copyright1

STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
Remove Intellectual Property Rights – Patents and Copyright – to Enhance Prosperity
By Daily Bell Staff - August 10, 2016

UK & EU Shut Out 3D Printing Community … It’s amazing what an eruption Brexit had in the headlines, only to be superseded by worse things in the news shortly after … What an interesting law they have chosen to pass. -3DPrint

The disease of government is like an ineradicable plague that sickens without ceasing. Now patent and copyright law have been extending in the UK and EU.

Why should we pay to provide you the privilege of exclusivity? Especially when we are well aware that only a relative few benefit substantially from intellectual property rights.

Musicians don’t benefit from these laws for the most part, though the record companies do. Authors don’t benefit from these laws for the most part, thought their publishers do.

As for inventors generally, would they really cease to tinker if they couldn’t patent their inventions? And don’t certain businesses routinely copy inventions with minor changes that circumvent patents and allow for duplication anyway?

The late, departed musician known as Prince was obsessed with “ownership” of his music. Ironic¡ally, many of his productions disappeared into a vault and have yet to be publicly presented. Turns out in his later years, he earned a good deal of income from public performances..

It is no coincidence that copyright began after the advent of the Gutenberg Press.  As Wikipedia informs us, “The origin of copyright law in most European countries lies in efforts by the church and governments to regulate and control the output of printers.”

It never had much to do with enforcing YOUR property rights so much as ensuring that princes and churchmen were  not overly inconvenienced by new ideas that might threaten their power, control and wealth.

Britain had strong copyright, Germany weaker, post-Gutenberg.  German intellectual vitality was apparently aided by the  free flow of information, HERE.

In fact, it can even be argued that German advances were perceived as threatening by London’s banking “City,” which  helped launch two world wars to reduce a German Power that in part was product of laissez-faire.

More from 3D Print:

Now, following the EU, [the UK has] modified a copyright-and-patent monopoly law so that it extends its reach to the realm of furniture as well, including this traditional design industry within the law. And not only that—this is meant to hold for a century! A major impact to be considered here is that it directly affects makers in the UK, who will not be able to employ 3D printing in the manufacturing of some items. And right-o, not for a hundred years, at least.

This moves furniture out of the design patent arena and into the jurisdiction of copyright law, allowing for the lifetime of this decree on a particular design to last 25 years retroactively from the inception of its marketing to 70 years after the death of the creator. This is a pretty extreme way to kick out knock-off designers, but more so—it truly shuts out the creative maker community, not exactly known for creating sweatshops and employing the downtrodden to mass produce shoddy imitations.

The point here is twofold, we’re told.

The law actually extends the monopoly term backwards by 25 years. Designs once in the public domain are now removed.  This also apparently removes the rights of current intellectual property owners who created products based on previous law.

Second, under previous law one was able to build a product for one’s use and enjoyment. Apparently now you can be subject to prosecution if the designs of your home-based product are too close to a commercial application.

Here’s our suggestion: If you want to preserve your right to your intellectual property, pay for it yourself. Confront people and corporations as you choose. Create solutions that engage others in your community and, perhaps, abroad as well. Even solicit funds to perpetuate and enforce your “rights.” Preferably this would be accomplished within a system of “private” justice rather the increasingly horrible precedent law we have today.

Bottom line: What gives you the right to use a civil and criminal judicial system paid for by others to benefit your propriety creativity? Who exactly has decided, in perpetuity, that because YOU created something, no one else can create something similar or elaborate on it without expensive litigation?

Libertarian lawyer Stephen Kinsella has made the removal of certain kinds of intellectual property “rights” a personal crusade. Below, HERE, is a partial list of gadgets that according to an 18th century Supreme Court decision “had no place in the constitutional scheme of advancing scientific knowledge.” (HERE)

  • rubber caps put on wood pencils to serve as erasers
  • inserting a piece of rubber in a slot in the end of a wood pencil to serve as an eraser
  • a stamp for impressing initials in the side of a plug of tobacco
  • putting rollers on a machine to make it movable
  • using flat cord instead of round cord for the loop at the end of suspenders
  • placing rubber hand grips on bicycle handlebars
  • an oval rather than cylindrical toilet paper roll, to facilitate tearing off strips

And the Court commented HERE:

It was never the object of [intellectual property]  laws to grant a monopoly for every trifling device, every shadow of a shade of an idea, which would naturally and spontaneously occur to any skilled mechanic or operator in the ordinary progress of manufactures. Such an indiscriminate creation of exclusive privileges tends rather to obstruct than to stimulate invention.

We have often pointed out (for example, HERE and HERE) that three main supports of modern multi-national corporatism are intellectual property rights, corporate person-hood and monopoly central banking.

We are not fans of the emerging corporate and technocratic globalism and believe all three of these judicially mandated privileges ought to be considerably reduced or preferably removed.

The modern world has little to do with “capitalism” and much to do with government enforcement of Gargantuan facilities that would not exist without the support of state power.

People send all their lives laboring in horrible, meaningless facilities, thinking they are the result of free-markets when they are not. Thomas Jefferson in particular foresaw the potential rise of corporatism and with other Founders attempted to reduce its danger by handing corporate control to states. Obviously, that plan has gone awry.

Conclusion: Normal people do not benefit much from intellectual property rights, though their taxes pay for both creation and enforcement. If the entire state-supported intellectual rights apparatus were removed, it is likely, in our view, that most people would see choices expanded and prosperity enhanced.

Updated.

Tagged with:
Posted in STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
  • stevor

    sure, so you can STEAL something that somebody spent THOUSANDS OF HOURS dreaming up and creating? Obviously proposed by a COMMIE!

    • Again with the idea that if you “invent” something first, the government will step in to ensure your payday almost into perpetuity. You call that a free-market function?

      • SnakePlissken

        It’s not perpetuity. It’s only 20 years.

        • mary

          20 years??? Did you ever hear of the Mickey Mouse law? If it were 10 minutes, it’s still government coercion and a subsidy at the expense of the rest of us.

          In the information age, information has become free, including bad novels. Get over it.

          • mary

            BTW, Snake, shouldn’t you be paying John Carpenter for using his character’s name, hmmm?

          • Samarami

            I’m going to use Mary’s adroit comment for a response, and use (re)wording from an article that originally appeared in DB some years ago ( http://www.thedailybell.com/3939/VIDEO-17-Year-Old-Honor-Student-Jailed-for-Missing-School — the link no longer works due to an expired video that was attached to the article):

            Monopoly “justice” is never unbiased.

