Eliminate intellectual property

[William Wallace]

Speaking of crazy libertarian ideas: Time to end intellectual property

Internet piracy is widely practiced today. According to the Economist, recorded music sales fell by 8% in 2007 alone, and industry experts blamed most of the decline on illegal downloading...The effected industries have naturally gone on the attack, claiming the practice harms the people who create the illegally downloaded content and stifles innovation. The effort to pass the Stop Internet Piracy Act (SOPA) is the latest example of this blowback.

But despite these claims, internet piracy doesn't punish creators and artists. In fact, it is the legal war against consumers that has slowed innovation in the arts, and it's time we ended it.

[rumborak]

I think your article ignores the elephant in the room: Corporate IP. The protection of that knowledge and the availability to prosecute corporate espionage or whistle-blowing employees is really the life-blood of a company.
Looking at my company (a software company), our source code is what we differentiate ourselves by from other competitors. Given that it is all digital, it really is pure IP, nothing on top. Should it not be illegal to steal it? That is, should a hacker who breaks into our corporate network and steals our source code to distribute it to the world (or to a high-selling bidder) only be charged with trespassing, but not for making a copy of our source code?

IMHO, the current business models of record companies and book publishers are no longer viable in their current form. Doesn't mean that theft should be made legal.

rumborak

[William Wallace]

That is, should a hacker who breaks into our corporate network and steals our source code to distribute it to the world (or to a high-selling bidder) only be charged with trespassing, but not for making a copy of our source code?
rumborak

Yes to breaking into your database. The penalty should be severe, too. Though prosecuting people under the guise of IP protection leaves way to many loopholes, like censoring internet content and arresting 14-year-olds who download lady gaga albums.

[rumborak]

So you're seriously willing to eliminate the basis of livelihood of the entire IT industry, just so that a few people can freely download music and movies?
What's it with Libertarians and their desire to shoot the patient at the first sign of sickness?

rumborak

[William Wallace]

So you're seriously willing to eliminate the basis of livelihood of the entire IT industry, just so that a few people can freely download music and movies?
What's it with Libertarians and their desire to shoot the patient at the first sign of sickness?

rumborak

Yes, I'm a mean man, with my downloadings on the internets. Now answer the arguments. By the way, I said breaking into your network should be prosecuted.

[Perpetual Change]

WW, you really think you're not the one being evasive here? Rumbo has a good point.

[William Wallace]

WW, you really think you're not the one being evasive here? Rumbo has a good point.

I addressed it. Breaking into someone's network is wrong and would be prosecuted.

[rumborak]

So you're seriously willing to eliminate the basis of livelihood of the entire IT industry, just so that a few people can freely download music and movies?
What's it with Libertarians and their desire to shoot the patient at the first sign of sickness?

rumborak

Yes, I'm a mean man, with my downloadings on the internets. Now answer the arguments. By the way, I said breaking into your network should be prosecuted.

Trespassing is something very different than theft. Under your scheme, the hacker (to use an analogy) essentially did nothing but walk through your house, took some pictures, and left again. What's the maximum possible penalty for something like that? Nowhere near close to the damage incurred to the company whose IP was just stolen.
And btw, I indeed *did* address your points. I pointed out that you are only looking at a minute subsection of the total complexity of the problem.
Intentional or not, you actually gave a perfect example how Libertarianism is overly simplistic.

rumborak

[William Wallace]

So you're seriously willing to eliminate the basis of livelihood of the entire IT industry, just so that a few people can freely download music and movies?
What's it with Libertarians and their desire to shoot the patient at the first sign of sickness?

rumborak

Yes, I'm a mean man, with my downloadings on the internets. Now answer the arguments. By the way, I said breaking into your network should be prosecuted.

Trespassing is something very different than theft. Under your scheme, the hacker (to use an analogy) essentially did nothing but walk through your house, took some pictures, and left again. What's the maximum possible penalty for something like that? Nowhere near close to the damage incurred to the company whose IP was just stolen.
And btw, I indeed *did* address your points. I pointed out that you are only looking at a minute subsection of the total complexity of the problem.

rumborak

A whole body of literature, which I linked to, destroys your assertion. And I don't see why the penalty for trespassing, or whatever the charge would be, can't be severe. And if anybody is missing the big picture, it's you, looking specifically at your own profession and failing to consider the impacts on other sectors of the economy.

