 |
| |
|
|
Vanguard
|
|
Monster Island
Apr 1999
time: 05:20
|
|
Intellectual property is a subsidy, and subsidies are usually pointless when granted to whole industries. While they don't decrease economic efficiency in every case (in certain cases they can vastly increase it), they probably allocate resources inefficiently.
Overall, it is probably better and cheaper to just let people develop whatever they inventions and artwork that they decide to develop without patents then it is to maintain the huge legal and inefficiency costs needed to enforce intellectual property rights.
Re Malaria: I'm not sure what the answer you're looking for is (well, I'm pretty sure that the answer is "because it only affects Third Worlders), but the reason we don't have a cure might simply be that malaria isn't curable by vaccine or easy drugs. This is a possibility after all. I agree with the idea that IP does not always do a good job of allocating research for the public good, however.
Re codes: If record companies can sell coded songs then they have a perfect right to do so. But why should the government compel hardware manufacturers to make machines that only play unlocked songs? What public interest is served by granting a massive subsidy to record companies?
Last edited by Vanguard on 28-06-2002 at 06:26
|
|
| |
|
|
|
TCO
|
 |
Richmond, VA
Jan 1970
time: 00:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Vanguard
Intellectual property is a subsidy, |
1. No argument.
2. Did you follow my comments about fixed and variable costs?
quote:
and subsidies are usually pointless when granted to whole industries. |
huh?
quote:
While they don't decrease economic efficiency in every case (in certain cases they can vastly increase it), they probably allocate resources inefficiently. |
This is an interesting type of subsidy. It's really a wealth transfer from consumers (of that particular product) to the developer. There is a deadwiaght loss ONLY if you assume that the product would exist at all. If not, than it is not a deadweight loss...but a net societal gain.
quote:
Overall, it is probably better and cheaper to just let people develop whatever they inventions and artwork that they decide to develop without patents then it is to maintain the huge legal and inefficiency costs needed to enforce intellectual property rights. |
How much research (clinical trials) will the market do for non-patent drugs. It's easy to check. Just look at off-patent drugs and see how many clinicals are done for new indications. (donut hole)
Last edited by TCO on 28-06-2002 at 06:41
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Vanguard
|
|
Monster Island
Apr 1999
time: 05:20
|
|
These arguments are only true if you don't consider the effects of increase transfers from consumers to certain producers on other transfers. Naturally if you increase the amount consumers spend on drugs then you decrease the amount they spend on other forms of health care, or computers, or space exploration or whatever.
I admit that it is impossible to actually solve anything about the economy when you make the system this complex. But the whole point is that the system is this complex. Simplifying it only results in falsehood.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Vanguard
|
|
Monster Island
Apr 1999
time: 05:20
|
|
Supply demand curves are useful for helping a drug company decide whether it is worthwhile to research a new drug or not.
But they are absolutely no use helping a society decide whether or not to invest in researching drugs or instead invest that money on any of the approximately one billion other things that they might like to research or buy.
quote:
don't have to worry about alternate spending |
Only if the choice is free choice do you not have to worry about alternate spending. By definition, however, exclusive rights reduce freedom of choice.
Last edited by Vanguard on 28-06-2002 at 21:40
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Urban Ranger
|
|
Apolyton Duke of Off-Topic
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
moomingparatrooper, We don't have to do anything, anyting at all. The next edition of Windows, Solaris or Linux could simply refuse to play or encode unlicensed MP3's. Over time, the problem would vanish as people upgraded. |
You mean DRM (digital rights protection), a hare-brained scheme that's cooked up by the MIAA/RIAA to protect their own interests?
Two points. First of all, there is no unbreakable copy protection scheme, and this extends to licensing. Anything you can read from a medium, you can copy. Do you know that the protection scheme on CD's has been defeated by masking tape? 
Secondly, why do you think people will constantly upgrade? As it stands, personal computer capabilities have already outstripped the requirements of most users. Who really needs a P4 2.5GHz?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
moomin
|
 |
Moo Like In Moomin
Jul 2000
time: 05:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
moomingparatrooper, We don't have to do anything, anyting at all. The next edition of Windows, Solaris or Linux could simply refuse to play or encode unlicensed MP3's. Over time, the problem would vanish as people upgraded.
