Copyrights and patents

[malavel]

What's Ron Pauls take on copyright and patent laws?

 

[johngr]

They are not consistent with the non-aggression principle.

 

[malavel]

They are not consistent with the non-aggression principle.

So he wants to remove copyright and patent laws?

 

[Kregener]

A quick search of the Constitution reveals only this:

Section 8:

"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;"

I believe the current protection 7 years.

Of course, that has not stopped China, a preferred U.S. trading partner, from becoming the largest goods and ideas pirate on the planet.

 

[Cjays]

I believe the current protection 7 years.

A little longer:

How Long Copyright Protection Endures

Works Originally Created on or after January 1, 1978

A work that was created (fixed in tangible form for the first time) on or after January 1, 1978, is automatically protected from the moment of its creation and is ordinarily given a term enduring for the author’s life plus an additional 70 years after the author’s death. In the case of “a joint work prepared by two or more authors who did not work for hire,” the term lasts for 70 years after the last surviving author’s death. For works made for hire, and for anonymous and pseudonymous works (unless the author’s identity is revealed in Copyright Office records), the duration of copyright will be 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter.

(from http://www.copyright.gov/)

I'm hoping RP looks at IP the same as physical property (as much as possible).

 

[malavel]

Kregener: I don't know why China should be stopped by the US constitution.

But it seems like copyright and patent law isn't a big issue in the US elections. I googled it and found nothing by RP on that.

 

[malavel]

I'm hoping RP looks at IP the same as physical property (as much as possible).

I'm hoping for the opposite, that he would like to get rid of those laws.

 

[Matt Collins]

But it seems like copyright and patent law isn't a big issue in the US elections. I googled it and found nothing by RP on that.

Yeah it's kind of a nerdy issue (more so than normal) and MOST people don't understand copyright so it doesn't get discussed.

 

[Cjays]

I'm hoping for the opposite, that he would like to get rid of those laws.

Nobody's entitled to anyone's intellectual property, just they're not entitled to physical property. The owner can choose to do with their creations as they wish. If they want to put something in the public domain (like a lot of software developers do), then more power to them. It's their choice, but would be against the principles of Liberty to force a person to give up their property or not give them the legal means to protect it. This applies to both physical and intellectual property. Inventors, artists, musicians, etc. are under no inherent obligations to society. I have a background in photography and I've moved on into software development, so this issue hits home with me. I resent anyone who thinks they're entitled to my work.

Now, I would agree with anyone who says the current system has not kept up with technology, and thus outdated and not realistic, but as someone already pointed out, Congress is obligated to supply some form of IP protection. I think people like the RIAA are dinosaurs who represent other dinosaurs. The big meteor is on it's way and they know it. In the case of music, it's almost to the point where musicians don't have to sign anything over to record companies to get their work out. Crappy commercial acts maybe, but not everyone.

 

[Matt Collins]

Unlike real property rights (or natural rights), intellectual property rights are ENTIRELY a creation of the federal government. Congress could abolish all patents, copyrights, and trademarks tomorrow if they wanted to.

 

[Kregener]

If a person cannot be afforded some protection of his inventions, why would he bother to invent?

A patent for an invention is the grant of a property right to the inventor, issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Generally, the term of a new patent is 20 years from the date on which the application for the patent was filed in the United States or, in special cases, from the date an earlier related application was filed, subject to the payment of maintenance fees. U.S. patent grants are effective only within the United States, U.S. territories, and U.S. possessions. Under certain circumstances, patent term extensions or adjustments may be available.

The right conferred by the patent grant is, in the language of the statute and of the grant itself, “the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling” the invention in the United States or “importing” the invention into the United States. What is granted is not the right to make, use, offer for sale, sell or import, but the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, selling or importing the invention. Once a patent is issued, the patentee must enforce the patent without aid of the USPTO.

There are three types of patents:

1) Utility patents may be granted to anyone who invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof;

2) Design patents may be granted to anyone who invents a new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture; and

3) Plant patents may be granted to anyone who invents or discovers and asexually reproduces any distinct and new variety of plant.

United States Patent and Trademark Office

 

[Matt Collins]

If a person cannot be afforded some protection of his inventions, why would he bother to invent?

