Dean Baker has an interesting discussion of the general subject of exchanging of copyrighted material, keyed to the Jammie Thomas jury trial which awarded $222,000 to the recording companies for downloading 24 songs, with a long set of comments from readers link here. The one new thing to me was this: "The recording industry was apparently able to track down this crime by hiring a high tech sleuth who has software that can monitor the files that people place on their computers." Since when does the RIAA have the right to monitor our internet activity? Big Brother has been watching all of us with more or less legal authority and with the justification of the War on Terror, but since when does anyone else have the right to do so?

This is a prime example of how the monopoly formerly known as intellectual property attacks the rights of people and undermines the rule of law. Defenders of "IP," including politicians, "IP" industry lobbyists, employees, and investors, and "IP" lawyers have a lot to answer for.

This would be a good question to put to Lawrence Lessig.

I'm not an expert in what the RIAA does, but anyone who uses Kazaa exposes his or her entire shared folder to anyone else using Kazaa. So you don't need to be a snoop to find out what people share on public file-sharing networks. The only trick, I suspect, is figuring out the entire contents of the shared folder. That used to be easy to do (Napster hotlists, for example), but became less so over time. Still, if you're making files available for others to copy through Kazaa, you don't exactly have a privacy interest in what's in your collection, do you?

A number of times people have referred to "IP industry" or "IP industries," without a clear definition of just what constitutes such industries. The U.S. Department of Commerce has attempted to define the "IP Industries" as well as determining the economic effect of such industries on the U.S. Economy.

Their report, which may be found at:

http://www.uspto.gov/news/pr/2012/12-25.jsp

concludes that IP intensive industries directly and indirectly employ 40 million people and contributes $5 trillion per year to the U.S. GDP, which is about 35% of the total GDP. The report also notes that exports from IP intensive industries accounts for more than 60% of all exports and that employment in IP intensive industries over the last two years is growing substantially faster than in non-IP intensive industries.

When comparing contributions to the GDP from IP intensive industries, if such industries were considered a category by themselves, they would be the largest such industry in the United States.

So, next time you want to know who the "IP industries" are that might want to influence the government, just browse the report.

That report is a joke, Lonnie. It defines as "IP intensive" any industry where anyone has a copyright or a patent, whether or not those play a significant role in the industry or the industry would do just fine without them.

The same methodology can be used to "prove" that an even larger amount of GDP is dependent on fair use and other *exceptions* to "IP" laws.

Beeswax:

You said:

"That report is a joke, Lonnie. It defines as "IP intensive" any industry where anyone has a copyright or a patent, whether or not those play a significant role in the industry or the industry would do just fine without them."

My comments:

Classic erroneous presupposition unsupported by any facts. If you had read the report, which it is apparent that you did not, the five economists who prepared the report looked for industries that had very high volumes of patents, copyrights, and trademarks. They purposely eliminated industries that had relatively low utilization of IP. Their methodology was explained in detail in the report. Furthermore, since the anti-IP crowd has failed to establish a definition of "IP industry," clearly the effort of these economists is better than no definition at all. If the report is to be criticized, it should be criticized with superior data, not sarcastic and irrelevant comments.

You said:

"The same methodology can be used to "prove" that an even larger amount of GDP is dependent on fair use and other *exceptions* to "IP" laws."

My Comments:

Perhaps, perhaps not. I look forward to the report on fair use and exceptions to IP laws. When will you prepare it?

Alonniemouse wrote:

Classic erroneous presupposition unsupported by any facts.

I know you posted a classic erroneous presupposition unsupported by any facts, Lonnie. No need to tell me about it.

If you had read the report, which it is apparent that you did not,

Classic erroneous presupposition.

the five economists who prepared the report looked for industries that had very high volumes of patents, copyrights, and trademarks.

Classic pontification, and irrelevant, since that does not mean that all or even very much of an industry's productivity is reliant upon state-granted monopolies, Lonnie.

They purposely eliminated industries that had relatively low utilization of IP. Their methodology was explained in detail in the report.

The same methodology "proves" that exceptions to monopolies, like fair use, are an even larger contribution to the economy, Lonnie.

Furthermore, since the anti-IP crowd has failed to establish a definition of "IP industry," clearly the effort of these economists is better than no definition at all.

Classic illogic. Since the physicist crowd has failed to establish a definition of "quantum gravity", clearly my effort in defining it to be "subatomic particles are made of green cheese" is better than no definition at all.

