Intellectual Property morality?

[Fairwinds]

One example where copyright law fails, IMO, is where a drug company invents a cure…"

yes, copyright law would fail in that case. but patent law, on the other hand, works fine.

 

[bsroufek]

yes, copyright law would fail in that case. but patent law, on the other hand, works fine.

I was rather speaking of patents on drugs, not copyright law.

 

[bsroufek]

Another case where patent law fails is in the case of contraception. Current patented contraceptions have a breast-cancer-causing ingredient. There exists a pure, non-breast-threatening form of the drug but they can’t patent it.

So, many millions of women have to suffer because companies can’t patent a pure form of
a drug, because other companies could use it.

There are criminal hoarding cases where patents are used to abuse the system.

 

[Fairwinds]

I was rather speaking of patents on drugs, not copyright law.

you explain why a public company would spend hundreds of millions of risk capital developing, testing and getting government approval for a drug without the protection of a patent and the opportunity to license it.

 

[bsroufek]

you explain why a public company would spend hundreds of millions of risk capital developing, testing and getting government approval for a drug without the protection of a patent and the opportunity to license it.

In the example of the “pure” contraception drug, they could just competitively sell the product, instead of gouging the consumers on a patent.

 

[Fairwinds]

In the example of the “pure” contraception drug, they could just competitively sell the product, instead of gouging the consumers on a patent.

they have to recover development and approval costs, right? where do you think that money comes from?

 

[Joe_5859]

One example where copyright law fails, IMO, is where a drug company invents a cure
for a mental illness, for REAL example. They are millions who suffer the illness worldwide,
not just in America. They charge $500 a month for the medicine, which most American mental patients can’t afford. However, outside of America, they charge $50 a month for the
medicine. Worse yet, all american drug companies are doing the same.

My psychiatrist says, “They have been sticking it to Americans for years.” So, I order my
medicine from Canada at $35 (about) a month. The drug companies are trying to get Congress to make my act illegal.

On my blog, righteousnation.wordpress.com, I have a (Moral) Law that says, “Criminal hoarding is unlawful.”

It’s actually in the context of medicine that the Vatican website most often refers to intllectual property. The article I linked to above addresses just this type of thing. In those cases, intllectual property rights cannot be the only concern.

The Monsignor is not advocating that companies who spend millions on research and development be given a polite thanks and then hung out to dry. But people should not be denied access to cures simply because of an inability to pay.

Perhaps that is what they are aiming for in charging Americans more. Of course, that fails to take into consideration the fact that not all Americans are rich.

 

[LoveGod102]

Aristotle and Thomas, wrong in so many other ways, would also be wrong here. of course I routinely steal Ari’s and Tom’s work, passing it off as my own, because, why not? its not real property. right?

all of the lame arguments justifying stealing other’s works have been looked at in detail by legislatures and courts, which have struck a balance in the law that protects authorship while allowing fair use. we can say that obeying the laws of the land is moral, so that fair use is moral, stealing is sinful.

If you pass it off as your own, that’s lying not stealing.

 

[bsroufek]

they have to recover development and approval costs, right? where do you think that money comes from?

The Vatican article just linked above does agree with me that there are
monopolistic regimes created by the patent system.

The solution seems hard to find, but the article states that the solution most likely will be a
differential pricing system.

In either case, the patent monopolies are broken and need to be fixed.

 

[edwest2]

But how is copying something stealing? It does not take that item away from the other person. The only way the argument that it is stealing is valid is if you are arguing that future profits are being stolen, since doing such may hinder that person’s ability to make profits from it.

It’s happening to my company every time we find one of our books illegally copied on a file sharing site. We send out takedown notices all the time. We have the copyright - right to copy. No one else does. We are losing money.

nppa.org/node/60890

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

The Vatican article just linked above does agree with me that there are
monopolistic regimes created by the patent system.

The solution seems hard to find, but the article states that the solution most likely will be a
differential pricing system.

In either case, the patent monopolies are broken and need to be fixed.