            When those feeding from a common
            nosebag

            · Make laws,
            · Enforce laws,
            · Prosecute laws,
            · Hire prosecutors,
            · License “defense” attorneys,
            · Pay “judges”,
            · Build jails,
            · Contract jails out to private entities,
            · Employ and pay wardens,
            · Employ and pay guards,
            · Employ and pay parole officers,

            You’re dealing with tyranny – not “…an
            unbiased system…”

            Sam

          • Thanks.

  • Ron B. Saunders

    Am I missing something here? Do you really mean there should be no copyright protection?
    I make my living writing. I am currently finishing a novel that took me thousands of hours to research, outline, draft multiple times, and spend thousands of dollars on location scouting, editing, and design services. It will cost me thousands more to market it.
    Are you saying I should release it to the public domain, knowing that once it is selling and generating revenue anyone else can copy and republish it, much cheaper than I can because they bear no creative, design or publishing expenses? They would do so with zero risk, because I removed it for them through my creativity, labor, and start-up funding.
    Your conclusion is complete insanity. I am a “normal people,” and I benefit immensely through intellectual property rights. My taxes also pay for public infrastructure, law enforcement, social services, schools/universities, etc., etc., all of which have benefit for the common good (although I agree governments misuse/abuse their power). To not protect those who have the fortitude to take a risk and do something creative, humanitarian, consciousness-raising, and valuable to others would be tantamount to an extreme form of socialism.
    Please, Daily Bell, either set me straight or clarify your position. I follow your commentary enthusiastically, however, my finger hovers over the “unsubscribe” button.

    • mary

      it is not insanity. It’s the way it should be. Generations past did not have these monopoly privileges bestowed at the public’s expense. If you want “protection” pay for it yourself.

      Btw, why are you asking the DB to spoon feed you about the abuses of intellectual property–which is neither intellectual nor property. Point your search engine to Stephen Kinsella and figure it out for yourself.

      • Ron B. Saunders

        Spoken like a true socialist. My literary work is MY property. Just like my home, or car is MY property. Your position is no different than if I forced you out of your clear-title house saying, “You’ve lived here long enough, now it’s somebody else’s turn. So bugger off.”

        • You don’t own your house if you live in the US. Nor do you own your car. Try not paying your taxes or driver’s insurance, Try driving without a license. Please open your eyes.

          • Ron B. Saunders

            I don’t live in the US. To the extent I can legally claim my property to be mine, I do, and the courts respect that. I agree most people are blind. My eyes are open just as wide as yours, see my other reply.

          • AtlasAikido

            Re: ‘I agree most people are blind. My eyes are open just as wide as yours, see my other reply.’

            Lol…

        • mary

          I’m not a socialist in any sense of the word. As I said, read Kinsella and you will find the moral, legal, economic and practical arguments against IP. I can’t present it all in the comment section, but it has to do with the original intent which was to control the dissemination of information, the fact that ideas are neither scarce nor rivalrous and the fact that the ip laws are arbitrary.

          Yours is the socialist position, since you want the rest of society to pay to protect your claims, i.e. private gain for you at our expense.

          Btw, something tells me that i wouldn’t be the least interested in your “literary” work.

          • Ron B. Saunders

            Sure you are, mary. A socialist is one who denies the property rights of individuals. Intellectual property is just as much property as your house or business assets are. The property rights of an individual are fundamental to his freedom, free market operation, and true capitalism. When an individual loses his property rights, they default to the state. You’ve just defined communism, and we all know how that worked out.
            Have you ever driven down a highway and crossed a bridge? Do you, or have you attended a public school? Travelled through an airport or train station? Enjoyed a library? Medical clinic or hospital? Museum? Hiked a national park? My tax dollars support your lifestyle and amenities to a far greater extent than yours contribute to copyright legislation and enforcement. Copyright is civil law. If I wish to protect my copyright, I’m required to do so at my expense, not yours. Why should I be required to support your quality of life and property rights, when you seem so intent to strip me of mine?
            Your reference to Stephen Kinsella is sadly hypocritical. He has published many books. Read the title page overleaf of any of them. Ah, the good professor claims his copyright! He even “asserts his moral right.” You can bet the Irish public debt that if I plagiarized or republished his work (his ideas) without permission, he would scream bloody murder and gratefully use the public-funded court system to defend his copyright. Unbelievable.
            As for your “Btw” insult … ouch! You hurt my feelings. Nasty mary, so rude.

          • You are leaving out the issue of private justice. Let’s discuss it from that point of view … When a person claims a piece of land in an environment supported by private justice, he will usually claim what he can protect and defend. He won’t claim the whole forest. Only governments do that. Similarly, if you want to publish or create something and then defend it, make arrangements to do so as best you can, absent public enforcement of your “rights.” That’s how it would work in a free society, absent government enforcement of patent and in some cases copyright. Ideally, there would be third-party solutions available to you but the government has crowded them out.

          • Ron B. Saunders

            Okay, let’s discuss the “private justice” POV. Your analogy of a person claiming a piece of land and committing to its defense is archaic. Years ago, when such defense of individual property rights was common and necessary as new territories developed, you were just as likely to get killed by someone who had more guns and lackeys than you. Today, we uphold a more civilized approach where we (society) agree that a certain degree of state support of property rights is appropriate for the common good. Otherwise, risk-taking is suppressed, mob rule prevails, anarchy rules, and society fails. Basic justice, as commonly agreed to through democratic representation, is fundamental to orderly advancement of civilization.

            How is me wishing to copyright protect my publications claiming “the whole forest?” If a person saves his money, buys an acre of forest, clears it, plants it, harvests it, and profits by it, he deserves his rewards. Laws grant him that right, and society provides mechanisms for his rightful protection. It is no different with publishing a book. That’s my little acre. I created it, invested in it, and lay claim to it. Without copyright protection, my creation is thrust into the public domain, where I must solely defend it. In today’s digital world, that would be impossible. To suggest otherwise is irresponsible. No one would ever write another book, share ideas, employ literature to propose change, or seek to enlighten others through written word.

            All the “third-party solutions” claptrap that you and other commentators prattle on about is wishful idealism. You make no practical proposal for an alternative. You propose total lawlessness. You can’t have some people enjoying property rights, and not others. A free society must balance its freedom ideals with the requirement for efficient operation and civil order. What do you mean by “in some cases copyright”? Are you hedging? Where I believe we share common ground is the egregious overreach of modern governments. That is undeniable, but don’t trod down individuals who practice their chosen profession in your rush to achieve no government.

