Intellectual Property: Is it a necessity?

[Tahuti]

With SOPA, PIPA and now, ACTA, it seems like a reasonable question to ask.

 

[wolfigor]

this is really a long discussion...
however in short I would say that some form of intellectual property regulation is necessary (especially in modern economy) however the current system for protection of intellectual property is completely broken and not matching the needs of modern economy and technology.

 

[Tee Kay]

Intellectual property IMHIO is most important to protect the creator as the creator of a work ie no one else can claim it as theirs, ever (though the creator may or may not profit from the work). However the system is reformed, this has to be paramount.

 

[Kyriakos]

I agree that some degree of copyright has to be kept, to disallow dutch screen-writers from reproducing greek short stories protect the creator. I know i would hate to see my published stories circulating somewhere under another person's name- even more so if that other person is not some split personality of myself

 

[Leoreth]

Intellectual property IMHIO is most important to protect the creator as the creator of a work ie no one else can claim it as theirs, ever (though the creator may or may not profit from the work). However the system is reformed, this has to be paramount.

What I was about to say.

The current system isn't even very good at that, of course.

 

[Tee Kay]

I know i would hate to see my published stories circulating somewhere under another person's name- even more so if that other person is not some split personality of myself

Oh yeah, that sucks. I think of these kind of people like I think of burglars who physically break into my house.

Also, shouldn't the poll be multiple choice?

 

[Traitorfish]

I'm going to be tediously predictable here and answer: la propriété, c'est le vol.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Yeah. It would suck to devote years of research and billions of dollars on a drug only to find competitors can sell your compound without having the same costs as you. Kind of a negative incentive to drug development, isn't it?

You guys didn't forget that intellectual property isn't just artistic works and entertainment, right?

 

[Save_Ferris]

Am I the only one who doesn't know what this is?

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

I'm going to be tediously predictable here and answer: la propriété, c'est le vol.

Well when I noticed that you were the last to post.....but you mixed it up nicely with the French

 

[Monsterzuma]

there are better ways to incentivize innovation than to create artificial scarcity. even tax funded public investment in innovation industries makes more sense.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Sure it is neccesarry. In a world governed by individual self-interests und universal competition, its abolishment would be madness.
However, I am open to approaches that allow non-profit use of intellectual property even without the owners permission. Oh and copyrights need to be shorter in time.
@Monsterzuma
Like?
Public investment makes more sense all by itself? Please, how do you imagine that?

 

[Monsterzuma]

Sure it is neccesarry. In a world governed by individual self-interests und universal competition, its abolishment would be madness.
However, I am open to approaches that allow non-profit use of intellectual property even without the owners permission. Oh and copyrights need to be shorter in time.
@Monsterzuma
Like?
Public investment makes more sense all by itself? Please, how do you imagine that?

I'm not an expert on it, but this articles by Dean Baker should help illuminate the issue:
http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue32/Baker32.htm

This silence would be justified if there were no alternative mechanisms available to support the bio-medical research that leads to the development of new drugs. However, there are alternatives and they already exist. The most obvious alternative is direct government funding of drug research.3 This already occurs on a massive scale. In fact, the $30 billion that the United States federal government pays each year to support bio-medical research at its National Institutes of Health (NIH) is approximately 20 percent larger than the $25 billion that its pharmaceutical industry claims to spend on research. While this research is primarily directed towards more basic science (in order not to interfere with the efforts of the drug industry), there are many instances of new drugs being developed almost entirely through NIH support. It also requires some extraordinary claims about epistemology to argue that public funding of NIH is an efficient mechanism for supporting basic research (a contention strongly supported by the pharmaceutical industry), but somehow would prove to be a boondoggle if the agency took on the responsibility of developing new drugs and bringing them through the FDA approval process.

The basic numbers are very striking. If drug prices in the United States were to fall by 70 percent in the absence of patent protection, it would amount to savings of more than $140 billion a year, given 2005 spending levels. This is almost six times as much as the industry claims it is currently spending on research. Since half of this money may go to research copycat drugs of little social value, the savings from eliminating drug patents in the United States may be more than 10 times as large as the spending necessary to replace the useful research performed by the pharmaceutical industry.

 

[Mise]

In some industries, yes; in others, not so much. It's about balancing the competing interests of the public: cheaper existing products vs more investment in new products.

 

[Traitorfish]

Sure it is neccesarry. In a world governed by individual self-interests und universal competition...

http://forums.civfanatics.com/downloads.php

 

[rollo1066]

Inventor or author should be entitled to some compensation (a reasonable royalty) when others use their work. Generally shouldn't be able to enjoin others from using it. Maybe copyright durration is too long (less sure on this).

 

[Zelig]

Yes, people are too stupid and dishonest to operate well without IP laws and rights.

However the current setup allows the dishonest people to take advantage of the stupid people using the IP laws.

Also this:

this is really a long discussion...
however in short I would say that some form of intellectual property regulation is necessary (especially in modern economy) however the current system for protection of intellectual property is completely broken and not matching the needs of modern economy and technology.

and this:

In some industries, yes; in others, not so much. It's about balancing the competing interests of the public: cheaper existing products vs more investment in new products.

 

[Traitorfish]

Yes, people are too stupid and dishonest to operate well without IP laws and rights.

But apparently smart and honest enough to support its continued existence? What a fascinatingly contrary anthropology you have.

 

[mrt144]

IP has turned into rent-seeking.

 

[Zelig]

But apparently smart and honest enough to support its continued existence?

I don't see the implication here.

What a fascinatingly contrary anthropology you have.

I don't see the connection here.