Read on Twitter
Some choice IP quotes for tonight (from my Fecebook post https://www.facebook.com/nskinsella/posts/10158281259903181)
"To paraphrase the late economist Joan Robinson, patents and copyrights slow down the diffusion of new ideas for a reason: to ensure there will be more new ideas to diffuse." --William Shughart, /1
"To paraphrase the late economist Joan Robinson, patents and copyrights slow down the diffusion of new ideas for a reason: to ensure there will be more new ideas to diffuse." --William Shughart, /1
with the allegedly libertarian Independent Institute http://c4sif.org/2016/02/independent-institute-on-the-benefits-of-intellectual-property-protection/
Another, from Lawrence Lessig, purported copyright maverick and reformer (on copyright scholar Melville Nimmer)
"That puzzle was this: How is it that a constitution could protect “freedom of speech” /2
Another, from Lawrence Lessig, purported copyright maverick and reformer (on copyright scholar Melville Nimmer)
"That puzzle was this: How is it that a constitution could protect “freedom of speech” /2
from the abridgment by Congress, and yet give Congress the power to grant monopolies over speech? ...
... Copyright did not abridge speech, because without copyright, a great deal of speech would not exist. Copyright, through its limited protection of authors, creates an /3
... Copyright did not abridge speech, because without copyright, a great deal of speech would not exist. Copyright, through its limited protection of authors, creates an /3
incentive to produce speech that otherwise would not exist. It functions, as the Court said, as an “engine of free expression,” fueling the creation of what otherwise would not be created.
Copyright does this, no doubt, by limiting some speech. But it limits some speech /4
Copyright does this, no doubt, by limiting some speech. But it limits some speech /4
so that other speech might be created. Just as the Constitution itself limits democracy so that democracy might be more free, as Rebecca Tushnet has written, copyright limits some speech so that other speech might be produced." Wow. How profound. Orwell nods. /5
And another, from Duke law professor Jerome H. Reichman:
"Governments adopt intellectual property laws in the belief that a privileged, monopolistic domain operating on the margins of the free-market economy promotes long-term cultural and technological progress better than /6
"Governments adopt intellectual property laws in the belief that a privileged, monopolistic domain operating on the margins of the free-market economy promotes long-term cultural and technological progress better than /6
a regime of unbridled competition." Can't have "unbridled" competition. Gotta bridle it!
He goes on:
"Intellectual property laws typically provide qualified creators with temporary grants of exclusive property rights that derogate from the norms of free competition in order /7
He goes on:
"Intellectual property laws typically provide qualified creators with temporary grants of exclusive property rights that derogate from the norms of free competition in order /7
to overcome the “public goods” problem inherent in the commercial exploitation of intangible creations." --
http://c4sif.org/2011/07/intellectual-property-advocates-hate-competition/
So you see, IP advocates believe in market failure and want the government to "fix" or "calibrate" it. /8
http://c4sif.org/2011/07/intellectual-property-advocates-hate-competition/
So you see, IP advocates believe in market failure and want the government to "fix" or "calibrate" it. /8
And here's Reason's Tim Lee: "I can’t agree with Baker that all copyright and patent monopolies are illegitimate. Copyright and patent protections have existed since the beginning of the republic, and if properly calibrated they can (as the founders put it) promote the /9
progress of science and the useful arts. Like any government intervention in the economy, they need to be carefully constrained. But if they are so limited, they can be a positive force in the American economy." /10
It's really depressing and pathetic how bad many so-called modern libertarians, and fellow travelers, and our libertarian and classical liberal forebears, are on IP. http://c4sif.org/2015/10/classical-liberals-and-anarchists-on-intellectual-property/ /11