            Here’s an idea. March into Anthony Wile’s office and tell him you told me it’s okay to compile every piece of commentary he’s published into a collected works. I’ll claim authorship, and sell it for profit. Then, I’ll re-publish every book he’s written, sex up the covers, claim them as my work, promote them, and make a killing. After all, that’s what you open the door to. Ha! He would push the hot button to his lawyer before you can pick yourself off the floor.

          • Anthony Wile is no longer involved in The Daily Bell. You have rebutted a theoretical suggestion on improving the current dysfunctional and destructive system with another peroration on why removal of current practices might negatively affect your prospects. To place large issues in a personal context makes a logical discussion difficult.

          • Ron B. Saunders

            Bafflegab. Deflection. Evasion. I use myself as a typical example of many tens of millions of writers in the western world who make a living by informing, entertaining, and protesting with the written word. How large of a context do you need to accept my rebuttal? Don’t justify your position to me. Answer to them. Respond to my argument, or lose all credibility.

            Your “theoretical suggestion” risks more dysfunction and destruction than the existing system.

            Reach out to your journalism brothers. Authors, reporters, analysts, commentators, and tell them they are about to lose all copyright protection. That’ll get you invited back to the Christmas party.

            Hey, you still have Tony’s phone number. Give him a call and tell him he’s about to work in an environment which grants him zero copyright protection. You’ll make his day.

          • We’ve responded credibly to your argument on numerous occasions now. We think the current system is a disaster. We wish to do away with it. We would like to see a private, informal system replace it that would actually function. Since the current system remains in force, you have no reason to be concerned.

          • Ron B. Saunders

            Ah, we find some common ground. Despite our philosophical differences, you are correct. The current system, with all its warts, won’t soon disappear. Time to sign-off.

            Thanks for the opportunity to express my views, DB. I wish you well.

          • Oh, well, if you’re going to act like that, we’d urge you to drop by again soon. Perhaps you’ll find other topics to comment on …

          • Ron B. Saunders

            I’m sorry, do I misunderstand your nuance? Act like what? I’m trying to conclude this conversation with as much civility as possible under the circumstances, and you continue with a prod. Again, I wish you well.

          • We were simply trying to invite you back in a humorous way. We appreciated your response. Sorry if it wasn’t clear. Come back any time.

          • Ron B. Saunders

            Oh, yes. Humor is good. Sorry for being defensive. Thanks for the invitation.

          • AtlasAikido

            Re: ‘As for your “Btw” insult … ouch! You hurt my feelings. Nasty mary, so rude’.

            Spoken like a true Social Justice Warrior…

    • You want fedgov to enforce your rights universally. But the system is breaking down. In the case of the US, the nation is perpetually at war abroad and dysfunctional at home. The derivatives market is something like one-thousand TRILLION dollars and spiraling into chaos along with other financial markets. Most Americans have perhaps two weeks savings between them and penury. The patent system itself is lousy with contradictions and only the largest corporations, for the most part, can sustain an industrial advantage. And soon, with consolidation, there will only be one or two corporations anyway.

      You must know that top officials around the world increasingly call for a debt jubilee because there is no way that sovereign, industrial and consumer debt can be paid back. This is not by accident, mind you. The current system is to be made increasingly dysfunctional so that a larger, global system can take its place.

      Your stance that government ought to enforce the exclusivity of your products or services only provides support for these larger ruinous machinations.

      People’s idea nowadays is that they cannot create or make a living without government authoritarianism hovering over their shoulders like a demented angel. There is no concept anymore of negotiation, or any acceptance of the true characteristics of humans, including mimicry, etc.

      Let’s give the current system a few more years or decades to implode,. as it will, as it must. You probably won’t recognize either copyright or patent law at the end of that time. In fact, they are already criminalizing copyright as we can see with the Dotcom case.

      You may believe it is good that the US government has brought its massive machinery to bear on Kim Dotcom. But remember please, there are some six million in various stages of incarceration in the US at any one time. One-third of all young people have reportedly had at least one criminal interaction with police. And we are moving rapidly from criminalization to outright slavery.

      This mania infecting modern, “civilized societies” that government – and only government – can provide rights and desired privileges is not going to last much longer. It is going to end in bloodshed and despair.

      There are PLENTY of ways you can make a living with your creativity and work ethic. But read your response please. You are agitated that you will not be able to put this murderous machine to work on your behalf. In fact, it has already destroyed your country and one day may destroy YOU.

      Be careful what you wish for.

      • Ron B. Saunders

        Wow, nice essay. Or tirade. Look, my novel is about exactly the horrific state of human affairs you describe. I’m trying to wake up people (especially the distracted, lost, young people wandering around chasing Pokemon) to the dangers we face collectively. I don’t take issue with any of the arguments you present, so please don’t waffle and deflect with such a demeaning lecture.

        I also expect a collapse, and I believe it is a planned event leading to singular global domination. But by attacking simple copyright protection for people trying to make a living is the same as presenting a bogeyman to scare your readers. Just like they used to scare us with the communist threat, and continue with the terrorist threat.

        Why would you insult a reader with “Be careful what you wish for”? Gimme a break.

        Want to know what I wish for? Here’s my list:
        -All weapons of destruction must be melted down,
        -All banks must segregate their depository business from their investment business, and be restricted to a two-to-one fractional reserve ratio,
        -Make lobbying and political contributions illegal,
        -Make asset forfeiture illegal,
        -Stop militarizing police,
        -End the war on drugs
        -End the Fed, and all central banks that print money out of thin air,
        -Reintroduce monetary systems backed by hard assets, and have paper notes return to being asset certificates, rather that debt notes,
        -Limit government to the provision of essential services and domestic law enforcement,
        -End military interventionism, expansionism, and empire building,
        -Reduce the tax code to a one hour read,
        -Stop government surveillance of citizens and violations of civil liberties,
        -No more taxpayer bailouts of failed financial institutions,
        -Cancel regulation, other than that which protects the health, security, and welfare of average people,
        -Send banksters to jail for the extreme fraud they commit in monetary/stock/commodity market manipulation,
        -Send politicians to jail for aiding and abetting the corporate/banking/military gangsters that rob our wealth and freedom,
        -Stop torturing people, even bad guys,
        -Cancel legislation that limits full disclosure food labeling,
        -Send pharma executives to jail for permitting the illegal distribution of their narcotic products,
        -Tear down the revolving door that promotes the incestuous career expansion of individuals in government, banking, large corporations, and lobbyists.