[rumborak]

The articles you linked to either talked about publishing (audio or books), or just shrugged their shoulders ("we don't know what the effect would be"). If you want to make a case for the non-harmfulness of removing IP, YOU have to prove that it isn't. Lack of studies isn't implicit proof that it doesn't harm. On a sidenote, you're also committing the classic Libertarian oversight: Have you ever wondered how the current laws came into place?

Can you really, with a straight face,say that you don't see a problem with not making it a crime to distribute software companies' source code?

rumborak

[7StringedBeast]

Getting rid of intellectual property is a bad idea.  A really bad idea.

[emindead]

This is also a statement.

[William Wallace]

The articles you linked to either talked about publishing (audio or books), or just shrugged their shoulders ("we don't know what the effect would be"). If you want to make a case for the non-harmfulness of removing IP, YOU have to prove that it isn't. Lack of studies isn't implicit proof that it doesn't harm. On a sidenote, you're also committing the classic Libertarian oversight: Have you ever wondered how the current laws came into place?

Can you really, with a straight face,say that you don't see a problem with not making it a crime to distribute software companies' source code?

rumborak

This is from the first on the linked list:

https://www.stlr.org/volumes/volume-x-2008-2009/torrance/

Patent systems are often justified by an assumption that innovation will be spurred by the prospect of patent protection, leading to the accrual of greater societal benefits than would be possible under non-patent systems. However, little empirical evidence exists to support this assumption.

I know how the current laws came into being; that's not an argument in and of itself. And again, breaking into somebody's network is and should remain a crime. So quit asking me about stealing and distributing source code. If you have to break a law to do it, it isn't acceptable.

[Scheavo]

Companies would just end up putting user-end agreements on every product they sold, and if it ever got copied, they'd sue; if you copied it, you would either have stolen the product, or broken your contractual agreement. You'd basically make the situation worse, where intellectual property would never expire, whereas today it does.

Only people who don't produce *edit* something to be sold *edit* could be so naive as to think that intellectual property isn't important.

[rumborak]

Moreover, the Libertarian assertion that non-physical property is inferior to physical one (in the sense that it needs less protection), despite both being a result of intense labor (and thus a "good"), shows the inability to discern features of an economic theory that are plain historical. When the Austrian School came about, intellectual property was plain no concern since almost every labor produced as physical result.

rumborak

[William Wallace]

Moreover, the Libertarian assertion that non-physical property is inferior to physical one (in the sense that it needs less protection), despite both being a result of intense labor (and thus a "good"), shows the inability to discern features of an economic theory that are plain historical. When the Austrian School came about, intellectual property was plain no concern since almost every labor produced as physical result.

rumborak

Well, Austrians don't actually define information as property. And the only way to treat it like it is property is to have the state restrict what other people do with their physical property. And the concept of IP goes back to the 17th century, so I don't know how you could say it was of no concern.

[rumborak]

Moreover, the Libertarian assertion that non-physical property is inferior to physical one (in the sense that it needs less protection), despite both being a result of intense labor (and thus a "good"), shows the inability to discern features of an economic theory that are plain historical. When the Austrian School came about, intellectual property was plain no concern since almost every labor produced as physical result.

rumborak

Well, Austrians don't actually define information as property.

Yeah, but how much more fail can you put into an economic theory really? The majority of Western economic transactions involve the sale and acquisition of information. If you have an economic theory that  essentially relegates this volume of trade to trading hot air, you might as well close the book right there.  Which is what all modern Economists did on the Austrian School. In the days it came out it brought important insights. But then it showed its shortcomings and was superceded.

rumborak

[Scheavo]

Moreover, the Libertarian assertion that non-physical property is inferior to physical one (in the sense that it needs less protection), despite both being a result of intense labor (and thus a "good"), shows the inability to discern features of an economic theory that are plain historical. When the Austrian School came about, intellectual property was plain no concern since almost every labor produced as physical result.

rumborak

Well, Austrians don't actually define information as property. And the only way to treat it like it is property is to have the state restrict what other people do with their physical property.

