copyright is not to protect the creator- that’s a temporary effect. The point is to release the thing to the public afterwards. The problem is that capitalism corrupts the process and finds ways to make the temporary effects permanent. Disney has succeeded in making copyright last effectively forever.
Copyrights and patents generate enormous amounts of wealth from rent seeking. This wealth has been used to continue to entrench these draconian concepts into our legal and governmental systems.
Even worse they have been used to stop the spread of information and monopolize development thus slowing down technological advancement. So many people have died so these clowns can make a buck.
One could argue that artificial scarcity is a farce, but unless you have more money than the people who benefit from IP, your voice will not be heard on a policy level.
I think there is a balance to be made. Some anti capitalist measures are needed to encourage innovation. But the use of patent laws as a defence, or copyright to seek excessive rent are far too aggressive.
If there is any chance of reform it would have to still appeal to all parties. We definitely need to think about solutions that have not been proposed before.
As much as I would like to advocate for abolishment of IP, I recognize it is an unrealistic demand.
After all, IP didn’t magically appear. It took hundreds of years of court cases and laws passed to get to the arguably ridiculous point we are now.
If there is any chance of reform it would have to still appeal to all parties.
There’s nothing such as change that appeals to all parties; that is not how that works. Change, good or bad, is forced by one segment of society over another, doubly so when it’s against the interests of the ultra-rich. Don’t compromise in advance.
Free market? As in, competition between different enterprises? And what do you think happens when one company “wins” that competition? It will use that power to establish a monopoly (or a cartel with a couple buddy companies). Both “free market” and “private monopoly” are capitalist fenomena, just at different stages of development of industry.
Okay here’s the thing: Calling policies that contribute to monopolies anti-capitalist makes no sense, because by this standard capitalism is anti-capitalist. It’s not like monopolies appear out of thin air; concentration of wealth into monopolies or oligopolies is the only possible equilibrium state under capitalism, so deflecting the effects of these monopolies as “anti-capitalist” is an appeal to fiction.
For patents and copyright this is exactly what happens. Adam Smith’s invisible hand of capitalism does not create these monpolistic protections naturally. They are an artificial construct of government. An enforced payment by society to creators and inventors.
One could argue that patents and copyright are anti-capitalist
And no capitalist would want to get rid of them.
Sam Altman very much wants to get rid of copyright.
They are, actually. The point of patents and copyright is not to protect the creator- that’s a temporary effect. The point is to release the thing to the public afterwards. The problem is that capitalism corrupts the process and finds ways to make the temporary effects permanent. Disney has succeeded in making copyright last effectively forever.
Copyrights and patents generate enormous amounts of wealth from rent seeking. This wealth has been used to continue to entrench these draconian concepts into our legal and governmental systems.
Even worse they have been used to stop the spread of information and monopolize development thus slowing down technological advancement. So many people have died so these clowns can make a buck.
One could argue that artificial scarcity is a farce, but unless you have more money than the people who benefit from IP, your voice will not be heard on a policy level.
So, you agree patents and copyrights are contrary to capitalism and free markets?
Personally, I think that if small business capitalism actually existed then it would run contrary to that.
There would be no need for copyright or patents. These systems create artificial scarcity which hinders society as a whole to benefit a minority.
I feel like our existing system of laissez-faire capitalism fully embraces the rent seeking found in intellectual property.
I think there is a balance to be made. Some anti capitalist measures are needed to encourage innovation. But the use of patent laws as a defence, or copyright to seek excessive rent are far too aggressive.
If there is any chance of reform it would have to still appeal to all parties. We definitely need to think about solutions that have not been proposed before.
As much as I would like to advocate for abolishment of IP, I recognize it is an unrealistic demand.
After all, IP didn’t magically appear. It took hundreds of years of court cases and laws passed to get to the arguably ridiculous point we are now.
I like the idea of having to pay a fee to retain copyright. And that fee doubles every year.
It starts off low but after a decade or two it becomes more economical to let the copyright lapse.
Patents should be scrapped completely.
Oh, I like that because it puts a ever increasing burden to use it or lose it. Once it is no longer profitable it goes back to public domain.
I find patents of dubious value to say the least. It is definitely the worst part of IP.
There’s nothing such as change that appeals to all parties; that is not how that works. Change, good or bad, is forced by one segment of society over another, doubly so when it’s against the interests of the ultra-rich. Don’t compromise in advance.
They are literally monopolies on whatever they concern.
Correct. Patents and copyrights are state granted monopolies that are in direct opposition to free market forces that capitalism thrives on.
Free market? As in, competition between different enterprises? And what do you think happens when one company “wins” that competition? It will use that power to establish a monopoly (or a cartel with a couple buddy companies). Both “free market” and “private monopoly” are capitalist fenomena, just at different stages of development of industry.
Sure, everyone should work for free except you, of course.
Patents only last 15 years. why isn’t the government making insulin.
Your affection for patents does not disprove my original statement.
In that case “real capitalism” doesn’t exist, because patents have been a thing since checks notes 1474.
Anti free market policies can exist within a capitalist structure.
Historical existence of patents doesn’t destroy capitalism, nor make patents less anti capitalist.
Okay here’s the thing: Calling policies that contribute to monopolies anti-capitalist makes no sense, because by this standard capitalism is anti-capitalist. It’s not like monopolies appear out of thin air; concentration of wealth into monopolies or oligopolies is the only possible equilibrium state under capitalism, so deflecting the effects of these monopolies as “anti-capitalist” is an appeal to fiction.
For patents and copyright this is exactly what happens. Adam Smith’s invisible hand of capitalism does not create these monpolistic protections naturally. They are an artificial construct of government. An enforced payment by society to creators and inventors.