No they’re not. Of the billions poured into drug development, how do pharmaceutical companies recoup their costs? And by the way, work on drugs for less common ailments stalls because no one will make any money off it, barring some breakthrough.

Patents aren’t complicated. For those who have a fix, I’m sure the US Patent and Trademark Office would love to hear it.

Otherwise, as long as things remain as they are in financial circles and government inaction, people will suffer.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

It’s actually in the context of medicine that the Vatican website most often refers to intllectual property. The article I linked to above addresses just this type of thing. In those cases, intllectual property rights cannot be the only concern.

The Monsignor is not advocating that companies who spend millions on research and development be given a polite thanks and then hung out to dry. But people should not be denied access to cures simply because of an inability to pay.

Perhaps that is what they are aiming for in charging Americans more. Of course, that fails to take into consideration the fact that not all Americans are rich.

About 5% of the population controls 80% of the wealth in this country. The peasants get the rest. So, things have not changed since Feudal times, minus the crown and robes.

My doctor told me he’d treat me for free if he could but if he did, he’d lose his license. Tell me, Who came up with the idea of “short selling”? The idea that you can make money betting that the price of a stock will go down? Where did that idiocy come from? And where does the money paid to the lucky “winner” come from?

Sure, people are going to be denied access. Check out the number of millionaires and billionaires we have. I actually heard a relatively wealthy individual tell that a million dollars is barely enough for retirement. Looks like I’ll be working for a long time.

Peace,
Ed

 

[LilyM]

What do you not understand?

One can imagine a website, for example, which is a portal to artists connecting sponsors to the artists they enjoy. From there you can download music, pay what you want, or just donate to the artist you most enjoy. By becoming a sponsor, you can then receive exclusive performances, etc.

This model has already taken hold in the podcasting world where extremely interesting commentators release their works into the public domain and ask for donations – and they make a decent living doing that.

But in real life most people simply do not pay for something if they can get it for free without legal consequences. Or else what they do pay doesn’t cover the costs of running the enterprise, which require staff and resources to operate.

I know of several ‘pay-what-you-feel’ restaurant operations that have been forced to close because people did not ‘feel’ sufficiently to cover the costs of ingredients, labour, rent and equipment of the premises and so forth. What makes you think the sort of operation you imagine would be any more successful?

 

[Rete]

But in real life most people simply do not pay for something if they can get it for free without legal consequences. Or else what they do pay doesn’t cover the costs of running the enterprise, which require staff and resources to operate.

I know of several ‘pay-what-you-feel’ restaurant operations that have been forced to close because people did not ‘feel’ sufficiently to cover the costs of ingredients, labour, rent and equipment of the premises and so forth. What makes you think the sort of operation you imagine would be any more successful?

1. That’s really not comparable. Food is a material object. Food truly is property. It’s the most fundamental form of property that exists. Those business models are interesting but they really have little to do with this. If you want to somehow equate restaurants into this, it would be like McDonald’s declaring that they own the idea of a hamburger, and anybody who wishes to make hamburgers should have to pay them first. That’s what copyrights would be like in the food industry. The knowledge of how to make some kind of food dish is free. You can keep it secret, and it would therefore be a trade secret, which is exactly why I mentioned earlier that information, unlike legitimate property, is governed by duties and rights with respect to public and private information.

Consider the impact of Apple declaring that they “own” the idea of touchscreen gestures or Amazon declaring they “own” the idea of a single click ordering system. It’s greatly harmful to the public, and the entire idea of patents and copyrights were predicated upon their facilitating the public good – and yet they are right now harming the public good. Since there exists no natural or fundamental right to such things, we ought to abolish or amend this institution according to what effects the most good for the most people, not the most profit for a few. That’s a secondary reason for these folks trying to equate their information with “property”. In so doing, they are indirectly arguing that their copyrights and patents are fundamental rights, since property rights are fundamental rights. Yet in no rational world are such artificial constructs natural rights.

