SOPA PIPA and the more fundamental issue – of intellectual property

First watch this:

The key issue, now that we know why SOPA PIPA are a very bad idea, is whether intellectual property is over-hyped.

I agree it is. Perhaps the strongest argument against this idea is provided in the chapter entitled, “Let’s Abolish Patents” in Terrence Kealey’s book, Sex, Science and Profits. 

A good example shows why patents are a bad idea. The reason why aeronautics took off in USA is because "between 1917 and 1975, the [US] federal government forced all US aeroplane manufacturers to pool their patents collectively". [Kealey, p.364]. 

Basically, no industrial advance can occur in the presence of strong patent rights. It is all well and good to have some incentives for inventors, but it is ridiculous to create monopoly rights to deny the use of technology to others, thus setting back the clock of human progress. 

Two American economists, Michele Boldrin and David Levine, in their book, Against Intellectual Monopoly (FREELY AVAILABLE FOR DOWNLOAD) have shown how the industrial revolution was slowed down dramatically by Watt's patent over the steam engine (between 1769 and 1800).

Thomas Jefferson famously argued against the idea of intellectual property: 

"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it." [Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Isaac McPherson, Monticello, August 13, 1813]

The key point here is that unlike physical property, an idea AUTOMATICALLY BELONGS TO EVERYONE WHO GETS TO KNOW ABOUT IT. This unique characteristic means that the ONLY way to prevent the automatic use of an idea by others is to COERCIVELY prevent its use through the power of government.

I am a great supporter of accountability and justice, and I would strongly advocate the correct attribution of ideas to the person who first created them. I also support the use of ideas by inventors to the extent they can get an advantage in the marketplace through trade secrets and voluntary contracts with their employees.

If an employee who has contracted to complete secrecy violates that contract, he should be liable for very serious civil penalties (to the extent specified in his contract).

But the idea of patents can take things too far.

Note also, that copyrights protect only the form or expression of ideas, not the underlying ideas themselves [Source]. Even that form, though, is ultimately only a curiosity, like a particular pattern of leaves in a tree. This pattern, if innovative, does not preclude its use in other trees. Once an idea is out in nature, it essentially belongs to everyone.

"A system of property rights in “ideal objects” necessarily  requires violation of other individual property rights, e.g., to use one’s own tangible  property as one sees fit" [Source] Thus, only government coercion can prevent me from using my photocopier to copy a particular book, coercively limiting the use of my photocopier. Or the use of my capital to build an aeroplane that uses ideas similar to those used in a plane made by someone else.

We are all criminals under IP laws

On an any average day you are likely to have CRIMINALLY infringed a HUGE number of copyright laws, making yourself potentially liable for MILLIONS OF DOLLARS in punishment. See this: http://blog.mises.org/18172/we-are-all-copyright-criminals-john-tehranians-infringement-nation/ for details!

Activities of an “average American –someone who does not even engage in P2P file sharing – could result in up to $4.5 billion in potential liability annually, for copyright infringement.

Do we want laws that make criminals out of each of us for our daily activities?

Even gossip about what someone said might violate IP laws. The whole idea of obstructing the wide use of ideas is obnoxious.

Addendum

The Trouble with the Copyright Debate