        This is my short list, so don’t prattle on at me like I’m an errant child.

        Telling me “You are agitated that you will not be able to put this murderous international machine to work on your behalf” is the same as telling me I should not expect a policeman to stop someone slitting my throat to steal my wallet. It is journalistic sensationalism and The Daily Bell should be ashamed. Your agenda is taking you over the top. Take a pill.

        • We have taken a stand against public policing, so we do not endorse your idea that you should “expect a policeman to stop someone slitting my throat to steal my wallet.”

          In fact …

          1. You likely won’t find a policeman when you need one.

          2. You ought to try to carry a gun to protect yourself, as necessary.

          The second point is a perfect example of what we’re talking about. Try to think first about taking your OWN action. This idea of constantly waiting on a vast bureaucracy to protect your rights and safety only empowers what ought not to be endorsed. Fedgov needs no further power at this point in time.

          • Ron B. Saunders

            I agree that fedgov and the attendant bureaucracy needs to be dramatically curtailed, as my list above demonstrates. I’m not clear what you mean by having a stand against public policing. Do you mean no police at all? No communal enforcement of laws that protect my physical security and property rights? Given societal human nature, that’s a sure invitation for complete lawlessness and the rise of territorial warlords (which happens in US cities already where policing is deficient).

            What I’m against is the emergence of the Police State, which unfortunately has now arrived. It is particularly entrenched in the US, where the Deep State perpetuates divisive and violence-triggering issues (like clown-show presidential elections) which justifies further reinforcement of military-like police agencies, and erosion of civil liberties. I can’t see any resolution to this trend, other than complete collapse and rebuilding. I’m torn as to whether I should wish for that or not. It’s a solution, but the medication could kill the patient.

            In fact …

            1. I live in an area that has very good police response. They live by their moral code of “Protect and Serve.” I realize that I am likely fortunate relative to most people in the world, but that’s why I chose to live where I do.

            2. I’m a non-violent man that lives by a peaceful spiritual philosophy, and chose not to arm myself in public. That’s not to suggest others should not have that right. If I walk down a dark alley at night, I might expect to get my throat slit, so I protect myself by avoiding danger. There are no guarantees in life, and I accept that without fear or paranoia.

            Why do you persist with the CAPITALIZED suggestions that are nothing more than veiled insults? I’m debt-free, self-sufficient, live in a close-knit community, maintain good health, practice a martial art, and grow my own food. I take my OWN action.

          • Public policing in Europe and the US grew rapidly after the US Civil War when municipalities began to hire “public” police. Before then, if you wanted security, you hired it on your own, or with a group. Municipal, civilian police, history shows, can form the nucleus of a police state – sooner or later.

          • Ron B. Saunders

            I don’t want to argue at cross-purposes, as I share your concerns about Police State. My issue has to do with alternatives, which worry me just as much when people espouse no police.
            The Civil War ended in 1865 at a time when the American population was roughly 31 million (1860 census). Population centers were expanding, and society was proving itself unable to responsibly maintain civility, particularly in large cities. Fast-forward to today, with over 324 million Americans (census est.), who unfortunately largely live as lower class or in poverty. Over 46 million are dependent on food stamps. The job participation rate is 62% and trending down. Private and public debt is unprecedented. An estimated 330 million guns are possessed by the civilian population. Under these circumstances, do you recommend the disbanding of all police agencies? How would the resulting chaos be managed. Owning a gun will do you little good when the mob arrives.

          • Samarami

            To isolate a few excerpts from Ron B. Saunders’ comments:

            “…Do you really mean there should be
            no copyright protection?…”

            “…attacking simple copyright protection
            for people trying to make a living…”

            “…is the same as telling me I should
            not expect a policeman to stop someone
            slitting my throat to steal my wallet…”

            Once again, as I see it, the basic argument is collectivism vs individualism — an entire mode, or way, of thinking. An entrenched mindset that does not allow for individual action — and certainly does not give credence to a free and open marketplace. (I was tempted to include “unregulated” in front of “marketplace”, but am trying to eliminate collectivism from my brain and from my vocabulary).

            “Anarchy!!!”

            The idea that the ONLY “protection” is (or can be) central political authority. End of debate. (And end of critical thinking)

            To use an old Chinese proverb to describe DB’s response:

            “The dog that guards your gate now threatens your home”

            Sam

  • SnakePlissken

    The Communist Chinese don’t believe in intellectual property either. They are able to reverse engineer software that took time and money to build and rip it off and sell it themselves. They also copy designer handbags, golf clubs, shoes, etc. and sell them themselves benefitting financially from someone else’s work. There has to be some kind of protection for the organization that invested the time and money to invent it, otherwise, they’ll just stop inventing.

    • It is nonsensical to think that humans will cease to think, invent, create, etc. because of a law or a lack of law. This innate, endless confirmation of government power can only end in disaster and bloodshed. The same powers that you trust to enforce your intellectual property rights are the ones intent on destroying your world.

    • THIS is how a world without copyright would be.

      tinyurl(DOT)com/IP-FREE-Fashion-Culture

      http://tinyurl.com/IP-FREE-Fashion-Culture

      Johanna Blakely: Lessons from fashion’s free culture

      youtube(DOT)com/watch?v=zL2FOrx41N0

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zL2FOrx41N0

      Copyright law’s grip on film, music and software barely touches the fashion industry … and fashion benefits in both innovation and sales, says Johanna Blakley. At TEDxUSC 2010, she talks about what all creative industries can learn from fashion’s free culture.

    • This dubstep violinist made $6 million on YouTube without a record label

      tinyurl(DOT)com/IP-Violinist
      http://tinyurl.com/IP-Violinist

  • georgesilver

    I often wondered why a recording company and sometimes a musical performer gets royalties every time their record is played whereas my electrician relative doesn’t get a royalty every time one of his customers switches on a light.

    • Ha, George … don’t try to make sense of it. In a decade electricians may be demanding that royalty if the country lasts that long.

  • Ron B. Saunders

    Ah, The Daily Bell modifies their conclusion after I take them to task on it. That’s journalistic responsibility? Your conclusion is still insanity. It would destroy livelihoods and ruin the creative human compulsion that initiates the development of new products, expands consciousness through research and literature, and makes investment in technological advancement. Most people would see their choices horribly diminished and prosperity would crash faster that the egregious actions of governments and banks would.

    • To clarify a few issues, we modified and “updated” the article slightly with additional links – and noted it. It had nothing to do with you. The article has made the same points throughout.

