>>3450 https://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Intellectual_property https://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Without_Intellectual_Property

>>3451 This is an argument from a single source. I was referring to counter-arguments, though I guess I'm the fool for expecting anything else from an echo-chamber board a la /leftypol/, /fascist/ and others.

>>3455 I find this funny enough that I have to ask, are you legitimately trying to be sarcastic and point out how little effort goes on in internet discussions? Or do you actually feel that way after one reply that only gave you two links so far. In the rare case it's the former, listen, if you're secretly a pro-IP person and you wanted to have a debate under the guise of "I'm just genuinely curious :^)" you'll want to hold that response for at least a few replies in. JFC. You can't say, "What a goddam echo chamber!" after two links and a single reply. Now nobody will trust you and you're going to have a much more difficult time at getting any decent reply as everyone will definitely want to shitpost. Also, those are Wiki articles, not one-off Mises.org articles, which means if you scroll to the bottom, you could have scoped out all the references yourself.

>>3457 I could definitely see a link between trademarks and laws against fraud.

>>3457 That reminds me of IT/Programming work even if not open source. You hire your dev, they make (i.e.invent) some cool shit. If you don't want him to leave you keep paying him.

>>3450 It's just plain bad even for regular inventions. The first steam engine was a pain in the ass, broke often, and everybody and their grandma created fixes or even better steam engines, but couldn't sell them because they'd get jumped on. By the time Watts' patent expired, steam engine tech jumped several levels immediately as everyone fixed the stupid shit.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lqDNeADXfCQ This episode of the scottish liberty podcast with Kinsella will tell you a lot.

>>3450 Even without copyright laws, I can see publishers requiring customers to sign contracts not to redistribute their works.

>>3469 I agree that something copyright-esque could be achieved through contracts (at least for certain types of "IP", like software via licenses, or, perhaps, a piece of art kept inside a museum). But a decent amount of libertarians seem to be arguing entirely from the perspective that such agreements would either be nonexistent or ineffectual in a libertarian society, and I see no reason for that to be the case. Am I supposed to believe that a libertarian society embraces FOSS just because patent trolls are gone? What is the mechanism for this occurring, and what is preventing it from happening now? Furthermore, has there been any work on how contract law applies to the internet, such as "terms of use" for free websites?

>>3450 Patents don't even make sense these days. The whole point was to submit your invention to the government which would protect your monopoly on its distribution for a certain amount of time before becoming available for general usage. National governments are now unable to enforce that -- the worst example being the relationship between China and the US, in which China does not recognize Western patents in practice and therefore an inventor in the States or elsewhere will have their design stolen and cloned overseas if it's of any value. Trade secrets are coming back, for better or for worse.

>>3551 >Am I supposed to believe that a libertarian society embraces FOSS just because patent trolls are gone? I've been thinking about that a lot lately. Even if copyright-esque contracts won't become a thing in a libertarian society, software developers and publishers would still not be obligated to release source code with their programs. I guess if someone is dedicated enough, they could try to decompile/disassemble the software and fork it that way just like what we saw with the PC port of Super Mario 64, but I'm not sure if there are enough people who are skilled/dedicated enough to do that as decompiled code is much harder to read than original source code. However, I think as a result, more universities would add reverse engineering classes to their computer science majors since there would be more job demand for them. And at least with the absent of patent trolls, proprietary formats like MP3 would be a thing of the past and anyone would be free to use them without paying royalties. >Furthermore, has there been any work on how contract law applies to the internet, such as "terms of use" for free websites? I remember hearing that unless the site makes the terms of service clear (i.e linking to it on the account registration page and not just having it tucked away in the website's footer) and their is proof that you acknowledge your agreement (like having a user account on the sites database or your IP address in the server logs), the ToS means jack shit. Same with EULAs for software, unless you have an agreement form on the installation wizard or on the program's download page, it doesn't really apply.

>>3458 A trademark is just a signature. Trademarks would be enforceable for the same reason plagiarism claims would be enforceable. Other IP, namely copyright and patent law, however, is not enforceable.

>>3551 So I've been thinking about this and the counterargument came to me in the shower. It's pretty obvious in hindsight, but still. Such copyright-esque contracts would likely prove to be too restrictive to appeal to the consumer. It would be like licensing someone an art installation for their house on the condition that people other than the purchaser not be allowed to view it, or more generally, licensing someone use of a ball but only if he/she can continually juggle it. If someone wants art for other people to see, such agreements cannot be too restrictive. In the case of software, for example, a contract might say that you can't disassemble the software, but it would not prevent someone from replicating the general functionality/certain ideas from the software.

>>3570 >Trademarks would be enforceable for the same reason plagiarism claims would be enforceable. To an extent, yes. But there are aspects of trademarks that are bullshit such as a brand name takeover (e.g. Kleenex for tissue or Jet-Ski for personal watercraft). Claiming to be a brand or company is clearly fraud, but someone whose last name happens to be McDonald shouldn't be prohibited from starting a business that is unrelated to fast-food using his family name. >>3636 I get your point, but most people have been accustomed to our current copyright system, so copyright-esque contracts probably wouldn't seem restrictive to them, and most people don't even bother reading EULAs to software anyway, so they would probably not even bother reading such contracts. The only solution that I know of to prevent these copyright-like contracts from happening is to have content creators realize that piracy doesn't hurt sales and copyright really only benefits publishers and record companies which are no longer needed and are screwing them over. Indie game companies are slowly realizing this.

>>3641 Copyright is intellectually bankrupt. What is more important, that your work is seen or that you get a dollar from it? Some of the greatest works have been put into the world for free, and anonymously, because if you believe in the power of the truth, the financial gain is no object to you. I feel that part of freeing the world from the banking system is also to free individuals from the grip that pecuniary matters have on their creative expression. So much in media is made these days just for sales and not for soul.

>>3643 Well most creators can't create for free while also working a job even if it is part-time. I unironically thought that tipping sites like Patreon would allow these artists to work full-time while allowing their fans to share and redistribute their work but look at how that has been abused.

>>3644 There's a reason starving artists became a cliche. Many a great artist had a tragic and turbulent life. The others were sponsored by great patrons. Whether by desperation or by license both these scenarios drove individuals to create to express the depths of their personhood. Art as a means of life is fundamentally unsustainable, because each piece is not fungible. Perhaps the best scenario then would be for them to enter into an insurance arrangement so that they would provide for each other's needs in times of destitution.

>>3641 One question here is whether it is permissible to hold someone to the terms of a contract that they haven't actually read, e.g. fine print.

>>3755 Also I think the issue is with the current system, in some cases, you aren't given a choice. Copyright protection exists by default without any explicit contractual delineation and if you make a derivative work of someone's work then they can just ex post facto declare you a violator of copyright despite you quite possibly not even having talked to that person at all, much less agreeing to the terms of any contract. Given fhe choice between paying for a song that allows you to write covers or paying for one that doesn't, or a comic or TV show that allows you to create derivative works involving its characters, which would consumers choose?

One of the implicit assumptions in this discussion is that if someone copies an artist's art, it's basically impossible to prove who was the originator. NFT might change that. https://ethereum.org/en/nft/ https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-721

>>4377 Honestly, I don't care if I don't get credit for my work. Just look at all the inventions out there that are wrongly credited.

Everything is illegal, everyone is a criminal, everyone is under surveillance 24/7, and no one cares. Living in a police state means that you must live in dread of being arrested. You can't help feeling hopeless.