The only way for there to be "property" is for the state to restrict what other people can and cannot do.

[kirksnosehair]

But despite these claims, internet piracy doesn't punish creators and artists. In fact, it is the legal war against consumers that has slowed innovation in the arts, and it's time we ended it.

Bullshit.  Straight up, 100%, unmitigated bullshit.  Why?  How can I prove it?  I've got the empty wallet to prove it.

$13,289.98 <----My personal out of pocket cost to produce my band's debut album "Back From Being Gone"   (click link in my sig for info /shamless plug)

To date, it's been downloaded illegally, by my record label's anecdotal accounting, roughly 5700 times.  While it is clear that not every one of those would have been a sale, some of them would have been. 

You going to sit here with a straight face and tell me that's not punishing me, the artist?  As I mentioned in my first sentence:  Bullshit

[Scheavo]

But despite these claims, internet piracy doesn't punish creators and artists. In fact, it is the legal war against consumers that has slowed innovation in the arts, and it's time we ended it.

Bullshit.  Straight up, 100%, unmitigated bullshit.  Why?  How can I prove it?  I've got the empty wallet to prove it.

$13,289.98 <----My personal out of pocket cost to produce my band's debut album "Back From Being Gone"   (click link in my sig for info /shamless plug)

To date, it's been downloaded illegally, by my record label's anecdotal accounting, roughly 5700 times.  While it is clear that not every one of those would have been a sale, some of them would have been. 

You going to sit here with a straight face and tell me that's not punishing me, the artist?  As I mentioned in my first sentence:  Bullshit

No see, you're supposed to just go out and tour 11 months of the year in order to get money. THat doesn't harm you! Plus, your fans get to see you live! I mean, win win for everybody.

[kirksnosehair]

Sarcasm green noted

[Nick]

As I've said in another thread in GMD, IP has a very important place in accounting. The simple fact that time and effort are put into something like new music, or in Rumbo's case software needs to count for something. When you take away an artists ability to control the distribution of their own music you are diluting the value of that music. We have had many great innovations in the past 15 or so years involving the internet and electronic distribution, but piracy is just plain wrong and to think to just make away with IP is ridiculous in my mind. If piracy were somehow impossible plenty of bands/companies would still be giving away albums or some software for free as a means of promotion, but it would all be locked into their business model in how they are trying to distribute IP. With how things are nowadays everyone is competing with the ability to just get things for free, and you can't have healthy industry that way.

[William Wallace]

But despite these claims, internet piracy doesn't punish creators and artists. In fact, it is the legal war against consumers that has slowed innovation in the arts, and it's time we ended it.

Bullshit.  Straight up, 100%, unmitigated bullshit.  Why?  How can I prove it?  I've got the empty wallet to prove it.

$13,289.98 <----My personal out of pocket cost to produce my band's debut album "Back From Being Gone"   (click link in my sig for info /shamless plug)

To date, it's been downloaded illegally, by my record label's anecdotal accounting, roughly 5700 times.  While it is clear that not every one of those would have been a sale, some of them would have been. 

You going to sit here with a straight face and tell me that's not punishing me, the artist?  As I mentioned in my first sentence:  Bullshit

Don't be so self righteous. I penned that statement as both a musician and a writer, so lay off the starving artist routine. By the way, did you read beyond the first two paragraphs? I actually supported my proposition with arguments.

As you said, you don't know how many who downloaded your album would have purchased it. I discussed in my "bullshit" article why people who download aren't necessarily the same people who buy. And that makes sense. The normal trade off required to purchase an album doesn't exist thanks to piracy. You could also look at it as extra listeners who wouldn't have listened to your music otherwise.

No see, you're supposed to just go out and tour 11 months of the year in order to get money. THat doesn't harm you! Plus, your fans get to see you live! I mean, win win for everybody.

