defending the right to innovate
Monopoly corrupts. Absolute monopoly corrupts absolutely.
Copyright Notice: We don't think much of copyright, so you can do what you want with the content on this blog. Of course we are hungry for publicity, so we would be pleased if you avoided plagiarism and gave us credit for what we have written. We encourage you not to impose copyright restrictions on your "derivative" works, but we won't try to stop you. For the legally or statist minded, you can consider yourself subject to a Creative Commons Attribution License.
Our beloved institution is helping to spread the message.
Economic logic proves Boldrin and Levine are correct
Jeffrey has been live-blogging our book over at Mises. There have been lots of interesting comments pro and con; and at least a few conversions. The final chapter is here and you can find the grand collection here. We all encourage you to go leave comments.
Live blog 7
"Some talk about the problems of general equilibrium theory and the Austrian alternative. Some amazing material for dissertations."
Jeffrey Tucker's live blog has moved to Chapter 6.
link to the live blog here
I'm going to add a few comments of my own about copyright. There are basically four areas covered by copyright.
Entertainment: This is the tail that wags the dog. Not that entertainment isn't important; it is just that only a small subpart of the entertainment industry is covered by copyright. Let's call that the "professional entertainment" industry - popular fiction and non-fiction; movies; tv; professional music. The problem is that this industry is minuscule - smaller than just the IBM Corporation alone. Absent copyright, we'd lose some marginal contributions, and the very rich people at the top would be less rich. However, "professional entertainment" is tiny compared to "entertainment" which would include everything from home videos, to playing games, to talking on the phone with your friends. This industry is an order of magnitude bigger than "professional entertainment." And the main use of copyright in the "professional entertainment" industry is to limit competition from the "amateur entertainment" industry. Whatever we would lose from the professionals (not much, since copyright is de facto gone anyway) would be more than made up for by the amateurs.
Textbooks: Few people are educated by reading textbooks. If fewer text books are written without copyright (let's hope so since they are all the same) then the people who teach classes will have to do a better job; write more lecture notes; or create open source textbook - else we won't collect our pay as teachers. This industry is a sick joke: copyright is used so that teachers who are too lazy to develop their own material and don't pay for the texts themselves will assign bland overpriced texts to their captive students.
Scientific Research: Getting rid of copyright here would just accelerate the move towards open access scientific publications. If not for the fact that commercial publishers own the reputations of existing journals, they would be gone already. Scientific information is spread through the internet in preprints and working papers; publishing plays no role.
Software: This is an important industry. And one that can thrive without copyright as the example of open source/free software shows. Nor would the proprietary sector be driven out of existence - technical means of protection would still be available without copyright.
Jeffrey Tucker is back at it.
Over at the Mises Blog Jeffrey Tucker is reviewing and blogging about Michele's and my book Against Intellectual Monopoly. Here's a direct link to his article. As Jeffrey says: the discussion is getting pretty wild...we are being accused of being socialists in favor of some sort of common ownership among other things, presumably by someone who didn't read the book. If you have a few minutes, go take a look. You can also buy it from them link here
Most Recent Comments
The right to rub smooth using a hardened steel tool with ridges Finally got around to looking at the comments, sorry for delay... Replying to Stephan: I'm sorry
at 05/08/2015 08:35 AM by Dan Dobkin
Let's See: Pallas, Pan, Patents, Persephone, Perses, Poseidon, Prometheus... Seems like a kinda bizarre proposal to me. We just need to abolish the patent system, not replace
at 04/10/2015 10:44 AM by Stephan Kinsella
The right to rub smooth using a hardened steel tool with ridges I'm a bit confused by this--even if "hired to invent" went away, that would just change the default
at 04/10/2015 10:34 AM by Stephan Kinsella
Do we need a law? @ Alexander Baker: So basically, if I copy parts of 'Titus Andronicus' to a webpage without
at 01/08/2015 08:58 PM by Sheogorath
Do we need a law? The issue is whether the crime is punished not who punishes it. If somebody robs our house we do
at 11/17/2014 04:48 AM by David K. Levine
Do we need a law? 1. Plagiarism most certainly is illegal, it is called "copyright infringement". One very famous
at 10/29/2014 10:49 AM by Alexander Baker
Yet another proof of the inutility of copyright. The 9/11 Commission report cost $15,000,000 to produce, not counting the salaries of the authors.
at 09/20/2014 03:19 PM by Alexander Baker
WKRP In Cincinnati - Requiem For A Masterpiece P.S. The link to Amazon's WKRP product page:
at 06/28/2014 10:03 AM by Doris
WKRP In Cincinnati - Requiem For A Masterpiece Hopefully some very good news. Shout! Factory is releasing the entire series of WKRP in Cincinnati,
at 06/28/2014 10:00 AM by Doris
What's copywritable? Go fish in court. @ Anonymous: You misunderstood my intent. I was actually trying to point out a huge but basic
at 05/05/2014 01:03 PM by Sheogorath
Rights Violations Aren't the Only Bads I hear that nonsense from pro-IP people all the
at 04/07/2014 04:47 AM by Dan McCracken
Intellectual Property Fosters Corporate Concentration Yeah, I see the discouragement of working on a patented device all the time. Great examples
at 01/13/2014 06:13 AM by Anonymous
Music without copyright Hundreds of businessmen are looking for premium quality article distribution services that can be
at 11/28/2013 05:03 PM by Stephanie Smith
at 11/28/2013 09:23 AM by Anonymous
at 11/28/2013 09:22 AM by Anonymous
Patent Lawyers Who Don't Toe the Line Should Be Punished! Moreover "the single most destructive force to innovation is patents". We'd like to unite with you
at 11/24/2013 10:48 AM by SpaceCorp Technologies
at 11/20/2013 03:18 PM by Anonymous
Does the decline in total factor productivity explain the drop in innovation? So, if our patent system was "broken," TFP of durable goods should have dropped. Conversely, since
at 11/02/2013 08:09 PM by Anonymous
Does the decline in total factor productivity explain the drop in innovation? I wondered about TFP, because I had heard that TFP was increasing. Apparently, it depends on who
at 11/02/2013 08:08 PM by Anonymous
Music without copyright I do agree with all the ideas you have presented in your post. They are very convincing and will
at 09/23/2013 07:46 AM by audience response software