1. People already produce works of art right now which they put out on the internet for free while making their living from donations made by their listeners. People can and will pay for art that they like. It’s not nearly as lucrative as what we have now, but its at least a morally justifiable market. Nor does it require government coercion to work.

 

[LilyM]

1. That’s really not comparable. Food is a material object. Food truly is property. It’s the most fundamental form of property that exists. Those business models are interesting but they really have little to do with this. If you want to somehow equate restaurants into this, it would be like McDonald’s declaring that they own the idea of a hamburger, and anybody who wishes to make hamburgers should have to pay them first. That’s what copyrights would be like in the food industry. The knowledge of how to make some kind of food dish is free. You can keep it secret, and it would therefore be a trade secret, which is exactly why I mentioned earlier that information, unlike legitimate property, is governed by duties and rights with respect to public and private information.

Consider the impact of Apple declaring that they “own” the idea of touchscreen gestures or Amazon declaring they “own” the idea of a single click ordering system. It’s greatly harmful to the public, and the entire idea of patents and copyrights were predicated upon their facilitating the public good – and yet they are right now harming the public good. Since there exists no natural or fundamental right to such things, we ought to abolish or amend this institution according to what effects the most good for the most people, not the most profit for a few. That’s a secondary reason for these folks trying to equate their information with “property”. In so doing, they are indirectly arguing that their copyrights and patents are fundamental rights, since property rights are fundamental rights. Yet in no rational world are such artificial constructs natural rights.

1. People already produce works of art right now which they put out on the internet for free while making their living from donations made by their listeners. People can and will pay for art that they like. It’s not nearly as lucrative as what we have now, but its at least a morally justifiable market. Nor does it require government coercion to work.

Uh, no. It’s like McDonalds saying “we invented - not the hamburger, which is a generic term covering a sizeable range of products - but a specific type of hamburger, the Big Mac. Anyone who wants to sell Big Mac hamburgers as opposed to other kinds has to go through us and pay us for the privilege”. Which is indeed what they do, and rightly so, as recompense for the time and labour it took to invent that specific type of burger.

‘Not nearly as lucrative’. There is the rub. Why should artists and people associated with them NOT make a healthy living out of art? There is nothing criminal or immoral about making money, not even making lots of money - except for example when you are gouging prices on necessities of life such as basic food, shelter or medical care or whatnot.

If art and music and so on are luxuries for those who can pay high prices today, that is because they always have been. The average schlob back in the day was rarely going to see great art - he or she was, for example, never going to be invited into King Francis I’s bathroom to see the Mona Lisa which was hung there, nor into the Sistine Chapel to see Michelangelo’s work. Nor would they have had time or spare money to attend a Shakespeare play or ballet or concert of mozart’s music or whatever.

As a percentage of income, we pay far less for our music downloads, for example, than they ever would have to experience real music-making. It is entirely morally justifiable to charge whatever prices the market will support for art and music - just as much as it is for diamond jewellery or high fashion or fancy cars.

 

[thewanderer]

Uh, no. It’s like McDonalds saying “we invented - not the hamburger, which is a generic term covering a sizeable range of products - but a specific type of hamburger, the Big Mac. Anyone who wants to sell Big Mac hamburgers as opposed to other kinds has to go through us and pay us for the privilege”. Which is indeed what they do, and rightly so, as recompense for the time and labour it took to invent that specific type of burger.

**‘Not nearly as lucrative’. There is the rub. Why should artists and people associated with them NOT make a healthy living out of art? There is nothing criminal or immoral about making money, not even making lots of money **- except for example when you are gouging prices on necessities of life such as basic food, shelter or medical care or whatnot.

If art and music and so on are luxuries for those who can pay high prices today, that is because they always have been. The average schlob back in the day was rarely going to see great art - he or she was, for example, never going to be invited into King Francis I’s bathroom to see the Mona Lisa which was hung there, nor into the Sistine Chapel to see Michelangelo’s work. Nor would they have had time or spare money to attend a Shakespeare play or ballet or concert of mozart’s music or whatever.

