(Hat tip Jules Jeffrey)
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.
Now I know why my opinion is different with some others. I pretty much sucked at sharing. I most definitely did not think sharing was "fun." I did not play nice in the sandbox, either.
[Comment at 01/15/2010 12:10 PM by Lonnie E. Holder]
And you still don't.
[Comment at 01/15/2010 05:52 PM by None Of Your Beeswax]
lol...I am an individualist in many ways. Sharing is not one of my stronger attributes.
[Comment at 01/15/2010 07:11 PM by Lonnie E. Holder]
Wonderful! Very rigorous, actually.
[Comment at 01/16/2010 08:00 AM by Sheldon Richman]
But why the FBI warning?
[Comment at 01/16/2010 08:01 AM by Sheldon Richman]
It's obviously a joke.
[Comment at 01/16/2010 08:40 AM by Nobody Nowhere]
The concept of the enjoyment of sharing is rooted in the material and transient. I, personally, do not like to share material items such as, let's say, a favorite reference book. This item has great value to me and, if this item is rare, would incur an expense upon me to replace. However, let's say the ideas within this rare reference book have conceptual knowledge that could serve as a basis to new forms of thought. If people can extract what they read from this book to better themselves, then the ideas have transcended the material value of the book. With each reading, it is not only copied but is transformed and is transforming within others. If the book is too jealously guarded as a material item, then it has lost its purpose. This leads me to understand that I guard the book because it maintains a material value to me; but, the ideas it contains, I share for that is what the pursuit of knowledge requires of me.
Or, maybe I'm just full of crap.
[Comment at 01/17/2010 12:37 PM by pcdls.ronin]
Tough for you to share the ideas the book contains, because you do not know which ideas are important, or might be important, to a receiver. So the ideas you may transmit from the reference book might have no value at all to a receiver.
However, the ideas can be obtained from another copy of the book. Any ideas I have I choose to share or not.
[Comment at 01/17/2010 08:19 PM by Anonymous]
Dear full of crap, I understand your jealousy (because I share that as well in some cases), but let's highlight the bright side. Money is cheap. Having a good time is priceless. With more people sharing and understanding, you increase the chances of having a good time.
PS: Money isn't always cheap.
[Comment at 01/18/2010 06:45 AM by Jose_X]
Not sharing your stuff is all right even though you might sometimes be called a jerk by some, but violently preventing others from sharing their stuff is not ok.
[Comment at 01/18/2010 08:57 AM by Samuel Hora]
I would never violently prevent anyone from sharing their stuff so long as it was acquired per John Locke's third natural right:
Estate - everyone is entitled to own all they create or gain through gift or trade so long as it doesn't conflict with the first two rights.
Note that copying is a protected natural right only if copying is granted by gift or trade. Taking a copy without permission meets none of Locke's natural right conditions.
Of course, Locke also apparently said that these rights are violently enforceable, so what do I know?
Note also that these "natural" rights cannot accrue to a business or corporation, only to individuals.
[Comment at 01/18/2010 12:34 PM by Anonymous]
Creation is not an independent source of property rights.
Taking a (pre-existing) copy without its owner's permission would be theft.
Making a copy without permission is something else entirely.
[Comment at 01/18/2010 02:08 PM by Nobody Nowhere]
Most Recent Comments
Killing people with patents I'm not really commenting the post, but rather asking if this blog is going to make a comeback
at 01/09/2018 03:46 AM by Anonymous
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