As I continue to ponder the concept of DRM, which is to say, intellectual property, I'm often struck by how bankrupt are the arguments presented by those on the other side. This one posits that intellectual property, "ideas," does not constitute a "scarce" resource, and thus economic law cannot be applied to it.
I'm fascinated by this perspective. The writer even goes so far as to compare "ideas" to "air," as in, there's so much of them that "we don't need a market to efficiently allocate it." And so it was said as they were sent to the gulag.
Of course, "ideas" are created by people. There are a lot of us, certainly, but I don't think our "abundance" means that our efforts can be so freely distributed.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
An eclectic blog: anti-Left, ambivalent about the Right, and rabidly pro-Objectivist, this blog covers the issues of the day whatever they may be
About Me
Places to Go
Blog Archive
-
▼
2007
(1082)
-
▼
May
(269)
-
▼
May 11
(7)
- I just realized that Blogger has been apparently p...
- As I continue to ponder the concept of DRM, which ...
- What's worst about this story is that it's true. I...
- Digg Report: Today's #1 Digg (at 1:47pm PST) at 37...
- In what will likely be a recurring theme here at D...
- The $100 notebook project bothers me, as do all fe...
- This should get the Iranian's attention. Cheney sa...
-
▼
May 11
(7)
-
▼
May
(269)
6 comments:
I believe you've misunderstood my argument. I never said that economic laws don't apply. I said the opposite. That they absolutely do apply -- and therefor you do not need gov't protectionism (which is an inefficiency). There's actually quite a bit of research to support this. I'd suggest, for example, you look at the research of David Levine or Eric Schiff on patents.
For a more detailed explanation of my own position, you can read here:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070503/012939.shtml
But, please, calling it "intellectually bankrupt" is insulting. I have done a tremendous amount of research in this space. I'm willing to debate the actual points, but flat out insults is uncalled for.
Mike, thanks for visiting. I'll review the link when I get a few free moments.
Regarding your post at TechDirt that I commented on, I think my comments there were probably more on the mark than this blog post. However, I stand by my position, while admitting that "intellectually bankrupt" might have been a bit harsh as applied to your argument specifically.
In your post, you say "we don't need a market to efficiently allocate (intellectual property)." This sounds like you're saying that economic laws don't apply--if we don't have a market, then where would economic laws fit in?
It's important to note that without overnment "protectionism," a free economy (and one determined by economic law) is impossible.
Government's exclusive purpose is to protect individual rights, and property--intellectual or otherwise--is an important one. Without the protection of property, one either has anarchy or centralized government, and economic law has little sway in either.
You said: "It's important to note that without overnment "protectionism," a free economy (and one determined by economic law) is impossible"
That's not true. Take a look at how societies have grown without intellectual property protection.
For example, look at the industrial growth in Switzerland in the time before they had patents. Look at the growth in the literature world in the US before it enforced foreign copyrights.
The reason for a market is for the efficient allocation of scarce resources. The basic laws of economics still apply without scarce resources, it's just that the supply is infinite and the price is zero. You plug the zero into the exact same economic equation and it works out fine.
Again, I suggest you read the link and some of the earlier pieces (as well as the research by David Levine and others). It'll show that you absolutely do not need a market for intellectual property -- and, in fact, that such a market can impede innovation.
We're coming at the argument from very different positions. I'm arguing from a property rights perspective, you from a perspective of "markets" that, frankly, I'm not quite getting.
At the very least, I'm not sure why you say that intellectual property isn't a "scarce resource," unless you are saying that intellectual property in its _digital_ form isn't scarce. If so, then I don't know how you can make an argument based on evidence from economies well before the advent of the digital age. Even in this case, however, your argument is specious, because although infinite copies of a given piece of intellectual property can be created, the number of unique stories, songs, etc. is limited by the number of people willing to spend their time creating them.
I don't find it necessary to argue for the legitimacy of patents and copyrights in general. At most, I would consider an argument that they might need adjusting in light of differences in technological advancement and the impact of digital conversion. Maybe, I would find no need for such adjustment but rather new ways to enforce patent and copyright infringement.
But, I don't think it has anything to do with market theory or the allocation of resources, scarce or otherwise. Like I said, I approach it from the perspective of property rights, not what "works best." I put that in quotes, because as I mentioned in my comment on your blog, 100 million people killed by Communism in the last century can testify to what happens when people think they know best--and impose that on others by force.