      • Ron B. Saunders

        My argument stands.

        • Guest

          Copyright looks good on paper. However, in practice it is easy to see that it is a lawyer’s litigation dream. One only needs to research the fate of Eli Whitney’s cotton gin patent to see the failure of it in real life.

          I don’t know the answer. I see both sides. While it is important for a creator to earn their due from their innovation. It is equally important to not spend all ones earnings to defend their work.

          There must be a better way.

          • Ron B. Saunders

            I agree. Copyright protection has its problems. But, its better than nothing, as espoused by DB.

          • AtlasAikido

            Re: “Copyright protection has its problems. **But, its better than nothing, as espoused by DB**”.

            That’s quite a CONFESSION for a so called what ever you claim to be, to admit in a public forum!

            Hmmm…reviewing the facts…what are they? Well just read the DB remarks to you and compare yours with theirs dear reader…hmmm

            IF you (not speaking to you neccessarily but to your audience) ARE a self professed creative/critical thinker it seems it’s ALL about results and NOT a process you have mastered yet. The narrow view that does not jive with the big picture.

            Certainly you have evidenced NO confidence in innovating and more confidence and embodiment in the greatest SUPERSTITION in the world: Authority, which is ap-pa[t]ently [sic] HIDDEN from you. May you wear your self inflicted chains lightly…ROLF

            Ah yes…behold a Ron B. Saunders, a slave in splendor. Read his mighty works (not) with same old worn out plot theme, his victimhood with lots of lipstick, one has to wonder how far that extends? Mind boggling darkness…shudder.

          • Ron B. Saunders

            Oh, a sniper. Shoots his mouth off with no productive contribution to the debate. Speaks blather while remaining anonymous … like a coward. Not worthy of a response.

          • AtlasAikido

            DB and Mary have provided you SOMEthing. Not nothing…

            You could have learnt something productive in the time you have wasted here with your one way radio, and your one string guitar…

            Although you do make a wonderful foil. (No offense to foils, bludgeons etc)

            The Most Dangerous Superstition is the belief in Authority

            Let ALL know you by your Dangerous Superstition, Ron B Saunders: ‘Copyright protection has its problems. But, its better than nothing, as espoused by DB.’

          • Ron B. Saunders

            Ah, ArtiChoke, the nameless, nutless, net troll snipes again from behind his pseudonym bush with another slobber bullet. Engage in meaningful debate and identify yourself. Make a substantive argument rather than repeating the same, boring insults. I have no interest in your paranoid drivel.

          • OK, is better both of you comment on the issues rather than making accusations or calling names. Thanks.

          • Ron B. Saunders

            Again, we agree on something. I’m done.

  • As a copyright holder and disabled person, I’m opposed to a great deal of what is proposed here in this article. Without my copyrights, I would be dependent on a small social security check to live on.

    THE reason the US has become the richest nation in the world are the protections offered by the Constitution and Congress to authors and inventors.

    Ten thousand copies of my book were sold in Russia without my getting paid a cent. Isn’t it wonderful how the thieves were able to liberate my work.

    • Sorry to hear. But if public copyright were not available, maybe the market would come up with another solution. Maybe you could hire third-party marketers who would generate creative programs for your book – and collect on it on your behalf for a percentage. Who knows? Perhaps there would be companies willing to pay you an advance so you could give talks around the country for a fee. Perhaps most people would buy your book anyway because without knowing sales amounts it wouldn’t be worthwhile to copy it. In any event, both copyright and patent law are headed in the wrong direction in our view, for reasons we’ve expressed.

      • Aren’t all those suggestions for me to decide and not non-owners of my work?

        The Russians came up with their solution, didn’t they? But it wan’t for them to decide.

        Repeal the clause in the Constitution if you want to end copyright protection. Until then…

  • lois

    I see alot of commies, one worlder’s writing here.

      • Here is a proposition. stop blathering about communism and actually read the article. When we speak of removing copyright and patents, we are obviously speaking of our preference for private enforcement over state enforcement. We state as much in the article. And we have consistently argued this for years. Again, you may be a fan of what has occurred and the power the state has accrued. We are not. We would prefer private, non-efficient, intellectual property rights over efficient public ones enforced by Leviathan. This vast entity is destructive to everything it touches. We don’t need to argue this point. We just need to look, for we can see.

  • Arationofreason

    Right , remove incentives to innovate and watch our spectacular progress.

    • So lacking fedgov and its patent office, there will be no progress …

    • THIS is how a world without copyright would be.

      tinyurl(DOT)com/IP-FREE-Fashion-Culture

      http://tinyurl.com/IP-FREE-Fashion-Culture

      Copyright law’s grip on film, music and software barely touches the fashion industry … and fashion benefits in both innovation and sales, says Johanna Blakley. At TEDxUSC 2010, she talks about what all creative industries can learn from fashion’s free culture.

      Johanna Blakely: Lessons from fashion’s free culture

      youtube(DOT)com/watch?v=zL2FOrx41N0

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zL2FOrx41N0

  • HERE WE GO AGAIN WITH THE IP COMMIE NONSENSE.

    Because there’s an abuse of the IP system, let’s throw out all IP! What utter uninspired codswallop!

    The ideas here have been thoroughly debunked years ago, and still stand unrefuted. https://strangerousthoughts.wordpress.com/2010/11/14/the-economic-principles-of-intellectual-property-and-the-fallacies-of-intellectual-communism/

    And yet, the DB trots the tired old IP pinko nonsense out again, with nary a fresh coat of paint, and expects to be taken seriously.

    It appears perhaps SJWs have converged the DB? If so, start the clock ticking on it’s death knell… Pun intended – ASK NOT FOR WHOM THE BELL TOLLS… It tolls for THEE.

    • This has been debunked (from the article above)?

      “Here’s our suggestion: If you want to preserve your right to your intellectual property, pay for it yourself. Confront people and corporations as you choose. Create solutions that engage others in your community and, perhaps, abroad as well. Even solicit funds to perpetuate and enforce your “rights.” Preferably this would be accomplished within a system of “private” justice rather the increasingly horrible precedent law we have today.”

      And here was our conclusion: “If the entire state-supported intellectual rights apparatus were removed, it is likely, in our view, that most people would see choices expanded and prosperity enhanced.”