[moomin's stress]
|
I take it you're not a CS guy or programmer yourself, then. That's quite all right - but it means you'll simply have to take my word for the fact that there's nothing simple about what you suggest. In fact, it's very, very hard indeed - the general problem of positively identifying running code is NP-complete. Let's just say that unless somebody shows me the goods - an OS that can reliably identify any piece of code as doing "illegal" encoding/decoding and block it - I rather belive we're talking pure SF tech here.
Unless you are suggesting the OS only be able to run approved binaries by some digital licensing scheme - that kill computing overnight.
But let's consider that moot for a moment and say that the considerable talent MS has in-house actually figures out a way to do that. Do you see it being implemented in WinXP3? I don't. You see, the genie is out of the bottle for OSes as well. Perhaps MS could be leaned upon to "share" their clever trickery other closed-source systmes such as Solaris and "canned" versions of Linux, like Red Hat - but there's nothing in the whole wide world that prevents anyone from downloading Linux source and compile it from scratch without adding in the IP protection mechanisms.
And MS knows this very well. There has been talk about this supposedly secure digital infrastructure it's about to unleash at least since Win ME - mostly to appease the recording industry, I believe - but we notice anyone can still play mp3s under WinXP. MS is fully aware of the fact that implementing such technologies would instantly spell doom for their desktop monopoly.
So you need to regulate not only what apps people can run but what OSes they can. And make source code and compilers an illegal resource too. Even China doesn't do that, and I feel the overall loss of productivity and creativity would far outweight the benefits to the record companies. Not, remember, that I think the technology is possible to begin with.
quote:
In addition, non computer MP3 or equivalent encoders could be banned. |
You know, there's a deep irony in the fact that a society that sees fit to protect the right to weild firearms considers mp3 walkmans so scary that it feels the need to ban them.
I fully belive in IP laws and theit usefulness myself, but I would rather not give up all other benefits of democracy and freedom over them.
For all of these reasons I think mp3s are here to stay, and those interested in ensuring the continuation of commercially viable music will have to come up with other means of ensuring that creators get their work properly rewarded. I'm just at a loss about how such a viable mechanism would actually work.
The industry needs to find out pronto though. Or the Hollywood dominance that EU countries are always compaining about simply wont be there to rant about. If you think the recording industry has it bad, just consider Hollywood studios a few years down the line.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by moominparatrooper
I take it you're not a CS guy or programmer yourself, then. That's quite all right - but it means you'll simply have to take my word for the fact that there's nothing simple about what you suggest. In fact, it's very, very hard indeed - the general problem of positively identifying running code is NP-complete. Let's just say that unless somebody shows me the goods - an OS that can reliably identify any piece of code as doing "illegal" encoding/decoding and block it - I rather believe we're talking pure SF tech here.
Unless you are suggesting the OS only be able to run approved binaries by some digital licensing scheme - that kill computing overnight.
But let's consider that moot for a moment and say that the considerable talent MS has in-house actually figures out a way to do that. Do you see it being implemented in WinXP3? I don't. You see, the genie is out of the bottle for OSes as well. Perhaps MS could be leaned upon to "share" their clever trickery other closed-source systems such as Solaris and "canned" versions of Linux, like Red Hat - but there's nothing in the whole wide world that prevents anyone from downloading Linux source and compile it from scratch without adding in the IP protection mechanisms.
And MS knows this very well. There has been talk about this supposedly secure digital infrastructure it's about to unleash at least since Win ME - mostly to appease the recording industry, I believe - but we notice anyone can still play mp3s under WinXP. MS is fully aware of the fact that implementing such technologies would instantly spell doom for their desktop monopoly.
So you need to regulate not only what apps people can run but what OSes they can. And make source code and compilers an illegal resource too. Even China doesn't do that, and I feel the overall loss of productivity and creativity would far outweigh the benefits to the record companies. Not, remember, that I think the technology is possible to begin with.
