----------
"If patents for inventions were part of the free
market, to make and sustain them would not require legislation, constitutions,
bureaucracies, filings, armies of attorneys, and years of litigation." --
Jeffrey Tucker, https://www.fee.org/the_freeman/arena/intellectual-property-rights
Nonoy
Oplas This is simplistic thinking. One, physical assets like cars,
houses, shoes, laptops, etc. are part of the free market, and they require
legislation, constitution, bureaucracies.. And so IPRs are also part of the
free market, they are property rights that need respect and enforcement.
Two, private property rights can be enforced by the private sector or civil society, with or without govt penalties. If thieves and shoplifters are caught inside a mall, they are apprehended by private security guards, they can be photographed and their faces plastered in the mall in a wall of shame, other schemes. That is private punishment against violation of private property rights.
The same way, thieves of IPRs like patent, trademark and copyright can be penalized by an industry association, a civil society org. If someone sells burgers wrapped with fake McDo or Burger King wrappers and trademark, and the consumers get good poisoning, who will they sue -- (a) the orig McDo/BK, (b) the IPR thieves like those sellers, or (c) IPR abolitionists like Jeff Tucker? Obviously (a) and (c) will not accept responsibility so (b) must be prosecuted for misleading the public and consumers. If people get food poisoning after consuming food from the orig McDo/BK store, then they can be held accountable. But these companies take care of their trademark so carefully, they can assure the public of 0.00% possibility of food poisoning as they know the consequences of damaged brand and trademark.
IPR abolitionists like Tucker are just simplistic minded.
Nonoy
Oplas There was a case of a local burger shop named “Mang Donalds”
with logo somehow similar to MacDonald. The latter did not like this, so it
sued the former over trademark issue, the former later closed shop, resurfaced
as another food shop with a more unique name and encountered no legal issues,
prospered. IPR forces people to be more unique, more innovative and creative.
IPR abolition favors the lazy, un-imaginative and plain copycatters, http://funwithgovernment.blogspot.com/2011/09/on-intellectual-property-abolition-part_20.html
Stephen
P. Cutler Nice work, Nonoy. These kinds of discussions keep us, as
a nation, stronger. So many of us are intellectually lazy and just accept the
ideas of others without question. Or we make personal attacks against the
proponent of the idea,and fail to point out the weakness of that idea. THAT
should be the focus. Thanks, again.
Nonoy
Oplas Thanks Steve. The IPR abolitionists, mostly from the
libertarian anarchists and government abolitionists, do not realize that they
are peddling the culture of laziness and non-innovativeness. If copyright for
songs was not invented, then possibly we will have no Eraserheads, Parokya ni
Edgar, Bamboo, other known Pinoy rock bands. All they have to do is copy the
songs of The Beatles, U2, RollingStones, Bon Jovi, etc., make records, do
concerts as if they were also the composers of those songs. But the copyright
law prohibits them from doing this, they have to pay a royalty to the original
composers, and it can be costly. So instead of copying and being lazy, these
Pinoy rock bands composed and invented their own songs, unique songs, and that
is how they become famous and rich.
IPR abolition, an infantile and simplistic philosophy.
IPR abolition, an infantile and simplistic philosophy.
Nonoy
Oplas Ironically, IPR abolitionists argue that IPR protection is
anti-small business. Weird. Facebook was a nobody before compared to friendster
or yahoo or other early social networking sites. With idea exclusivity, clear
and explicit trademark protection, facebook worked its way up with endless
innovation and creativity. Lazy copy-catters are prevented from free-riding on
facebook's growing popularity. They must invent their own sites and brand. And
that is how other social networks were invented and became popular, like
linkedin, twitter, google+, etc.
If there was no patent and trademark on Walt Disney products like Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, etc., then Elmo, Barney, Barbie, Handy Manny, Dibo, Ipin and Upin, and dozens, or hundreds, of other cartoon characters may not have been invented. Why create new cartoon characters and face market uncertainties when you can be lazy and just copy the existing Mickey Mouse, make separate stories and sell comics and tv programs for a nice profit.
Many of the current "big" businesses used to be small businesses. Only innovation, endless innovation, can propel a business and an idea to success. IPR protection is only a tool for protecting innovative ideas against lazy copy catters.
Perez
Michael Bautista IPR must be reformed. Everything is
interdependent with everything, example: samsung, apple, huawei, etc. etc. uses
the same parts and components, softwares, etc. Technology, Modern Production
and Management practices makes IPR looks like a school girl.