      OK, then … Please provide us a source for the debunking of which you speak. Thanks …

    • Webforager

      In the link you provided from the blog, Strangerous Thoughts ,(A worthwhile read btw) the author penned:

      “Fallacy 17: Intellectual property relies on state privilege and protection

      Intellectual property owners are perfectly capable of seeking out and destroying counterfeit copies of their property, much as they can provide for the protection of any of their rights. It is the state that prevents them from doing so and protects pirates.

      In fact, the economics of intellectual communism makes it impossible
      for it to exist in an anarcho-capitalist society as dreamed by these
      very same libertarian intellectual communists. For capitalist courts to
      provide protection to counterfeiters against intellectual property
      owners, the value the counterfeiters derive from counterfeiting must be
      great enough for them to justify purchasing protection in excess of the
      value intellectual property owners derive from purchasing protection on
      the exclusivity of their property. Because the acts of counterfeiters
      demonstrate how little they value the property they are counterfeiting,
      they would never actually purchase any protection against intellectual
      property owners. Intellectual property rights, from the fact that they
      create value, would become the law globally.

      This implies that it is only under the state, and more likely an
      ideologically communist democratic state, that counterfeiters can obtain
      any protection at all! In any other, their operations must remain at
      the margins of obscurity.”

      I’ll admit to not always being the smartest person on the block, but how does this not jive with the DB’s assertions regarding IP?

      • Thanks, This is crux. Relying on the state to enforce your “rights” is a recipe for failure. Ánd it short-circuits other approaches as well that never get a chance to be implemented.

  • georgesilver

    Don’t worry Daily Bell about the short-sightedness and self-interest of some of your readers. The day is soon coming when an inventor of a cheap form of energy will opt to just publish his/her discovery on the internet so that it can be constructed by the average handyman purely for the satisfaction of ‘sticking-it’ to the energy cartel who would rather see the inventor dead or his invention hidden away.

    • The day is soon coming when an inventor of a cheap form of energy will opt to just publish his/her discovery on the internet so that it can be constructed by the average handyman …

      Search for HHO on youtube.

      Yes, it really DOES work. And it is easy to prove for yourself.

  • georgesilver

    Just a further thought. The copyright and patent laws favour the globalist corporations. Just think if these laws didn’t exist then anyone could produce a cheaper better version of anything and sell it locally without being smashed by the corporations.

  • JdL

    So … if Steven Spielberg spends $100 million to make a blockbuster movie, you’re just fine with people capturing it in the theater and selling DVD copies for a dime apiece, right in front of Spielberg’s door if they please? What incredible nonsense!

    Or if I spend a year writing a piece of software, you’re just fine with people copying it and selling copies for a dime apiece, effectively rendering a zero return on my efforts? More incredible nonsense!

    The position of the Daily Bell is one of the Entitled Generation: give me everything for free or I’ll get on the floor and throw a tantrum. Grow up!!

    • We’ve made our position clear in both the article and the feedback thread. You are welcome to read it as you wish. Or to continue making inaccurate fulminations.

    • Rich

      The expectation of the government protecting Spielberg’s investment is no different than the government protecting the investment of the British East India Company back in the day. It’s mercantilism, for the benefit of the few at the expense of the many. Shipping half way round the world is a choice the owners of the Brit company made, as did Spielberg. Or you and your software efforts. Why should your neighbor, who cleans homes for a living, pitch in to protect your efforts? Sounds sort of socialistic to me.

      If you don’t want the risk, don’t make the effort. It is your choice.

      Why not have the government (tax payers) protect the efforts of the guy that climbs tall buildings with suction cups? Some people probably really appreciate his efforts. Or the guy that jumped out of a plane to sky dive without a parachute?

      Picking which efforts are ‘worthy’ of tax payer protection can only lead to selecting winners and losers by some sort of committee.

    • lulu

      If Steven spends $100 million it is not really his money. The entire system within which we operate is skewed and has gotten out of control to the point of ridiculousness. I might design a particular technique of teaching an educational concept or a layout for growing vegetables or an olympic gymnastic move. If these are all patented we might want to spend our entire efforts in life and living making sure that no one is copying us. The system favours the few and does not serve the commons. Monsanto seeds scattering with the wind into farmers’ fields with the farmers then sued for growing Monsanto crops without paying for them. This is an example of the stupidity of patents, power and human failure. This entire concept is complicated and and delicate with no easy answer without a reworking of our societal values.

  • Samarami

    The overview, or “problem”, of course, is collectivism vs individualism. When you’re fearful of individualism, it’s damn difficult to get a good look at the forest due to all them pesky trees.

    This whole “rights” thing is centered around that conundrum. To repeat the opening foray: “…The disease of government is like an ineradicable plague that sickens without ceasing…”

    Sam

  • Red Baron

    And we all know that little guys don’t have much money for lawyers, so how will they sue those that copy them? If they do, they will have to pay a pretty penny to all the lawyers and probably be broke in the end. I agree that copyrights should keep expiring over time, which has been stopped by Congress. I believe the current limit is 1928. It should be moved to 1948, but Big Business has Congress captured.

  • bionic mosquito

    DB: Here’s our suggestion: If you want to preserve your right to your intellectual property, pay for it yourself.

    BM: Amen. You have analyzed this entire issue correctly. The issue is not “eliminate IP” as some libertarian advocates of this position claim, nor is it “a proper role for government” as some pretend-libertarian-but-actually-statists claim.

    The market will develop; the right balance will be found. If an idea is worth protecting, a market for protection will develop. “Only the rich could then afford protection!” they scream (except I could envision insurance-type markets developing, where cost and risk are spread).

    In any case, today it is the rich AND connected who can afford it.

    As an aside: If some of the critics would take the time to understand the German history to which you link, they might learn a thing or two.

  • John Newby

    After reading “The Daily Bell” for many years now, I would like to copy your articles in exact format, including comments, along with posting your website address, using newspaper style, for my personal profit, when I sell ad space. Would you be okay with that?

    • The article states that people support intellectual property without corrupted state resources, not that there is no such thing.

    • EVERYTHING at mises.org is available under Creative Commons.

      When Jeffrey Tucker was president, he explained the importance of ideas and how ideas work in a video titled How to Reject the Statist Quo

      youtube(DOT)com/watch?v=Vw_oDcRN3gI&feature=related

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vw_oDcRN3gI&feature=related

      • John Newby

        Good video. Thanks for the link. I agree. Jeffery Tucker is right. Ideas transverse life. This is the reason I would like to promote “The Daily Bell” articles in newsprint format if they gave me permission. Their ideas and questions are timeless.

        However, out of respect, I will refrain from publishing their articles in print on paper until I get their permission.