So quick to be sarcastic that you failed to mention (or realize) that his music isn't being protected by enforced anti-piracy measures, as he so emotionally pointed out.

Yeah, but how much more fail can you put into an economic theory really? The majority of Western economic transactions involve the sale and acquisition of information. If you have an economic theory that  essentially relegates this volume of trade to trading hot air, you might as well close the book right there.  Which is what all modern Economists did on the Austrian School. In the days it came out it brought important insights. But then it showed its shortcomings and was superceded.

All that smug is slowing your thought process, I think. This concept you think is so vital to modern economies actually creates more costs than benefits to everybody involved. But facts like that don't fit your enlightened worldview, so they aren't relevant. In any event, you have the relationship with modernity reversed. Owning ideas goes back 400 years, and it has very haphazardly limped through the centuries to become what it is now. So quit pretending that I'm the one foisting old ideas on everybody.

[Scheavo]

No see, you're supposed to just go out and tour 11 months of the year in order to get money. THat doesn't harm you! Plus, your fans get to see you live! I mean, win win for everybody.

So quick to be sarcastic that you failed to mention (or realize) that his music isn't being protected by enforced anti-piracy measures, as he so emotionally pointed out.

Is that really the best you have? That, because people are acting illegaly and immoraly, we should just roll over, and accept the illegality and the immorality? There will always be rape, so let's just go ahead and make rape legal.

[Riceball]

Intellectual property is still property, and the ability to create, improve and sell property is the foundation of a market - without property rights, this can't happen. That is largely because businesses won't invest in the creation of a new product if they can't ensure a commercial return (or at least be assured there is a high likelihood of a return).

Music, eventually, will be affected by this; and in some ways it already has (as with Nick I think I've expound this already). Major labels are focussing less on artistry and inventiveness and more on creating ready-made shovelware (first term that came to mind) - milking an artist as quick and hard as they can before moving to the next one. I can't remember any of the top artists from 2010.

So in my eyes, rumborak is right (as he is about most things), the business model doesn't suit the new prevailing market conditions, which is what they are doing. Is removing IP protection the answer? I'm not convinced it is.

[kirksnosehair]

But despite these claims, internet piracy doesn't punish creators and artists. In fact, it is the legal war against consumers that has slowed innovation in the arts, and it's time we ended it.

Bullshit.  Straight up, 100%, unmitigated bullshit.  Why?  How can I prove it?  I've got the empty wallet to prove it.

$13,289.98 <----My personal out of pocket cost to produce my band's debut album "Back From Being Gone"   (click link in my sig for info /shamless plug)

To date, it's been downloaded illegally, by my record label's anecdotal accounting, roughly 5700 times.  While it is clear that not every one of those would have been a sale, some of them would have been. 

You going to sit here with a straight face and tell me that's not punishing me, the artist?  As I mentioned in my first sentence:  Bullshit

Don't be so self righteous. I penned that statement as both a musician and a writer, so lay off the starving artist routine. By the way, did you read beyond the first two paragraphs? I actually supported my proposition with arguments.

As you said, you don't know how many who downloaded your album would have purchased it. I discussed in my "bullshit" article why people who download aren't necessarily the same people who buy. And that makes sense. The normal trade off required to purchase an album doesn't exist thanks to piracy. You could also look at it as extra listeners who wouldn't have listened to your music otherwise.

Yawn.   I've heard all of this nonsense before and that' just what it is.  Nonsense.  And I'm hardly a starving artist.  That's not my point.  I read the entire thing, and your arguments are, from my point of view, invalid.  Having an argument does not validate that argument. 

You want an argument, fine, you won't like it, but here's my argument:  I spent REAL money paying to create a piece of art that I did not have any intention of giving away for free.  I intended to sell it at fair market value.  I own said art.  As the owner of said art, I have a right to be compensated when someone takes a copy of said art at the price I set.  Anyone who then takes that piece of art without paying for it has stolen it from me, the owner.  I did not give one single downloader permission to take what they took.  Thus, they engaged in theft.  The result of that theft is I am not being fairly compensated for property that has been stolen from me - taken without my permission.  There is no getting around the fact that this is wrong nor is there any getting around the fact that I am owed fair compensation for my product.  Getting rid of intellectual patent laws (and frankly your entire argument) doesn't solve anything, it's a weak rhetorical rationalization for theft.