As a percentage of income, we pay far less for our music downloads, for example, than they ever would have to experience real music-making. It is entirely morally justifiable to charge whatever prices the market will support for art and music - just as much as it is for diamond jewellery or high fashion or fancy cars.

I guess thats where the real question comes in though, right? Every man ought to be able to earn a living wage from his work. But what exactly does that mean? Does that mean that we are morally required (absent any particular governmental laws) to ensure that they become wealthy? that they be able to afford a nice house with two cars and frequent vacations? or that they can survive by being frugal and buying secondhand? Where does the line of moral obligation end and the simple preference of individuals (which can then be enshrined in law) begin? Obviously each person is going to want to have more money, so the person receiving will want to pay less and the person producing to make more money. I guess I just don’t understand the claim that if a person makes a certain piece of art or comes up with a certain idea there is a moral obligation for them to earn money off of it. I get that every person is owed the ability to earn a living wage so that they can support themselves and their families, but that is a different statement.What is the exact principle of morality that needs to be applied in the case at hand? So far as I can tell it is merely that every person is owed, through justice, the ability to make a living wage. (This does not even require that they earn it in the field that they wish, merely that they are capable of earning it without enduring slave-labour). Am I wrong about this? Is the moral principle at hand something other than this?

 

[edwest2]

1. That’s really not comparable. Food is a material object. Food truly is property. It’s the most fundamental form of property that exists. Those business models are interesting but they really have little to do with this. If you want to somehow equate restaurants into this, it would be like McDonald’s declaring that they own the idea of a hamburger, and anybody who wishes to make hamburgers should have to pay them first. That’s what copyrights would be like in the food industry. The knowledge of how to make some kind of food dish is free. You can keep it secret, and it would therefore be a trade secret, which is exactly why I mentioned earlier that information, unlike legitimate property, is governed by duties and rights with respect to public and private information.

Consider the impact of Apple declaring that they “own” the idea of touchscreen gestures or Amazon declaring they “own” the idea of a single click ordering system. It’s greatly harmful to the public, and the entire idea of patents and copyrights were predicated upon their facilitating the public good – and yet they are right now harming the public good. Since there exists no natural or fundamental right to such things, we ought to abolish or amend this institution according to what effects the most good for the most people, not the most profit for a few. That’s a secondary reason for these folks trying to equate their information with “property”. In so doing, they are indirectly arguing that their copyrights and patents are fundamental rights, since property rights are fundamental rights. Yet in no rational world are such artificial constructs natural rights.

1. People already produce works of art right now which they put out on the internet for free while making their living from donations made by their listeners. People can and will pay for art that they like. It’s not nearly as lucrative as what we have now, but its at least a morally justifiable market. Nor does it require government coercion to work.

That’s pure 100% baloney. Most of my friends are artists and writers and we’ve contracted with some big names. You literally have no idea what you’re talking about. If you’re complaint is with the government then take it up with them. Lucrative is all people care about. Think about it. You’re an artist, writer or musician: Do you want to go from $50 K a year to $30 K a year? Why?

I know some of the best names out there and for the vast majority, paying their bills comes first plus driving something that doesn’t break down every six months.

Creating fictional models just does not work. We don’t invent the future, we only live in it, and paying the bills is job one.

Peace,
Ed

 

[LilyM]

I guess thats where the real question comes in though, right? Every man ought to be able to earn a living wage from his work. But what exactly does that mean? Does that mean that we are morally required (absent any particular governmental laws) to ensure that they become wealthy? that they be able to afford a nice house with two cars and frequent vacations? or that they can survive by being frugal and buying secondhand? Where does the line of moral obligation end and the simple preference of individuals (which can then be enshrined in law) begin? Obviously each person is going to want to have more money, so the person receiving will want to pay less and the person producing to make more money. I guess I just don’t understand the claim that if a person makes a certain piece of art or comes up with a certain idea there is a moral obligation for them to earn money off of it. I get that every person is owed the ability to earn a living wage so that they can support themselves and their families, but that is a different statement.What is the exact principle of morality that needs to be applied in the case at hand? So far as I can tell it is merely that every person is owed, through justice, the ability to make a living wage. (This does not even require that they earn it in the field that they wish, merely that they are capable of earning it without enduring slave-labour). Am I wrong about this? Is the moral principle at hand something other than this?