        Unfortunately, I do not wish to promote the Mises Institute because they promote Murray Rothbard’s philosophy rather than the “Human Action” philosophy of Ludwig Von Mises.

        • Unfortunately, I do not wish to promote the Mises Institute because they promote Murray Rothbard’s philosophy rather than the “Human Action” philosophy of Ludwig Von Mises.

          That statement lack credibility and sincerity. It sounds more like a rationalization to avoid promoting Mises.

  • Ron B. Saunders

    DB, I thought I was done commenting on this copyright issue. However, in fairness, your readers should be aware of one last matter. An issue concerning hypocrisy.

    Who are you, The Daily Bell? I mean personally, individually. Who do I dialogue with, when taking the time to comment on your offerings? What is your name? Why do you remain anonymous? Why is there no information on your site, which permits me to know who your editorial staff are, what your credentials are, and whether or not you have a history that is less reputable than your site presents?
    Let me remind you that I do not utilize a pseudonym. Unlike the fear mongering net trolls that frequent your site, happy to character assassinate anyone who offers divergent views, I put myself out there, willing to accept personal criticism. If I’m wrong, I take my lashes. If I’m right, I proudly claim it.

    However, you don’t. You hide. So, who owns The Daily Bell? DB is owned by Blacksmith PTE, LTD, a Singapore based publishing company. Blacksmith also owns and operates sovereignman.com, a site that espouses individuals to internationalize their assets and seek alternative citizenship. Simon Black is the host. His credentials are suspect, including his (or her) name, which may be an alias.

    Blacksmith PTE LTD, The Daily Bell, and sovereignman.com are all commonly owned Singapore based companies. My point is: Blacksmith, The Daily Bell, and sovereignman.com all expressly state in their Terms of Use that they own the “intellectual property” (yes, your words) contained in their sites, they expressly forbid its unauthorized use, and claim copyright protection. Here it is in black-and-white:

    “All of the information, materials, content, services and software displayed on, transmitted through, or used in connection with the Website regardless of form, including without limitation, news articles, research and special reports, text, photographs, images, illustrations, audio clips, video clips, computer software, code, trademarks, and marks (collectively, the “Content”), including the collective work and/or compilation, selection and arrangement of the aforementioned and the “look and feel” of the Website, are protected under copyright, trademark or other laws, and Blacksmith PTE, LTD. (subject to the rights of Blacksmith PTE, LTD’s licensors and licensees under applicable agreements, understandings and arrangements) have all rights therein. You shall abide by all additional copyright notices, information and restrictions on or contained in any of the Content accessed through the Website.”

    And yet, you censure me for my intellectual property claims, and suggest I’m using the state to perpetuate my property rights at public expense. Exactly what you do.
    Only when Blacksmith places all its intellectual property, including DB’s and Sovereign Man’s, in the public domain sans copyright, will you be forgiven your hypocrisy.

    • AtlasAikido

      Re: “Let me remind you that I do not utilize a pseudonym. Unlike the fear mongering net trolls that frequent your site, happy to character assassinate anyone who offers divergent views, I put myself out there, willing to accept personal criticism. If I’m wrong, I take my lashes. If I’m right, I proudly claim it”.

      A fool can ask more questions than any genius can answer…

      Not saying I am a genius. It’s a paraphrased quote. A good one. It fits. Cannot remember who made the quote. Does it matter? According to RBS that is the be all and end all.

      The fact RBS has to flaunt his given name as a foundational end all and be all in place of critical thinking skills is a logical fallacy and is noted.

      The fact RBS demands verification of legal status, attribution of ALL others in place of his displaced critical thinking brings some inquiring minds to the conclusion that he has found his true calling: Herr doctor, papiers please!

      It is noted that RBS cannot and will not learn about a subject that could lead to a different path…

      Who has time to sit down and sift thru and walk him thru–via keyboard across the net–his ever escalating and militant self inflicted victimhood?

      He won’t help himself, that is the bottom line. That he flaunts his self worth in terms of being able to take lashing and criticism makes one understand that he has swallowed more than he bargained for…

      Those damn canned philosophical truisms can be a bitch if accepted uncritically, which it would seem is the point of the IP article and responses DB and others provided.

      RBS could get to work taking care of himself! Responsibility starts with him, not others serving and spoon feeding him hand and foot…

      The subject at hand is called the IP THICKET for a reason. And RBS has himself all tied up in the boogey man punishment paradigm that comes with it, but can’t/won’t do simple legwork and arithmatic to get himsrlf out side of that spiral.

      Everyone is a thief, a hypocrite, a net troll, coward according to him and in need of a police state which has its problems but it’s better than what the DB proposes which is nothing per him?

      Well, RBS has demonstrated what problem come with the IP Thicket: No one could say or do or improve on or PROGRESS ANYTHING without offending him and or proving to him the attribution of and verification of any and all ideas and authorship etc etc by him and on behalf of his police state.

      • Ron B. Saunders

        ArtiChoke, nice response! Also pleasant to see you form complete sentences. Thanks for the (at last) coherent dialogue. Unfortunately, like DB, you remain nameless, anonymous, and therefore lacking all credibility. Whose payroll are you on, Arti?

        • Ron, this is not a discussion about copyright any longer but a series of accusations. Please discontinue them and focus on article topics.

          • Ron B. Saunders

            My humble apologies. Please do not think I enjoy this. It is interesting that you censure me, however permit AtlasAikido to continue his slander without addressing the copyright issue. Reread his recent reply. Tell me I’m wrong.

            DB, I enjoy your articles. Seldom do I disagree with your commentary. However, on the rare occasions I do, I invariably end up being chastised (and worse) by anonymous individuals with no credentials, who attack me rather than the argument. You invited me back to comment in future. What motivation do I have under the circumstances?

            Candidly, I have similar concerns about your anonymity. Will you answer my questions regarding who you and your sponsors are?

          • OK, let’s try to restate. You accuse DB of “attacking” you but we have conducted a policy oriented conversation with you. We even invited you to continue commenting on other issues. We appreciated your comments generally regarding copyright and your defense of the current system. It made this thread interesting.

            This article and thread discuss a hypothetical issue. We’ve never suggested that you personally not claim copyright for your book. From our point of view, you’re welcome to claim copyright as you choose. In fact, the article itself argues you should defend copyright as you wish, only privately.