You know, there's a deep irony in the fact that a society that sees fit to protect the right to wield firearms considers mp3 walkmans so scary that it feels the need to ban them.
I fully believe in IP laws and their usefulness myself, but I would rather not give up all other benefits of democracy and freedom over them.
For all of these reasons I think mp3s are here to stay, and those interested in ensuring the continuation of commercially viable music will have to come up with other means of ensuring that creators get their work properly rewarded. I'm just at a loss about how such a viable mechanism would actually work.
The industry needs to find out pronto though. Or the Hollywood dominance that EU countries are always complaining about simply wont be there to rant about. If you think the recording industry has it bad, just consider Hollywood studios a few years down the line. |
Moomingparatrooper, I believe the technology is a combination of hardware and software. In this environment, a call to play music would invoke license authorization software. Ordinary MP3’s that did not have associated licenses would simply not play.
Microsoft already has systems in place to “grandfather” existing multimedia files that have lost their licenses or where the license files have become corrupted. There may be ways to grandfather existing MP3 files.
As well, if hackers break the protection system, they can be prosecuted even under current law if they distribute the hack.
If Congress required that all sound cards or players sold in the US have this technology incorporated, even Linux would have to comply.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Vanguard
|
|
Monster Island
Apr 1999
time: 05:20
|
|
quote:
ever taken a micro class? |
Sure. That was quite a while ago, mind you. But I think I remember aceing it. Just a simple matter of memorizing some ridiculous tautologies and then regurgitating them on command. Easy.
But what does microeconomics have to do with deciding IP policy for the world? Demand curves are kind of useful for a company trying to determine how to recover its investment in a drug. But they say nothing about which drug, or which investment, will reduce human suffering the most.
quote:
How you can say this when earlier you were advocating government pharma research instead of private?!? Those positions are completely inconsistent.
I would argue back but I'm wise to your tar baby ways, grasshopper |
I did NOT advocate government pharma research instead of private. I said,
quote:
Sure. So what? If developing new drugs is such a good idea, why doesn't the government throw hundreds of billions of dollars into developing a cure for aging or wrinkles or that keeps hair from growing out of your nose?
How much is enough? How do we know that the money we will be spending on drug research wouldn't have been better spent developing new computers that makes drug research easier? Or software that unravels genetics? Or that stops global warming?
You can't pick out one economic consequence and assume that it proves something. Economic consequences are a tangled skein of unknowable potentialities. Trying to reduce inefficiencies is about the best you can achieve.
|
This is the exact opposite of advocating government pharma research. If you can't even understand a simple hypothetical, then it is probably better if you don't try to argue with my "tar baby ways", grasshopper.
In fairness, I also did say,
quote:
I agree with the idea that IP does not always do a good job of allocating research for the public good, however. |
But this is true. Relatively meaningless, but true. I can't ignore the truth merely because it doesn't agree with theory. Others don't seem to have this problem however....
quote:
If the product would have been developed anyway, than the patent creates a net societal detriment (deadweight loss). If the product would not have been developed than the producer surplus and consumer surplus created are societal benefits. |
I appreciate your attempt to form a dilemma here. But this makes no sense from your position. It would seem to indicate, for example, that patents cause a loss to the economy in a large number of instances. Even if the other side of the coin balances the losses, where is the benefit to society?
In addition the second part isn't completely true. Developing an invention is a societal benefit, but only if the investment needed to develop it would not have been better spent elsewhere. Investors' desire for profits does NOT guarantee that societal benefit will be maximized. Not in the short term, not in the long term, not ever. The dogma of the invisible hand is as ridiculous as any other form of religious dogma.
But now I'd like to frame a dilemma of my own, if I may.
If IP law does increase the amount inventors make from their investment, then IP law is essentially a subsidy. It is a profit incentive to invent things that are covered by IP law.
How then do we know that we aren't "over-investing" in things covered by IP law? Wouldn't that money be better spent investing in things that aren't covered by IP law, which generate less ROI, but more societal good?