Free economies _do_ require government protection, because they are based on indvidual rights. Government's role is to create an environment wherein each individual is free to act, and to control his property. Otherwise, he simply cannot be assured of reaping the rewards of his actions, nor can he determine the nature of those rewards. Without laws that protect property, and courts and police to back them up, then how would disputes around property be resolved?
This applies to both real property and intellectual property, and the fact that the latter can now be ininitely duplicated doesn't change that fact. You said "Look at the growth in the literature world in the US before it enforced foreign copyrights." I'll have to research precisely when government began enforcing "foreign copyright," by which I take it you mean US copyrights when infringed by foreign agents, because certainly it's been as long as I can remember.
But, even if true, that's irrelevant to my argument. I'm not willing to accept that things were "just fine" before government decided to enforce laws it should have been enforcing all along. One basic problem with your position is that it's impossibe for you to say what's acceptable in terms of economic performance. One can only imagine how much better off would have been the creators of intellectual property if, as you say, government hadn't only recently started enforcing copyright globally instead of locally.
I can't look at growth in an industry that's lacking adequate protections without recognizing that the growth would have been greater with such protections in place. And, it's for the creators of intellectual property to decide how much growth is acceptable, not historians or economists.
We're coming at the argument from very different positions. I'm arguing from a property rights perspective, you from a perspective of "markets" that, frankly, I'm not quite getting.
The only reason for property rights is to manage the efficient allocation of scarce resources. You need property rights on property that is scarce, because otherwise who gets to control the resource. However, if the property is not scare, there's no need for property rights because there's no problem with efficient allocation.
In other words, if you could simply automatically have any property you wanted and no one lost their own property, then traditional property rights no longer matter.
At the very least, I'm not sure why you say that intellectual property isn't a "scarce resource," unless you are saying that intellectual property in its _digital_ form isn't scarce.
No, it's not about "digital" or not. It's about the fact that I can pass on an idea to you (such as the fact that ideas aren't scarce) and now both of us have it. I haven't lost anything.
Even in this case, however, your argument is specious, because although infinite copies of a given piece of intellectual property can be created, the number of unique stories, songs, etc. is limited by the number of people willing to spend their time creating them.
Again, I ask you to go read that link I gave you. The fact that there is scarcity PRIOR to the creation of new ideas/stories/songs/etc is exactly the point. You charge for the creation, you don't charge after they're created. The whole point is understanding the difference between scarce goods and non-scarce goods and how they work together to enlarge a market and open up more opportunities to profit.
Free economies _do_ require government protection, because they are based on indvidual rights.
Yes, but those individual rights are rights based on SCARCITY. They're rights based on protecting someone from HARMING someone else. If there's no scarcity in a product, then there's no scarcity because the original holder hasn't lost anything. Go read the Jefferson quote on ideas and fire.
Government's role is to create an environment wherein each individual is free to act, and to control his property.
Yes, but again, you're lumping ideas in with property, when they have very different characteristics.
Otherwise, he simply cannot be assured of reaping the rewards of his actions, nor can he determine the nature of those rewards.
No one is assured of reaping the rewards of his actions. No one. That's what markets are all about. And no one gets to determine the nature of those rewards. The markets determine it for them. And the more free the markets, the more efficient the rewards are awarded.
So the gov't, by putting artificial barriers into a market are screwing up that market and lowering the efficiency of it.
Without laws that protect property, and courts and police to back them up, then how would disputes around property be resolved?
Yes, that's true OF PROPERTY. But ideas are different than property.
One basic problem with your position is that it's impossibe for you to say what's acceptable in terms of economic performance. One can only imagine how much better off would have been the creators of intellectual property if, as you say, government hadn't only recently started enforcing copyright globally instead of locally.
That's ridiculous. That's like saying that because there was mercantilism, we could never envision the benefits of free trade. We absolutely can study these things empirically, because different nations have had different IP laws at different times. That's why I keep pointing you to the research that you keep ignoring. The more you understand how a LACK of intellectual property laws have helped many countries develop faster, the more you realize that these laws tend to be put in place to PROTECT a few incumbent creators at the expense of all new innovations.
That's a big deal.
I can't look at growth in an industry that's lacking adequate protections without recognizing that the growth would have been greater with such protections in place
I'm sorry, but there's simply no economic support for the statement above. Protectionist policies can work out in the very short term, but always fail in the long term. It's just basic economics. Beyond reading the recent research, I suggest you go back to reading your Adam Smith...
Not much more to say, then, except again: we're coming at the issue from two very different positions. The gulf between yours and mine is too great to be bridged in this context (is that a mixed metaphor?). I'm sure I'll post on the topic again, as will you, and our positions will continue to get fleshed out.
Post a Comment