Should copyright laws be abolished?

theinfectedmaster

Argument Topic: No, but I think they should be less protective.

I don't think we should abolish copyright laws, but I think we should at least change them. We should allow them to exist as long as works of art are being used for non-distribution purposes. What I mean by that is where they aren't being given or sold to anyone. I don't mean where works of art are being uploaded to social media. I feel like people should have to register their copyrights, too. I don't think that works of art should automatically be copyrighted the moment their created. I think it's crazy why works of art in the U.S. are automatically copyrighted the moment they're created. What if someone doesn't want their work of art to be under copyright? I feel like, too that if you are allowing copyright laws for distribution purposes that you are only just supporting monopolies, which I think is bad.

Dreamer

No, we shouldn't abolish but there are many ways to game the system by monopolies, duopoly, and oligopoly.

https://time.com/6257866/big-pharma-patent-abuse-drug-pricing-crisis/

theinfectedmaster

@Dreamer This talks about copyrights; not patents. I think patent laws should be abolished period.

Dreamer

@theinfectedmaster

Hmmm, the topics are close enough I usually use the terms interchangeably.

JulesKorngold

Argument Topic: Definitely Not

Without copyright laws, there would be several significant changes in the way that creative works are produced, distributed, and consumed.

1. Reduced incentives:

Copyright laws provide a financial incentive for creators to produce original works. If there were no copyright laws, creators would not be able to earn money from their work, and this would likely lead to a decrease in the production of new creative works.

2. Increased piracy:

Without copyright laws, it would be much easier and more common for people to copy and distribute creative works without permission. This would lead to a significant increase in piracy, which would harm the creators of the works and reduce the amount of money that they are able to earn from their work.

3. Reduced quality of creative works:

Without copyright laws, there would be less incentive for creators to invest in the quality of their work. This could lead to a decline in the overall quality of creative works.

4. Confusion and chaos in the marketplace:

Without copyright laws, it would be difficult for consumers to determine who the rightful owner of a creative work is. This could lead to confusion and chaos in the marketplace, and it could make it more difficult for consumers to find and purchase legitimate copies of creative works.

5. Lack of protection for creators:

Without copyright laws, creators would not have any legal recourse if their work is copied or distributed without their permission. This would leave creators vulnerable to theft and exploitation.

Overall, the absence of copyright laws would have a negative impact on the creation and distribution of creative works. It would reduce the incentives for creators to produce original works, increase piracy, reduce the quality of creative works, create confusion and chaos in the marketplace, and leave creators vulnerable to theft and exploitation.

JulesKorngold

Argument Topic: Patent Laws Are Essential

If there were no patent laws, several significant consequences would likely arise:

1. Reduced Innovation: Without the protection of patents, inventors would have little incentive to invest time and resources into developing new inventions. They would risk having their ideas stolen or copied by others without receiving any compensation. As a result, innovation would likely slow down, and we would see fewer new inventions and technologies being developed.

2. Increased Copying and Counterfeiting: In the absence of patent laws, it would be much easier for companies to copy and counterfeit existing products. This would lead to a proliferation of cheap imitations and a decline in the quality of goods. It would also damage the reputations of legitimate companies and make it more difficult for them to compete in the market.

3. Underinvestment in Research and Development: Patent laws play an important role in encouraging businesses to invest in research and development (R&D). By providing a temporary monopoly on new inventions, patents allow companies to recoup their investment in R&D and generate profits from their innovations. Without patent protection, companies would have less incentive to invest in R&D, leading to a decline in scientific and technological progress.

4. Barriers to Technology Transfer: Patent laws can facilitate the transfer of technology between companies and countries. By allowing companies to license their patents to others, patent laws can help to spread new technologies and knowledge around the world. Without patent protection, companies would be less likely to share their technologies with others, as they would fear having their ideas copied without their consent.

5. Legal Disputes and Uncertainty: The absence of patent laws would create a great deal of legal uncertainty and lead to more disputes between companies over ownership of intellectual property. This would make it more difficult for businesses to plan and invest in new technologies, as they would not be sure whether they were infringing on the rights of others.

Overall, the abolition of patent laws would have a detrimental impact on innovation, technology transfer, and economic growth. It would also lead to increased copying and counterfeiting, reduced investment in R&D, and more legal disputes. While patent laws can sometimes be complex and costly, they are essential for protecting intellectual property and fostering innovation.

Dreamer

Argument Topic: Welcome back. :)

@JulesKorngold

I haven't seen you in a few weeks I was beginning to worry about you.

theinfectedmaster

@JulesKorngold I think your first answer is definitely a fallacy. If we didn't have patent laws, there would actually be an increase in innovation because if someone had a better way to make a certain item, they could basically do it, and that would lead to increased innovation as well as an increase in the quality of products. I think patent laws are silly and need to go because they only decrease innovation and support monopolies.

theinfectedmaster

@JulesKorngold No actually the economy would do better since there would be increased innovation and quality of products.

theinfectedmaster

@Dreamer The thing is that copyright laws are very different from patent laws. Copyright laws protect intellectual works of art, whereas patent laws protect inventions and discoveries.