[Perpetual Change]

Kirk, I think you may have inadvertently hit on the biggest problem with libertarianism out there. It actually "solves" very few problems; instead, it provides rationalizations that satisfy very few people, aside from the predominately mid-upper class teenage males who, frankly, aren't affected by a whole lot of problems to begin with.

[William Wallace]

But despite these claims, internet piracy doesn't punish creators and artists. In fact, it is the legal war against consumers that has slowed innovation in the arts, and it's time we ended it.

Bullshit.  Straight up, 100%, unmitigated bullshit.  Why?  How can I prove it?  I've got the empty wallet to prove it.

$13,289.98 <----My personal out of pocket cost to produce my band's debut album "Back From Being Gone"   (click link in my sig for info /shamless plug)

To date, it's been downloaded illegally, by my record label's anecdotal accounting, roughly 5700 times.  While it is clear that not every one of those would have been a sale, some of them would have been. 

You going to sit here with a straight face and tell me that's not punishing me, the artist?  As I mentioned in my first sentence:  Bullshit

Don't be so self righteous. I penned that statement as both a musician and a writer, so lay off the starving artist routine. By the way, did you read beyond the first two paragraphs? I actually supported my proposition with arguments.

As you said, you don't know how many who downloaded your album would have purchased it. I discussed in my "bullshit" article why people who download aren't necessarily the same people who buy. And that makes sense. The normal trade off required to purchase an album doesn't exist thanks to piracy. You could also look at it as extra listeners who wouldn't have listened to your music otherwise.

Yawn.   I've heard all of this nonsense before and that' just what it is.  Nonsense.  And I'm hardly a starving artist.  That's not my point.  I read the entire thing, and your arguments are, from my point of view, invalid.  Having an argument does not validate that argument. 

You want an argument, fine, you won't like it, but here's my argument:  I spent REAL money paying to create a piece of art that I did not have any intention of giving away for free.  I intended to sell it at fair market value.  I own said art.  As the owner of said art, I have a right to be compensated when someone takes a copy of said art at the price I set.  Anyone who then takes that piece of art without paying for it has stolen it from me, the owner.  I did not give one single downloader permission to take what they took.  Thus, they engaged in theft.  The result of that theft is I am not being fairly compensated for property that has been stolen from me - taken without my permission.  There is no getting around the fact that this is wrong nor is there any getting around the fact that I am owed fair compensation for my product.  Getting rid of intellectual patent laws (and frankly your entire argument) doesn't solve anything, it's a weak rhetorical rationalization for theft.

In short, that music is your property and how dare anybody question such an obvious truth. Cool.

Kirk, I think you may have inadvertently hit on the biggest problem with libertarianism out there. It actually "solves" very few problems; instead, it provides rationalizations that satisfy very few people, aside from the predominately mid-upper class teenage males who, frankly, aren't affected by a whole lot of problems to begin with.

Again, no discussion of the evidence. You're obviously right, and those who disagree are just spoiled white people.

Intellectual property is still property, and the ability to create, improve and sell property is the foundation of a market - without property rights, this can't happen. That is largely because businesses won't invest in the creation of a new product if they can't ensure a commercial return (or at least be assured there is a high likelihood of a return).

That's certainly a fair starting point and a testable hypothesis, but I don't think it's a legitimate conclusion. The absence of IP doesn't automatically result in decreased investment and innovation.

Music, eventually, will be affected by this; and in some ways it already has (as with Nick I think I've expound this already). Major labels are focussing less on artistry and inventiveness and more on creating ready-made shovelware (first term that came to mind) - milking an artist as quick and hard as they can before moving to the next one. I can't remember any of the top artists from 2010.

I would argue that it has been that way for many years, long before piracy was a threat to sales. Labels pick up artists they can market to a mass audience. That's just the reality of any major industry.