Nonoy
Oplas Hi Mike, IPR reform, yes, but abolition, no. Notice how the
world famous brands in gadgets, appliances, etc. were almost ALL born and
invented in countries where IPR is respected and protected -- US, Canada, UK,
Germany, Japan, S. Korea, Taiwan, etc. Almost nothing came from "all
physical and intellectual properties are owned by the state and the
collective" countries like N. Korea. Even socialist countries like China
and Cuba respect IPRs. Of course there are copycatters in those countries and here
in the PH. That is because those that prospered a lot were innovators, so
copy-catters come to free ride on those products' popularity.
There are other factors that hound and restrain small businesses, usually government taxes and bureaucracies. Not IPR.
There are other factors that hound and restrain small businesses, usually government taxes and bureaucracies. Not IPR.
Perez
Michael Bautista You can't stop people from copying, when top
brands like samsung outsources their designs down to production they are aware
they can easily be copied, and the only one thing that protects their name is:
QUALITY. Sane people can easily identify the genuine from the fakes and get the
best deal out of their money, whereas there are people who sacrifices quality
over price.. IPR can't stop them from themselves.
IPR is about designs, engineering, production.
Bureacrats, politicians hands-off!!! Let the engineers, scientists, designers,
and artist community decide its future. I want to see IPR reformed and looked
like CERN, imagine if we let these politicians operates these large hadron
colliders? End of the world?
Nonoy
Oplas Right, I agree that copying cannot be stopped, and it's part
of human nature. I think what is being prevented or prohibited, is commercial
copying. If I sing Hey Jude in front of drinking friends, no problem, no one
will sue me. If I sing Hey Jude and do records and assuming that I have a good
voice, I can make money and pay no royalty, I can be sued.
As I posted above Mike, property rights can be protected and enforced by the private sector -- through private security agencies, industry associations. A thief caught in a mall is not immediately turned over to the police, but to the mall's security office. They are photographed, shamed and their faces are plastered. Public shame is worse than being sent to prison actually.
McDo or Jollibee can deploy their own private security agencies to clamp down on a fake resto bearing a copycat McDo and Jollibee logo and trademark. The police or the courts can come later. The first question really is IPR need to be protected or not, even by the private sector. The presence of the state is a secondary issue in the debate.
As I posted above Mike, property rights can be protected and enforced by the private sector -- through private security agencies, industry associations. A thief caught in a mall is not immediately turned over to the police, but to the mall's security office. They are photographed, shamed and their faces are plastered. Public shame is worse than being sent to prison actually.
McDo or Jollibee can deploy their own private security agencies to clamp down on a fake resto bearing a copycat McDo and Jollibee logo and trademark. The police or the courts can come later. The first question really is IPR need to be protected or not, even by the private sector. The presence of the state is a secondary issue in the debate.
I authored a book, "Health Choices and
Responsibilities." It's copyrighted. It's up to me whether to share my
book for free or for sale. I opted to share it for free, freely downloadable.
So let the IPR owner decide whether to share his works freely or for a fee. If
people unilaterally dictates that ALL IPR must be shared for free, that is
dictatorship too, don't you think.
Here's a good test for IPR abolitionists. Approach
Parokya, Dong
Abay, Bamboo, Kamikaze, 6 cycle mind, etc. Do not bring the police, the IPR
or any other government bureaucrats. Just go to them as a private individual or
group. Ask them if they are willing to share their songs to other artists for
free, meaning the latter can record for free, do concerts for free, no
royalties to those named and famous rock bands. If they say Yes, well and good.
If they "No, they must pay us a royalty for each song", then respect
it. That is the role played by IPR.
Perez
Michael Bautista Exactly. The presence of a formal state is the
final solution, the issues should be resolved with us the informed citizens
first. I see self-governance is vital on this issues.
Nonoy
Oplas When someone, armed men, steal your car or your house or
farm or computer by force, guns and bombs, you need government (police, the
courts, etc.) to intervene. If you say you don't need government as you can
bring in your friends with guns to get back at those armed criminals, the
criminals will come the next day with plentier men and plentier arms. So there
is need for government to enforce the rule of law.
The same for IPR. If someone will put up a copycat stall of Starbucks, Chowking, McDo, Figaro, etc. the real Starbucks, etc. can swamp on them with armed private guards to close their shops, for violation of trademark and IPR law. If these copycatters respond with armed men too, then government comes in later. So there is need for government to enforce the rule of law.