If, on the other hand, IP law doesn't increase inventor's ROI, due to some macroeconomic balancing mechanism, then it shouldn't give an incentive to invent. And then what is the point of spending huge amounts on legal costs to enforce IP laws?
Last edited by Vanguard on 30-06-2002 at 22:17
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by moominparatrooper
So it does come back to having the FBI break into houses to check that you're not running illegal software on illegal hardware. Not for bio-weapon shops or other such real dangers, but to ensure that your computer sound card is equipped only to play RIAA tunes, and to make sure you didn't download the patch to fix that of a Norwegian server.
It is way too draconian and intrusive to be tolerable in any society that wants to call itself democratic, IMHO. |
I would certainly agree if the solution is to monitor what you are doing in your home. I don't think, though, that is what the plan is. The whole theory behind the new law is to go after those who distribute the hack, not go after those who hack.
However, if a person using the hack wanted to, for example, upgrade his OS, I believe it might be legitimate to prevent that if the the upgrade installer detected a hack on the person's system.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
As i said earlier, I support IP laws, but with limits. The creator of something can benefit and should benefit from their creation, but not in perpetuity and not at the cost of society. This does not apply as much to music as it does to drugs, which have also come up. Currently, pharmaceuticals are the most profitable business in the world, since drug companies are able to almost endlessly extend their patent protection into several decades, well beyond the time when they fully recoup any and all research costs while stifling companies that could make generic drugs for the masses, just as effective, but many times cheaper. We should remember that for every company protected by patents there are others hurt by them. |
GePap. Drug patents are extended due to delays in the FDA approval process. The end up getting the same effective term as any other patent - 20 years from filing.
BTW, there is a strong correlation between a good patent system and investment in industry. The best patent systems are the US, German, Japanese and English patent systems.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Vanguard
|
|
Monster Island
Apr 1999
time: 05:20
|
|
On the contrary, I was forced to think about what economics really means. I didn't just memorize the definition of a demand curve and then apply it to prove whatever policy happens to be the status quo.
I mean honestly. If we had no intellectual property laws, and the Democrats were proposing some, but businesses were opposed, wouldn't all you guys be arguing that economics conclusively "proves" that IP laws would destroy innovation, music and the economy?
Last edited by Vanguard on 29-06-2002 at 03:50
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Akka
|
 |
In front of my computer.
Nov 2001
time: 06:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Colon
Vanguard, you're forgetting about the creation side of the deal. Maybe authors do not have a natural right for a compensation, but without a compensation for their work, they'll be less motivated to create and that's a loss for society. If the street musician doesn't get any cash, he won't play music and the subway will be a colder place. |
I won't talk about the economics, about the law, nor about the rest of the thread. I'll restrain my answer on this single post, and only about artistical value :
If any artist does create only for money, his creation is not worth what it's paid.
In other words : any worthy creation is one that come from a desire to create, and not a desire to gain money (now, both CAN be done together, but the truth remains).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Vanguard
|
|
Monster Island
Apr 1999
time: 05:20
|
|
GP, I understand your arguments fine. I just don't see how they prove anything relevent.
In your best argument, you show that there are high start-up costs for drug products and you argue that drug companies therefore need patent protection to develop drugs.
But high start-up costs also mean that we waste more money when we develop unneccessary drugs. Why should we give drug companies more financial incentive to invent hundreds of different types of pain-killers, when aspirin works perfectly well for 95% of the population?
Your argument about choices between monopoly and other products is predicated on the assumption that people choose products rationally.
But this assumption is false, especially for drugs. People buy drugs based on branding, advertising, doctor's prescriptions and a lot of ideas that aren't "rational" even under the most generous of economic assumptions. If the assumption of rationality fails than the whole argument fails.
But even if you were to prove your arguments you still don't show that there is an advantage to granting exclusive rights to inventors. At best you prove that it is no worse than eliminating patent protection. Except that you never deal with the question of enforcement cost.
Last edited by Vanguard on 30-06-2002 at 22:12
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:20.
Apolyton Time is 00:20. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
28-06-2002 06:11
|