Free speech is free data; free data is free speech.

[bb113]

Some of the pro-IP arguments remind me of anti-deflation arguments.

Q)Why would people spend money if it would be worth more later? Bla bla bla, some long academic argument.
----A) Because they want or need something.

Q)Why would someone develop a drug for a disease with out IP laws?
----A) Because they like finding out stuff or don't like seeing people suffering (especially themselves and family).

I do medical research. I understand how little we know about biology at the organism level, and would never take an "experimental drug" unless I was completely desperate. On the other hand, the current culture of medical science encourages publishing reports of positive results over negative. Most biologists, even the honest ones, do not appropriately analyze their data. This is a cultural problem. Most don't even know how or have the time to learn how to do this, they just do what has been done before (faulty or not). The people working for the FDA come from the same culture. Profit motive is no substitute for intrinsic motivation (the drive for the "truth"), neither is publish or perish. I don't know the right way to encourage proper science at a large scale but the current way is very inefficient and encourages subtle, even subconscious, manipulation of the results. The FDA's expensive requirements are an ad hoc solution to this problem, but likely not the best one possible.

[mad_miner]

Curious; those objecting to IP rights, I assume you also object to trademarks? So it would be okay for any company to sell their hardware branded as "apple"? I could sell any drink as "coca cola", in identically looking bottles ? I could sell fake medical drugs under the same name as the real one, in the same box, even though they just contain calcium tablets?

[bb113]

Know your dealer.

[mad_miner]

I see. Thats a very practical solution. How do you get to know the dealer? How does he get to know his dealer?

[bb113]

The same way it happens now, experience and trust all the way down the supply chain, plus personally knowing people with tools/knowledge to verify. If upstream someone is protected by law (e.g. corporate personhood or they have powerful friends) it breaks down.

[P4man]

The same way it happens now, experience and trust all the way down the supply chain, plus personally knowing people with tools/knowledge to verify. If upstream someone is protected by law (e.g. corporate personhood or they have powerful friends) it breaks down.

So do you personally know someone with tools/knowledge to verify medical drugs? Because I dont. And I do like being able to buy them in any pharmacy in any city I happen to travel to. Not only do I like that, my life actually depends on it.

Its bad enough its already a remote possibility today, even if completely illegal and with huge sanctions; it being completely legal as well as incredibly lucrative for some pharmacist to sell me lethal fake drugs, or some dealer to sell the pharmacists fakes, is not something I would look forward to. It doesnt take a lot of thinking to see this will happen often. After all, why wouldnt a pharmacist, particularly one thats about to retire or sell his pharmacy make a little fortune for a few months by selling fakes? So what if he gets caught; its legal.

Mind you, this is just drugs. It applies to anything, from aircraft spare parts to financial products.

[bb113]

The same way it works now... Think about it. Why do you trust the strange pharmacist in a strange city? What happens under the current system when a rouge pharmacist starts selling drugs he isn't licensed to sell (or substitutes or whatever)?

The answer to the last one is he gets his comeuppance once people figure out what he is doing.

What if he only does it to strangers, who will come intervene to stop this creepy small town murderer?

[bb113]

I don't mean to seem so confident. Really I'm just playing devil's advocate. It is a complete gray area that requires discussion though.

[bb113]

And yes, I would be able to verify drugs with the proper tools.

[P4man]

The same way it works now... Think about it. Why do you trust the strange pharmacist in a strange city?

Because the penalties for producing and selling fake drugs are huge. He has little to no incentive to sell fakes, when he has a choice between makes a good living selling the real stuff, or living his life in jail selling fakes. He also has no competitive pressure from other pharmacies selling cheap fakes. Thats why I generally trust them. Here. I would never buy my drugs in Somalia though.

[bb113]

So you prefer the current system because it includes the threat of jail time rather than the libertarian threat of (honestly I don't know what comes after lawsuit for a professional con artist).

Go to walgreens and you will find personal drug tests for pretty cheap. These are ELISAs.

----
In general:
There are some variations on this theme... the main point is a rabbit or whatever is made allergic to the drug then the antibodies it produces are harvested from blood. One subset of these antibodies are then stuck to either some strip of paper material or the bottom a plastic dish. Then a second antibody to the drug (or drug bound to antibody) is added which is attached to some colored molecule. If both stick in the same place the test is positive as made evident by the color localizing in one place.
----

When the FDA tests batches they likely use these as their first screen. Once developed they can be produced and sold for very cheap. If you want further verification you need access to a GC/MS (gas chromatography followed by mass spectrometry). These machines have many uses and are used by private non-science organizations for e.g. testing soil for contamination before someone sells land. The ELISA kit you can carry with you. If paranoid, for further verification you could have your local pharmacist order some drug from where you are headed beforehand and test it using the GC/MS. There would also likely be a pharmacist's society to which each individual pharmacist is registered and liable. If government impediments to purchase of these kits are removed, this should protect you just as well as , if not better than, the current system.

[P4man]

So you prefer the current system because it includes the threat of jail time rather than the libertarian threat of (honestly I don't know what comes after lawsuit for a professional con artist).