GiantMan

theinfectedmaster said:

@Dreamer This talks about copyrights; not patents. I think patent laws should be abolished period.

Why would a pharma company risk spending millions or billions on a new drug if they don't get proprietary rights to distribute the drug long enough to make back their R&D?   That's why socialist countries trail non-socialist ones in new medicines and drugs.  

JulesKorngold

Argument Topic: Thanks!

Dreamer said:

@JulesKorngold

I haven't seen you in a few weeks I was beginning to worry about you.

I've been playing a lot of chess...and losing...lol.

JulesKorngold

Argument Topic: Protection Is Needed

theinfectedmaster said:

@JulesKorngold No actually the economy would do better since there would be increased innovation and quality of products.

What evidence do you have for that claim?

The absence of patent and copyright laws would have a detrimental impact on innovation, quality, and economic growth. While there might be an initial surge in imitation and adaptation without the protection of intellectual property, this would lead to a decline in original innovation and a reduction in the overall quality of products and services.

Key Points:

1. Patent and copyright laws incentivize innovation: The prospect of exclusive rights and financial rewards motivates individuals and companies to invest in research and development, leading to the creation of new inventions and creative works. Without this incentive, innovation would likely slow down.

2. Protecting intellectual property ensures quality: Patent and copyright laws ensure that creators and inventors receive due recognition and compensation for their work. This incentivizes them to maintain high standards of quality and invest in continuous improvement. Without these protections, there would be less incentive to maintain quality standards.

3. Copyright and patent laws promote efficient knowledge sharing: Intellectual property rights allow for controlled dissemination of knowledge, enabling companies and individuals to license or collaborate on innovations while protecting their investment and ensuring fair compensation. Without these mechanisms, knowledge sharing would become more chaotic and less efficient.

4. Patents and copyrights foster economic growth: By protecting innovation and creativity, intellectual property rights contribute to economic growth by encouraging investment, promoting competition, and facilitating technology transfer. Without these protections, the economy would likely suffer from reduced innovation, decreased competition, and hindered technology diffusion.

Evidence for my claim:

• The pharmaceutical industry, heavily reliant on patent protection, has produced groundbreaking advancements in medicine, saving countless lives and improving global health outcomes.

• The software industry, driven by copyright protection, has revolutionized computing and communication, fueling economic growth and societal transformation.

• The creative industries, protected by copyright laws, have enriched our lives with art, music, literature, and other forms of expression, contributing to cultural vibrancy and economic value.

While the absence of patent and copyright laws might initially lead to a surge in imitation and adaptation, it would ultimately stifle innovation, reduce quality, and hinder economic growth. Intellectual property rights serve as the foundation for a thriving innovation ecosystem, ensuring that creators, inventors, and businesses are rewarded for their contributions and can continue to produce the groundbreaking advancements that drive progress and prosperity.

theinfectedmaster

@GiantMan Too much socialism isn't good though.

theinfectedmaster

@JulesKorngold Please maybe read these articles. They might change your mind.                              https://www.newswise.com/articles/economists-say-copyright-and-patent-laws-are-killing-innovation-hurting-economy ;                           https://source.wustl.edu/2009/03/economists-say-copyright-and-patent-laws-are-killing-innovation-hurting-economy/ ;  

theinfectedmaster

@GiantMan Monopolies can only just ruin countries though and the economies.

theinfectedmaster

@JulesKorngold I feel like all work that is used for distribution purposes should be public domain.

JulesKorngold

Argument Topic: Evidence?

theinfectedmaster said:

@JulesKorngold Please maybe read these articles. They might change your mind.                              https://www.newswise.com/articles/economists-say-copyright-and-patent-laws-are-killing-innovation-hurting-economy ;                           https://source.wustl.edu/2009/03/economists-say-copyright-and-patent-laws-are-killing-innovation-hurting-economy/ ;  

The authors of those articles do not give specific evidence for their claims.

Again, what evidence is there that copyright and patent laws are killing innovation and hurting the economy?

MayCaesar

Copyrights are fundamentally coercive and violate people's basic rights. A consensual contract can only be made between people engaged in a trade, but it cannot be forced on any other parties without violating the principles of the free market.

If I buy a copy of Windows, it is fine to have a line in the EULA stating that you promise to not make a new copy and sell it: if I do not like the terms, I am free to not put my signature under them and be prevented from installing the product.

But if I downloaded a sequence of bits that constitutes an installation script for Windows, ran it and installed it, then I have not violated any contracts I signed, nor did I take or damage a piece of someone else's property. No one owns what is on my hard drive but me. Now, the person who prepared this script may have violated the agreement he signed and might be liable for damages - but I cannot be held responsible for the consequences of his actions.

There are things that can be copied without taking away from someone: sequence of bits, ideas, musical chords... They must be as protected as speech is, and fining me for watching a pirated movie is like fining me for listening to someone's summary of a book they recently read.