I completely agree

 

[foofighter20x]

I know for fact that were I to spend $100K making an Oscar-worthy independent film that I knew would go straight to pirated digital media--meaning I'd never see a dime for my efforts on that film--I'd be VERY hesitant to make it.

 

[Corydoras]

Upshot, IP is a constitutional concept.

However, he does have a comment on patents in relation to medications:
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=325

"The Food and Drug Administration is also directly responsible for high drug costs. Pharmaceutical companies spend hundreds of millions of dollars to bring a single drug to market because of FDA rules. Often FDA approval is never obtained, no matter how much a company spends developing a drug. So pharmaceutical makers naturally try to recoup their huge investments by charging high prices and lobbying to keep exclusive drug patent periods as lengthy as possible. We need to understand that the FDA does far more harm than good, both in terms of drug prices and the incalculable chilling effect it has on needed drug research. With less FDA interference, patents could be shortened and drug development costs reduced. This would allow greater price competition between drug companies."

 

[johngr]

Nobody's entitled to anyone's intellectual property, just they're not entitled to physical property. The owner can choose to do with their creations as they wish. If they want to put something in the public domain (like a lot of software developers do), then more power to them. It's their choice, but would be against the principles of Liberty to force a person to give up their property or not give them the legal means to protect it. This applies to both physical and intellectual property. Inventors, artists, musicians, etc. are under no inherent obligations to society. I have a background in photography and I've moved on into software development, so this issue hits home with me. I resent anyone who thinks they're entitled to my work.

Now, I would agree with anyone who says the current system has not kept up with technology, and thus outdated and not realistic, but as someone already pointed out, Congress is obligated to supply some form of IP protection. I think people like the RIAA are dinosaurs who represent other dinosaurs. The big meteor is on it's way and they know it. In the case of music, it's almost to the point where musicians don't have to sign anything over to record companies to get their work out. Crappy commercial acts maybe, but not everyone.

Noone who doesn't have a contract with me should not be able to force me to do or not do whatever I see fit with my property so long as I don't use it forcefully or fraudulently against another.

 

[freedominnumbers]

Here's another side to the issue.

How many people have you heard claim they thought of the fax machine.
Let's say you invent something. You decide you want to keep the device private so that only you can make it.

Now another intelligent gent comes along and without ever seeing or stealing your designs re-invents the same device. It seems to me that the device, or more accurately knowledge of the construction and workings of the device, now belong to you both since you both created it, albeit one later than the other without any sort of collusion.

I don't see how you can deny the second man's intellectual property rights simply because someone else thought of it first when he designed and built it without knowledge of the first creators concept.

 

[Nefertiti]

There was a time when there were no copyright laws-but manuscripts had to be copied by hand-a labor intensive process that wasn't financially rewarding.

There was a time when there were no patent laws-but manufacturing was a by hand process-now we have factories that can mass produce things.

In this day and age, knowledge and processes have financial value and therefore the long copyright periods and patents.

However, we are entering an age that makes it harder to protect these rights. It's too easy to copy things and spread them via the internet. The financial rewards of music, books, software is dropping. Ironically, musicians are making less money off of albums and going back to how they made money in the old days, live concerts.

In fact, development in technology is making the old ways more profitable compared to the new ways.

We definitely are at a point in time where the old laws aren't really working anymore. But what should replace them? That's the big question.

 

[Cjays]

Noone who doesn't have a contract with me should not be able to force me to do or not do whatever I see fit with my property so long as I don't use it forcefully or fraudulently against another.

If you purchase software, for instance, you agree to the end user licensing agreement (whether you read those or not is your responsibility), which should state something about the limitations you agree to. Even open source software comes with a contract. In the case of physical media -- music, art, movies, printed material, etc -- you may own a physical product that you can do what you want with, but you don't have rights to the intellectual property. If some pirate somewhere is foolish enough to draw enough attention to himself, then the powers that be are going to attempt legal action.

 

[ChrisM]

The Constitution grants the Federal government the right to grant patents and trademarks, so therefore, there's nothing really to argue here.

 

[Matt Collins]

I don't see how you can deny the second man's intellectual property rights simply because someone else thought of it first when he designed and built it without knowledge of the first creators concept.

It's simple. "intellectual property rights" are not natural rights. In fact they are a creation of the (federal) government and they are optional according to the Constitution. Therefore they can do whatever they want with them. I personally have opinions on what they should do with them, but there is no one right answer really.