[Scheavo]

That's certainly a fair starting point and a testable hypothesis, but I don't think it's a legitimate conclusion. The absence of IP doesn't automatically result in decreased investment and innovatio

The absence of IP may not result in decreased investment and innovation, but the absence of revenue certainly does. Investments usually require a base level of capital, and if you don't have that capital, you cant' invest and innovate. What you would have done is almost the socialization of revenue from the innovators, to just about anybody who cares to try. Each individual may not have enough to invest and innovate, so that would suffocate the actual innovation and investments made.

Many products have a very slim profit margin after all the investments, so if you divert even just 20% of capital away from the investor, you could seriously harm that companies ability to make profit off their investment. Under such a scenario, why invest? It not only because rationally stupid to do, it becomes downright impossible given the business model.

In short, that music is your property and how dare anybody question such an obvious truth. Cool.

Why are other properties such obvious truths to you? It's certainly not a universal concept that people can own property, own land, etc, yet you take it for granted that you are able to purchase land, and "own" it, making it your property. The problem with your argument is that it undermines just about everything else you believe, meaning it's more sophist than philosophical, and thus invalid for all practical purposes.

[Perpetual Change]

Will, you can snap-back against criticisms of libertarianism with one-liners all you want, but the truth is libertarianism is perceived the way it is for good reason, and there was a very real truth to my post regardless of whether or not you wanted to discuss it. Deny it all you want, but I think we both know why you apparently spend so much time in the arena of "Libertarian Apologetics".

I mean, come on. For all the points brought up here, you've little to offer in rebuttal aside from sarcastic jabs and contrarinism. You've ignored the most pressing issues brought up against your opinion (like the survival of the IT industry), and seem like your playing off every criticism as people "not getting the point."

In the end, I don't even care really. You're the libertarian here and it's you (and not me) who has to decide why and how these things you write are actually... relevant and acceptable answers to real problems. If you think you're doing that then more power to you. If I'm right, though, a couple weeks will go by and you will have a new article out which covers the very questions you're being so dismissive about right now.

[William Wallace]

Will, you can snap-back against criticisms of libertarianism with one-liners all you want, but the truth is libertarianism is perceived the way it is for good reason, and there was a very real truth to my post regardless of whether or not you wanted to discuss it. Deny it all you want, but I think we both know why you apparently spend so much time in the arena of "Libertarian Apologetics".

I don't think that's the case. You said we're all rich, white kids. Not only is that a baseless generalization, but it doesn't deal with any of the arguments advanced in favor of libertarianism. I don't know why you think I take the positions that I do, but I take them because I find them convincing and worth defending. If you're referring to my thread about libertarianism being too simplistic, I started it because I want to know why other people aren't convinced as I am - genuine curiosity.

I mean, come on. For all the points brought up here, you've little to offer in rebuttal aside from sarcastic jabs and contrarinism. You've ignored the most pressing issues brought up against your opinion (like the survival of the IT industry), and seem like your playing off every criticism as people "not getting the point."

I concede that my replies aren't short on sarcasm, but they're not devoid of arguments either. For example, Rumbo said the IT industry would come crashing down without IP. I cited peer-reviewed research in response that clearly contradicts his claim.

In the end, I don't even care really. You're the libertarian here and it's you (and not me) who has to decide why and how these things you write are actually... relevant and acceptable answers to real problems. If you think you're doing that then more power to you. If I'm right, though, a couple weeks will go by and you will have a new article out which covers the very questions you're being so dismissive about right now.

As I said, I'm not dismissing criticism so far as I can tell. You're sort of right about future articles. I post stuff here because I know most of you disagree; it's a great way to tighten up my arguments if they're flawed. But I don't think they are on this issue.

[Perpetual Change]

You said we're all rich, white kids. Not only is that a baseless generalization, but it doesn't deal with any of the arguments advanced in favor of libertarianism.

No, I didn't. I said the majority of libertarians I've met seem virtually untouched by the problems which they consequently sweep away (like IP, foreign policy, poverty, the environment and so-on). Is that not true?