There is no moral obligation on providers of other than necessary goods and services to charge a ‘fair’ price for them. People have a right to these necessities only, not to luxuries.

See, if I go into my local bakery and they are charging $50 a loaf for bread, that means I can’t afford to eat - and I gotta eat to live. Society owes me sufficient food to live, at a price that is generally affordable, because we cannot live at all without food.

If I walk past Tiffanys and they are charging $250,000 for a diamond bracelet when the materials and labour cost a tenth of that, well pardon me but so what? Why exactly should I be entitled to have that bracelet at a discount? What moral obligation is there on society or the shop owner to provide me with diamond bracelets? None at all. Neither my survival nor my dignity as a human is injured by lack of access to Tiffanys jewels. Accordingly, Tiffanys are entitled to charge whatever the market will sustain, and assuming I am not prepared to pay full price I am not entitled to that jewellery.

Similarly, if I go into music shop and the latest offering from Beyonce is $1,000 - well, what am I losing out on exactly? What moral obligation is there on her or anyone else to provide me with CDs or downloads? Even less than there is on Tiffanys, because I can hear her for free on radio, or watch her clips for free on TV. I’m hardly totally deprived of my fix of Beyonce if I don’t have that CD or download.

 

[thewanderer]

There is no moral obligation on providers of other than necessary goods and services to charge a ‘fair’ price for them. People have a right to these necessities only, not to luxuries.

See, if I go into my local bakery and they are charging $50 a loaf for bread, that means I can’t afford to eat - and I gotta eat to live. Society owes me sufficient food to live, at a price that is generally affordable, because we cannot live at all without food.

If I walk past Tiffanys and they are charging $250,000 for a diamond bracelet when the materials and labour cost a tenth of that, well pardon me but so what? Why exactly should I be entitled to have that bracelet at a discount? What moral obligation is there on society or the shop owner to provide me with diamond bracelets? None at all. Neither my survival nor my dignity as a human is injured by lack of access to Tiffanys jewels. Accordingly, Tiffanys are entitled to charge whatever the market will sustain, and assuming I am not prepared to pay full price I am not entitled to that jewellery.

Similarly, if I go into music shop and the latest offering from Beyonce is $1,000 - well, what am I losing out on exactly? What moral obligation is there on her or anyone else to provide me with CDs or downloads? Even less than there is on Tiffanys, because I can hear her for free on radio, or watch her clips for free on TV. I’m hardly totally deprived of my fix of Beyonce if I don’t have that CD or download.

Thats not what I am talking about. I am not talking about store owners selling their goods for a fair price, I am talking about the importance that every human person be able to work a job which allows them to earn a living without being forced into slave-labour. As far as I can understand it it is this moral principle which is the basis for copyright law. And so any discussion of whether or not there is a moral necessity for copyright laws to exist will come back ultimately to this question of ensuring that a worker receives a fair wage. Does that sound right to you?

 

[Ruthie_again]

Thats not what I am talking about. I am not talking about store owners selling their goods for a fair price, I am talking about the importance that every human person be able to work a job which allows them to earn a living without being forced into slave-labour. As far as I can understand it it is this moral principle which is the basis for copyright law. And so any discussion of whether or not there is a moral necessity for copyright laws to exist will come back ultimately to this question of ensuring that a worker receives a fair wage. Does that sound right to you?

Bolding mine.

That is exactly my point. When you download a pirated song, you are avoiding paying royalties. Artists earn their living from royalties. Even if you don’t like it enough to pay money for it, you are still stealing from them. It is no different from shoplifting shampoo because “the manufacturers are ripping us off.” You’re still stealing. I believe there’s a Commandment about that.

If you’re not willing to pay for something, you don’t have to. You just abstain from owning it.