Intellectual Property

Intellectual Property vs. Real Property I agree that brilliant ideas and innovation are vital for improving society. But, since IP laws discourage innovation, this point works in my favor. Why is it immoral for me to use an idea without compensating the creator of it? It doesn't matter how much hard work they put into it. Plenty of people work long and hard on bad ideas and get nothing. Furthermore, if inventors can claim their ideas as property, then why do you not suggest that they retain this property indefinitely? Why should there be a time limit on copyrights and patents at all? Say I steal someone's property (real property). It doesn't matter if they've had it for a few days or a hundred years; it's theft either way. If ideas are property, why shouldn't they work this same way? If one can have property rights on ideas, then one must morally have complete property rights for them. If you advocate using IP law to encourage innovation, (Which is the usual justification for IP), then the best IP law is none at all. "If you don't want to pay for the use of their product (whether it be an invention or some form of entertainment) then don't use it. Clearly you have some need or desire for it, so why shouldn't you pay for it?" I am not saying that I should be able to get products for free. Abolishing IP law would not mean that. Take computers for example. I would still pay for the actual product (the computer), I just don't want the person to first invent the computer to be the only one allowed to sell it. "That isn't a personal opinion. It's the law. [1] No one is forcing you to pay for anything. If you want it, pay for it. If don't want to pay for it, you don't get it. Simple." Of course it's currently the law. That's what we're debating about: whether or not those laws are just. And IP laws do involve the use of force. Would you say that sales taxes aren't collected by force because you can just not buy things? Would you say that income taxes are not a use of force because you could just not work? Would you say that laws against marijuana use aren't force because one could simply not do it? Effect of IP laws on Creativity and Innovation: My opponent states that I cannot prove that creativity and innovation have diminished since the original copyright laws were established. First, correlation does not equal causation. Second, that is not what I am trying to prove. I am arguing that we would be better off without IP laws. Copyrights: First, as I said before, creators would be compensated for their work if there were no IP laws. (See previous posts for an explanation of this) I am not arguing that authors and such should not be compensated; I am arguing that they should not be granted an artificial government monopoly on their ideas. As for the effect of IP laws on creativity, I would argue that it has diminished the amount and quality of things created. First, as I mentioned before, copyright laws cause artists and authors to spend their time in court rather than creating. Second, and most importantly, they prevent people from improving on the works of others. For example, look at the textbook market. As with every monopolistic market, the prices are extremely high and the quality of the goods is usually poor. What would happen if IP were abolished? The market would be revolutionized and would flourish. Let's say I want to publish a biology textbook. In the current market, there are several textbooks, each with one or a couple authors, all of which have some strengths and some weaknesses. But if there were no IP law, instead of having to make a whole new book from scratch, I could just take the best from each field. Say one author explains genetics really well, but doesn't explain evolution well, and another author does the opposite. I could just take the best writing from each area and combine it into one textbook. Or say I wanted to write a political science textbook. For this subject, since recent events may be very important to the material, professors often require the most up-to-date edition. These are very expensive and the selection is very limited. But if there were no IP law, publishers could just take older works and update them with recent events, and publish a brand new edition every semester. Since many different publishers could draw on the old material, there would be far more supply, which would cause the quality of the texts to go up and the prices to go down. Patents: My opponent is correct in pointing out that innovation has greatly increased since the start of the industrial revolution. But, as he himself admits, ("While his example about James Watt is completely valid,"), patent laws delayed the industrial revolution! Patent laws have, throughout their existence, retarded innovation by preventing innovators from improving on existing ideas. Take your Henry Ford example. What is he most famous for? The car and the assembly line. Did he invent these things? Sort of. He used the (at the time, unpatented) ideas of other innovators and used them in a way no one else had before. [1] He owes his success to the weak (relative to our current laws) IP laws. And what would have happened if he had been able to patent his ideas? Would the world be a better place if Henry Ford had a patent on the idea of an assembly line (which, under current laws, would be possible)? Would innovation have increased had he been given a monopoly on the use of the assembly line? Reform vs. Abolish: That isn't an adequate definition of improvement. How do you define significant, exactly? Who would have the burden of proof, the original inventor or the improver? And what about if several people invent the same thing simultaneously? (Newton and Leibnitz, for example) If one person gets their patent in first, it's just too bad for the other guy? And if you do allow exceptions for that situation, how could a court possibly distinguish from those that copied an invention and those that invented it simultaneously? "My opponent keeps talking about time wasted in court, but apart from the James Watt example has been unable to show any example of any artist or inventor who has spent so much time in court that they were prevented from practising their art or inventing. The fact is that Copyrights have been completely overhauled since the 1800s when the James Watt case took place. Our system is much more efficient now." First of all, James Watt was just a specific example of what all patent holders do. I just chose to describe what happens in general rather than give every possible example. Second, it isn't the only example I used, I also provided evidence that IP law has discouraged innovation in the pharmaceutical industry. As for your final point, you're half right. Our IP laws have been completely overhauled since the 1800s. But they haven't gotten more efficient; they've gotten much, much worse. Now, not only do inventors prevent others from improving on their ideas, hacks can get patents for extremely vague ideas, wait until someone uses the idea and becomes really successful, then sues them. For example, a federal judge ordered Microsoft to stop selling Word, based on a BS patent infringement. [2] Another example is Paul Allen, who is suing Google, Facebook, and eBay over vague patents he never actually used. [3] Finally, I would like to thank tvellalott for a great debate. Sources: (Also, for anyone interested in learning more about IP's destructive effects on society, I highly recommend 'Against Intellectual Monopoly,' available for free here: http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu...) [1] Ford, Henry; with Crowther, Samuel (1922), My Life and Work, Garden City, New York, USA: Garden City Publishing Company, Inc. 25. [2] http://news.cnet.com... [3] http://online.wsj.com...