If the report is to be criticized, it should be criticized with superior data, not sarcastic and irrelevant comments.

Classic erroneous presupposition.

You said:

"The same methodology can be used to "prove" that an even larger amount of GDP is dependent on fair use and other *exceptions* to "IP" laws."

My Comments:

Perhaps, perhaps not.

It not only can be, but has been, Lonnie.

I look forward to the report on fair use and exceptions to IP laws. When will you prepare it?

Classic erroneous presupposition that it hasn't already been prepared by others, Lonnie.

Beeswax:

You said:

"That report is a joke, Lonnie. It defines as "IP intensive" any industry where anyone has a copyright or a patent, whether or not those play a significant role in the industry or the industry would do just fine without them."

I said:

Classic erroneous presupposition unsupported by any facts. If you had read the report, which it is apparent that you did not, the five economists who prepared the report looked for industries that had very high volumes of patents, copyrights, and trademarks. They purposely eliminated industries that had relatively low utilization of IP. Their methodology was explained in detail in the report. Furthermore, since the anti-IP crowd has failed to establish a definition of "IP industry," clearly the effort of these economists is better than no definition at all. If the report is to be criticized, it should be criticized with superior data, not sarcastic and irrelevant comments.

You said:

I know you posted a classic erroneous presupposition unsupported by any facts, Lonnie. No need to tell me about it.

My comments: What does your irrelevant ad hominem have to do with either monopoly or my comment? Obviously you have no rebuttal or you would have posted one.

Beeswax selectively clipped a portion of my comments:

the five economists who prepared the report looked for industries that had very high volumes of patents, copyrights, and trademarks.

Beeswax replies:

Classic pontification, and irrelevant, since that does not mean that all or even very much of an industry's productivity is reliant upon state-granted monopolies, Lonnie.

My comments:

As the report makes clear, the industries that had high levels of IP protection were those defined as IP-intensive industries. As you obviously read, one of the highest levels of utilization is of trademarks, which well outweighs copyrights and patents. Now, trademarks must be used to remain in force. Therefore, at least with respect to trademarks, it is obvious that the companies using them are reliant upon them. With respect to patents, virtually all of the companies using patents are companies that produce products. Obviously, these companies would not have the patents unless they have value to their products. The huge numbers of companies using patents as a marketing tool is an indication that they are being used.

Based on empirical evidence, with the industries that are IP intensive, they are making use of their IP.

I said:

They purposely eliminated industries that had relatively low utilization of IP. Their methodology was explained in detail in the report.

You said:

The same methodology "proves" that exceptions to monopolies, like fair use, are an even larger contribution to the economy, Lonnie.

My comments:

Non sequitur. One of the things that the study pointed out is that it is difficult to find an industry that does not use some form of IP. However, many companies make less use of IP. For example, Dolly Madison has IP, but not all that much. What they do have is valuable to Dolly Madison and their product identity. While they did not meet the criteria for being IP intensive, it remains an integral part of their company. I suspect your employer has a lot of IP.

I said:

Furthermore, since the anti-IP crowd has failed to establish a definition of "IP industry," clearly the effort of these economists is better than no definition at all.

Beeswax said:

Classic illogic. Since the physicist crowd has failed to establish a definition of "quantum gravity", clearly my effort in defining it to be "subatomic particles are made of green cheese" is better than no definition at all.

My comments:

Classic illogic as well as mixed metaphors. It would be more akin to saying that "we are not sure of the nature of subatomic particles, but they exhibit the following characteristics." If you are unable to come up with an appropriate and relevant example, why bother to provide one at all?

I said:

If the report is to be criticized, it should be criticized with superior data, not sarcastic and irrelevant comments.

Beeswax said:

Classic erroneous presupposition.

My comments:

What does your irrelevant and inappropriate declaration have to do with monopoly OR the subject at hand, beeswax?

beeswax said:

"The same methodology can be used to "prove" that an even larger amount of GDP is dependent on fair use and other *exceptions* to "IP" laws."

I Comments:

Perhaps, perhaps not.

Beeswax replies:

It not only can be, but has been, Lonnie.

My comments:

Really? Cite, please. I have never seen this report.

I said:

I look forward to the report on fair use and exceptions to IP laws. When will you prepare it?

Beeswax said:

Classic erroneous presupposition that it hasn't already been prepared by others, Lonnie.

My comment:

I have read many reports, but not one I have read has attempted to quantify the data you propose. You failure to cite such is telling.