The same for IPR. If someone will put up a copycat stall of Starbucks, Chowking, McDo, Figaro, etc. the real Starbucks, etc. can swamp on them with armed private guards to close their shops, for violation of trademark and IPR law. If these copycatters respond with armed men too, then government comes in later. So there is need for government to enforce the rule of law.
Dong
Abay Hi Nonoy. "No, they must pay us a royalty for each
song", should be an ideal statement. Will surely like if it will be that
way.
Perez
Michael Bautista It can't happen. You can copy
mcdonalds logo.. recipe.. etc.. but you can't copy the whole production,
logistics and supply chain and the interactions that evolved through time. You
don't need government force on this one, people will be happy to vandal your
fake store anytime because your food made people sick.
Nonoy
Oplas Thanks Dong. Real song inventors like you, you wish to be
recognized for each work that you composed. The same way that you respect other
artists and rock stars, you don't just copy their songs and make money out of
them without paying them a royalty. That is why real inventors want IPR
protection. Lazy "inventors" hate IPR protection. They want easy
money without spending many nights, looking for inspirations, just to compose one
song.
Wrong Mike. You can't also stop McDo, Jollibee, etc. from
using guns and violence against copy-catters of their logo and food processes.
So barilan na lang ng barilan, not good. There is need for government to
enforce the rule of law and protect private property rights. That is called
limited government. Govt need not venture into running banks, casinos, lotto,
etc.
Dong
Abay hirap maging Dong Abay , Nonoy.
Nonoy
Oplas hahaha, I can imagine Dong. Famous stars and their
compositions will be copied. Ok lang if they sing your songs in small parties,
they are helping you popularize your songs. But if they copy your songs and do
records as if they were the "orig composers" because they disrespect
copyright and IPR, then that's the problem.
Perez
Michael Bautista My point is, government will be the last to
arrive on scene after they got all the beatings from strangers.
Dong
Abay it exists.
Nonoy
Oplas Sabi na nga eh. Well, make lemonade out of lemons na lang.
If they copy and record your songs, do concerts out of your songs, no royalty
or even "thank you Dong Abay", they just want quick money out of your
hard work, just take it as a compliment na lang.
Btway Dong, Stephen, permission to quote you. I will blog this exchange. Mike gave permission already
Btway Dong, Stephen, permission to quote you. I will blog this exchange. Mike gave permission already
Perez
Michael Bautista Anyway, choose where you get the most benefit.
Choose IPR if you want to keep your designs in private, private R&D,
private funding. Choose public domain if you want other people to get involved
and improve your work (of course you get the credit). Its more of a cost and
profit strategy other than the political debate or social issues. Befriend an
IPR lawyer know the details.
-----------
There are many good artists who want to simply perform,
and THAT is the pay they want. So they should be able to upload to YouTube, and
let others sing their songs as much as they like. Their choice. But they should
not force everyone to do as they do. Many of us don't have other sources
of income beyond our intellectual output. That is how we feed our families, as
much as the farmer grows and sells crops to feed his. Thus, we should have as
much ability to do that as anyone else. Perez has a point,but it depends on the
kind of work. Writing computer code and so on works in the open source world,
although I generally have no idea who else has contributed and am rarely left
agog at how good an individual is. In other areas, though, asking people to get
involved reduces my work. A Picasso or Manansala with my inputs becomes junk.
Interesting side note about the IPR of the vast majority
of Filipino artists: almost none are protected in any way. Thus, they can be
copied at will by anyone. Sadly, the copiers are not always true to the
original, so that people around the world now see malproportioned figures and
believe our artists are less capable than they are in reality. This is the real
loss to the nation and the artist, putting aside the fact that there is a
monetary loss. See the really well done article in October 2012's ROGUE magazine
at http://rogue.ph/catch-me-if-you-can/2012/10/25/catch-me-if-you-can
See also:
IPR Abolition 14: Mises Group and Anti-IPR Propaganda, April 19, 2012
On IPR Abolition 15: Motorcycle Patents, June 13, 2012
On IPR abolition 16: Debate with Teddy Boy Locsin, August 24, 2012
On IPR Abolition 17: Copyright by a Government Corporation, September 07, 2013
IPR and Medicines 26: Novartis' Glivec and India's IPR Ruling, April 01, 2013,
IPR and Medicines 27: More on Glivec and India's SC Decision, April 02, 2013
IPR and Medicines 27: More on Glivec and India's SC Decision, April 02, 2013
No comments:
Post a Comment