            As far as anonymity goes, DB has been anonymous since inception eight years ago. It is a small publisher and has had turnover. Anonymity helps provide continuity. Anyway, anonymity is an ancient literary tradition. The Economist Magazine is anonymous. For decades, the New Yorker was anonymous. Various alternative media publications are anonymous.

            You say you enjoy this publication. If you want to make a real contribution to exposing what’s wrong in the media, why don’t you comment on major new sources? The Washington Post just issued an unsigned editorial basically calling for war with Russia.

            You’ve indicated you share many of our views. We certainly hope your book is successful and that you earn income from it. When it comes out, feel free to send an address our way (via feedback) and we’ll see if we can provide a little extra PR.

          • Ron B. Saunders

            Yes, DB, you make a sage decision. Let’s wrap this up.

            Although you have been critical of me, I have never felt that you “attack” me. The attacking I referred to came from your readers. Moderating a forum such as this must be difficult. I have great respect for a fair, equitable referee, so please consider the conduct of all parties when your intervention is required.

            Should you ever be in a position to articulate an effective, practical, and affordable method of protecting one’s copyright through private means, please share it. I’ll be all ears. The majority of government legislation/regulation is merely state control. I’m happier being independent and self-sufficient.

            I may not be comfortable with your anonymity and some of your website Terms of Use, however I will be the first to staunchly defend your right to operate as you chose. My issue is simply not being able to have knowledge of who I am trusting my commentary with, and what your sponsor’s agenda is. That would not be the way I would operate, but, this is your forum, and an admirable one at that.

            Believe me, I have huge issues with mainstream media, and attempt to illustrate in my upcoming novel how they act as propaganda instruments of increasingly totalitarian governments. Should I be successful in publishing it, a scathing review by the NYT would be an indicator of success for me.

            Thank you for your good wishes and offer. I start the revision draft and working with an editor this fall, and hope to package the final manuscript for marketing prior to year end. There are no guarantees in this business.

            Cheers!

          • Because you are writing a book, you may be interested in the “copy” experience of another writer:

            [2011-02-11] Science Fiction author Neil Gaiman on Copyright Piracy and the Web.

            Fascinating short comments by science fiction author Neil Gaiman on how he came to realize that there was nothing wrong with people copying his books.

            dennisleewilson(DOT)com/simplemachinesforum/index.php?topic=525.msg997#msg997

            http://dennisleewilson.com/simplemachinesforum/index.php?topic=525.msg997#msg997

          • OK, Ron, if you want to continue to comment, that’s fine. But if this thread turns personal again, or if you are personally attacked, we’ll just shut it down. This was meant as a hypothetical discussion, not as a series of aspersions. Glad you are getting ideas.

          • Ron B. Saunders

            Thanks for the reference, I checked it out. I like Gaiman, he’s an expansive thinker. His books are still copyright protected, so it was interesting to get his take on this. His point has to do with copyright piracy, not copyright legislation and public-funded enforcement as this thread is about.

            Gaiman is okay with digital piracy, because it acts as a form of advertisement that increases his hard-copy book sales. Now, that’s an eye-opener for the traditional publishing world. It gives me some ideas about replicating his success with my ebook version.

          • Should you ever be in a position to articulate an effective, practical, and affordable method of protecting one’s copyright through private means, please share it. 

            Creative Commons.
            Number of Creative Commons-licensed works
            Year    Number    

            2006      50 Million
            2010    400 Million
            2014    882 Million

            I am AMAZED at the number of alleged anarchists, anarcho-capitalist and free market advocates who STILL INVOKE the tax funded USA government copyright monopoly instead of using Creative Commons like Mises.org and LewRockwell.com and yours truly.

            I write about it here:

            tinyurl(DOT)com/Copyright-Usage

            https://tinyurl.com/Copyright-Usage

            I have also collected several articles related to this issue under the following heading:

            Living without IP monopoly,
            the Last Mile to living without government.

            What happens when government collapses, taking the Copyright & Patent Office with it? Do you whine and cry for new government, or do you innovate new ways to profit from intellectual work?

            Why wait for the collapse? Innovate Now!

            tinyurl(DOT)com/Living-without-IP

            http://tinyurl.com/Living-without-IP

            Mises.org uses Creative Commons, and so do I. It would be interesting to see Blacksmith Pte. Ltd. and similar sites re-evaluate their business model and embrace the private alternative offered by Creative Commons–and then write articles about the experience!

            Dennis

          • Thanks for the additional input … but enough on Ron Saunders in this thread, please. This was intended as a hypothetical article, and he has the right to use whatever copyright system he chooses, given that the legal state copyright system is available and dominant. We look forward to seeing his book.There is no reason to characterize his intentions negatively, given the current system in place.

            Additionally, we notice you put The Daily Bell on your “list” of “hypocritical” websites because we have a copyright notice. 1. The Bell is part of a larger enterprise that has chosen to claim formal copyright and thus the Bell has no influence over the issue. 2. Please note that even within this context, you are misrepresenting us. We believe people have every “right” to enforce copyright and “patents” within a private context as they choose (using their own resources). We pioneered that point of view years ago at a time when Kinsella was only speaking of copyright. Anyway, who are you to inflict a specific formula on someone else’s work? We’ve been at this for 25-plus years and don’t appreciate being called hypocritical by those who misrepresent us. Making lists in order to create public shaming is thuggish behavior, especially within an intellectually dishonest context. We’ve likely taken personal and professional risks for more years than you’ve been on this planet, and suffered significant consequences. You should clarify your aspersion. We won’t hold our collective breath.

          • I conceded that there are many and varied reasons to continue using Copyright and that my charge of “hypocrisy” contributes nothing toward understanding and migrating to non-governmental alternatives. I have removed that entire piece from my website.

            I do still think there is a great story waiting to be written about converting from Copyright to Creative Commons or some other private alternative.

          • Well we think you ought to be commended for that. We agree with you about copyright versus creative commons conversion and we’ll look into writing something about it if you don’t. A lot of your articles look interesting by the way and informed by a good deal of financial literacy. Thanks for visiting.

  • Lance Anderson

    The link to the court comment:

    “It was never the object of [intellectual property] laws to grant a monopoly for every trifling device, every shadow of a shade of an idea, which would naturally and spontaneously occur to any skilled mechanic or operator in the ordinary progress of manufactures. Such an indiscriminate creation of exclusive privileges tends rather to obstruct than to stimulate invention.” does not work. Could you please provide the link for this.

    Additionally I am trying to send you an email via your “contact us” page and the “captcha” function does not appear to be working properly. Could you please send email information to the address i have used for this post? Thank you

loading