I concede that my replies aren't short on sarcasm, but they're not devoid of arguments either. For example, Rumbo said the IT industry would come crashing down without IP. I cited peer-reviewed research in response that clearly contradicts his claim.

You mean this? https://www.stlr.org/volumes/volume-x-2008-2009/torrance/

I'm not sure a model can measure such things effectively. In the real world, who would bother pouring hours into writing some code when they new it'd be copied and distributed by free a second after it was published? Would you? Honestly, it seems to fly in the face of everything else you believe about property rights.

And anyway, what does that have to do with people rightly being able to get credit for what they've done? Like I said above, libertarians just kinda seem to sweep away the problems because it's they think it's justified enough that they can point to a consequence that some things might be improved in the long run. But it just goes to show, they don't understand or even care about the actual problems. They are just applying the same worn-out theory to another set of circumstances.

[rumborak]

The paper analyzes the patent system. Not the concept of IP protection. It's long been questioned whether the current patent system isn't hurting things more than it's helping.

I also have to make the comment that it's hilarious to see Libertarians here essentially argue for Communism (i.e. the free-handing-out of labor's fruit) simply because they can't see outside the narrow box of 19th century Libertarianism they put themselves into.

rumborak

[William Wallace]

You said we're all rich, white kids. Not only is that a baseless generalization, but it doesn't deal with any of the arguments advanced in favor of libertarianism.

No, I didn't. I said the majority of libertarians I've met seem virtually untouched by the problems which they consequently sweep away (like IP, foreign policy, poverty, the environment and so-on). Is that not true?

I can't say much about the ones you know. But you seem to be extending the description to all or most of the people who fall under the banner of libertarianism. In the latter case it's clearly not true. But it's a moot point because an idea's validity isn't determined by the people who endorse it.

I'm not sure a model can measure such things effectively. In the real world, who would bother pouring hours into writing some code when they new it'd be copied and distributed by free a second after it was published? Would you? Honestly, it seems to fly in the face of everything else you believe about property rights.

It's funny, we're cranks for criticizing economics' obsession with modeling - until the models destroy the case for a policy like IP protection.  Anyway, you would have a point if the modeling weren't corroborated by empirical evidence. But it is, as the study explains, focusing specifically on open source systems.

And anyway, what does that have to do with people rightly being able to get credit for what they've done? Like I said above, libertarians just kinda seem to sweep away the problems because it's they think it's justified enough that they can point to a consequence that some things might be improved in the long run. But it just goes to show, they don't understand or even care about the actual problems. They are just applying the same worn-out theory to another set of circumstances.

Not at all. I mentioned in the article that creative commons licenses can prevent outright plagiarism, without the crippling effects of current IP laws. Again, I'm a musician. I've been in bands and I write for a living. Please stop pretending that I'm disconnected from this debate.

[Scheavo]

Ya know, having used quite a bit of open source software, I gotta say, most of it is far inferior to something you have to pay for. And it's obvious why.

I can generally go and hear some live music for free, as well, but it's usually not nearly as good as the music with a cover charge, or god forbid, a ticket.

Hey WW, would you like it if I copied all our articles, crated my own blog, and got my own advertisers to pay for it? It would require nothing out of me, really, and I'd profit off of your writing, your thinking, and your work. Given the size of the internet, who would know? Perhaps some would eventually found out the original source, but many, many, many others would not - and that's something anyone who's spent any amount of time on the internet should know full well. Things are copied all the time, when it's illegal, and no one's the wiser. One reason people are able to trace it back to the original source is becuase of sourcing, copyrights, etc.

There's something I've noticed about libertarian theories; they often hinge upon some sort of government or some sort of theory they don't like to support it. It's like environmentalism, where libertarians insist the a strong personal definition of property rights would solve everything, but in order for that to solve anything, you have to have a fiat judicial system - i.e. government - in order for it to work. The same goes with IP, where every example given is possible due to at least some conception of IP; it's argued that people would favor the original artists, etc; but that favoring is only possible due to knowledge, which is only possible due to IP.