The libertarian threat of nothing. People here are arguing all IP should be abolished, so counterfeiting would no longer exist or be a crime.  It would become a perfectly legal profession. Yes, I prefer the system where counterfeiting is a crime.

[bb113]

So you prefer the current system because it includes the threat of jail time rather than the libertarian threat of (honestly I don't know what comes after lawsuit for a professional con artist).

The libertarian threat of nothing. People here are arguing all IP should be abolished, so counterfeiting would no longer exist or be a crime.  It would become a perfectly legal profession. Yes, I prefer the system where counterfeiting is a crime.

I'll let someone else answer that one. I assume aggression would be allowed in the name of self defense.

[Explodicle]

When you're on the hammer forum, everything looks like a nail. Maybe smart property would help solve the counterfeiting problem? At the top of the supply chain, the product is signed by a manufacturer with good reviews. At every hand-off, the goods are signed off to the new owner. When you go to buy your product at the store, you scan an RFID tag or bar/QR code to verify its legitimacy and lawful ownership by the store. At the moment of purchase, the good is signed over to you.

"Hey! My phone just detected that something in my cart went through an untrusted channel! Here it is, this shampoo was sold to an anonymous recipient a year ago. And [opens it] it smells like cheese!"

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Smart_Property

[FredericBastiat]

So you prefer the current system because it includes the threat of jail time rather than the libertarian threat of (honestly I don't know what comes after lawsuit for a professional con artist).

The libertarian threat of nothing. People here are arguing all IP should be abolished, so counterfeiting would no longer exist or be a crime.  It would become a perfectly legal profession. Yes, I prefer the system where counterfeiting is a crime.

Counterfeiting should not be a crime (it is both non-violent and does not involve the physical property of others). However, if you promise -as in contract- to deliver a product originating from another manufacturer, and you deliver a "fake" or "copy", then you would be in breach of contract and could be "punished" (put in your flavor of restitution here).

[westkybitcoins]

Curious; those objecting to IP rights, I assume you also object to trademarks? So it would be okay for any company to sell their hardware branded as "apple"? I could sell any drink as "coca cola", in identically looking bottles ? I could sell fake medical drugs under the same name as the real one, in the same box, even though they just contain calcium tablets?

Generally, fraud is a separate issue from IP. If you buy a bottle of aspirin, but take it home and find it contains antacids, then that's fraud, and should incur consequences, at the very least a lawsuit.

Someone who goes out of their way to convince someone they're buying a product from someone they're not falls into the same category, although the line is more blurry. Again, judges, juries and local standards should be able to hash that out.

But a company that sells knockoff Rolex watches ("Rolls-X"?) Or one that sells "Cola-Coke" that is far inferior to Coca-Cola? That sort of stuff happens all over the world already today, including in the US, and most seem to handle it fine. That's not a problem.

[SgtSpike]

So you prefer the current system because it includes the threat of jail time rather than the libertarian threat of (honestly I don't know what comes after lawsuit for a professional con artist).

The libertarian threat of nothing. People here are arguing all IP should be abolished, so counterfeiting would no longer exist or be a crime.  It would become a perfectly legal profession. Yes, I prefer the system where counterfeiting is a crime.

Counterfeiting should not be a crime (it is both non-violent and does not involve the physical property of others). However, if you promise -as in contract- to deliver a product originating from another manufacturer, and you deliver a "fake" or "copy", then you would be in breach of contract and could be "punished" (put in your flavor of restitution here).

But it doesn't matter if you ruin one company's reputation by selling an inferior product under their brand name?

Your theory of how the world should work just sounds more and more screwed up the more I listen to it.  I can't imagine any modern world actually functioning with the sort of ruleset you propose.

That said, I'm going to move on from this thread now.

[epbaha]

@SgtSpike

Music can only be created so well on a volunteer basis.

Mozart, Bach, and Beethoven created great pieces without copyright. 

and the book I linked earlier (http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/against.htm) gives historic examples of copyrights and patents being used as weapons to attack competition like Watt with his steam engine patent.

[FredericBastiat]

But it doesn't matter if you ruin one company's reputation by selling an inferior product under their brand name?

Your theory of how the world should work just sounds more and more screwed up the more I listen to it.  I can't imagine any modern world actually functioning with the sort of ruleset you propose.

That said, I'm going to move on from this thread now.

Define "ruined" reputation. What kind of legal restitution would you want that would improve your reputation? People will think what they will think, and say what they will say. At what point do you get to point the proverbial gun in their face and say "or else"? Physically punishing someone because of the form of speech they use is violating that right to freedom of speech. What forms of speech should be regulated and punished, and why?

This is a speech issue were talking about here. When does one's ability to express himself fall into the category of violence, or theft?

I'm not necessarily suggesting a ruleset. I'm merely pointing out that responding with violence against a form of speech might be a bit excessive. Should we not concern ourselves with proportional punishment issues, say in a worse case scenario "eye for an eye" (i.e. you don't punish petty theft with death).

[P4man]

@SgtSpike

Music can only be created so well on a volunteer basis.

Mozart, Bach, and Beethoven created great pieces without copyright. 

They were for the most part, paid by
... governments.