• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Copyrights and patents

Curious George

Veteran Member
What are your opinions on copyrights and patents?

Is this a symptom of the nanny state? If you think not, why should the government intervene in this matter and not other matters?

Ought there be a limit regarding what can and cannot be copyrighted or patented?
 

Epic Beard Man

Bearded Philosopher
Good question.

Humans aren’t honest creatures and with that being said there ought to be an intermediary between civilians when it comes to the construction of projects that may potentially generate revenue. Because without any intermediary anyone can obviously claim something as theirs. I believe on this basis most certainly should there be some form of intervention but how it’s mass produced, marketed, and used in our society is another story
 

esmith

Veteran Member
Alright, let me ask you a question. You invent and have a working fusion reactor, some big company comes along takes your plans and starts producing and selling fusion reactors for power plants. They don't pay you a dime for your hard work. Are you OK with that.
 

Cooky

Veteran Member
What are your opinions on copyrights and patents?

Is this a symptom of the nanny state? If you think not, why should the government intervene in this matter and not other matters?

Ought there be a limit regarding what can and cannot be copyrighted or patented?

It can get a little ridiculous, especially after the suit against Fortnite over The Carlton, dance move.

Turns out the judge decided that such simple moves were not patentable.

How Strong Is Alfonso Ribeiro's 'Carlton Dance' Lawsuit Against Fortnite Creator?

GrouchyUnderstatedElk-max-1mb.gif
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
Alright, let me ask you a question. You invent and have a working fusion reactor, some big company comes along takes your plans and starts producing and selling fusion reactors for power plants. They don't pay you a dime for your hard work. Are you OK with that.
Sounds like capitalism to me. You think the government should get involved and tell us what we can and cannot build/sell/produce?
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Isn't it all just big government interfering with competition?

Isn't this a symptom of the nanny state?
Another view....
To protect ownership of intellectual property is useful,
just as it is to protect material property.
If one invests in a technology, it's reasonable to grant
some period of exclusive ownership. It incentivizes
investment. The same is true for artistic works.

There are questions of just what level of government
becomes a "nanny state".....
Do courts, police, military, & roads rise to that level?
Or is it more about government providing more supportive
things, eg, food, money, housing?
Having property rights, courts & police powers don't seem
to rise to the level of "nanny state".
 

esmith

Veteran Member
Sounds like capitalism to me. You think the government should get involved and tell us what we can and cannot build/sell/produce?
In certain areas yes. If I was an inventor I would like some protection over my property rights.

One of the most fundamental requirements of a capitalist economic system—and one of the most misunderstood concepts—is a strong system of property rights.
Above from: https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/PropertyRights.html

What are Property Rights
Property rights refer to the theoretical and legal ownership of specific property by individuals and the ability to determine how such property is used. In many countries, including the United States, individuals generally exercise private property rights – the rights of private persons to accumulate, hold, delegate, rent or sell their property. In economics, property rights form the basis for all market exchange, and the allocation of property rights in a society affects the efficiency of resource use.
above from: Property Rights
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
Another view....
To protect ownership of intellectual property is useful,
just as it is to protect material property.
If one invests in a technology, it's reasonable to grant
some period of exclusive ownership. It incentivizes
investment. The same is true for artistic works.
I understand why. But intellectual property is a legal fiction. It is not material property. You cannot exclusively possess it once another person knows. Giving this legal fiction merit is condoning interference with a free market system.

There are questions of just what level of government
becomes a "nanny state".....
Do courts, police, military, & roads rise to that level?
Or is it more about government providing more supportive
things, eg, food, money, housing?
Having property rights, courts & police powers don't seem
to rise to the level of "nanny state".
I think nanny state is a funny phrase, hence my use heretobefore (another fun and funny word).

I am just struggling to understand why people are so supportive of interfering with the free market. Is it because a free market is not actually the best model?
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
In certain areas yes. If I was an inventor I would like some protection over my property rights.

One of the most fundamental requirements of a capitalist economic system—and one of the most misunderstood concepts—is a strong system of property rights.
Neither patents nor copyrights are necessary for a system to have strong property rights.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I understand why. But intellectual property is a legal fiction. It is not material property. You cannot exclusively possess it once another person knows. Giving this legal fiction merit is condoning interference with a free market system.
It's not about the exclusivity of knowing about it,
but rather the right to use it for commercial purpose.

Huh....I thought was obvious to all.
Perhaps not.
As an engineer, I pursued patents for that very reason.
It was never to keep things secret.
I think nanny state is a funny phrase, hence my use heretobefore (another fun and funny word).

I am just struggling to understand why people are so supportive of interfering with the free market. Is it because a free market is not actually the best model?
The term "free market" doesn't mean that there are no restrictions.
For example, market freedom is enhanced by prohibiting monopolies.

Free markets are typically defined by things like....
- Not subsidizing one business over another.
- Not regulating price of goods or services.
But things like safety regulations for cars still allows
free competition.
 
Last edited:

suncowiam

Well-Known Member
What are your opinions on copyrights and patents?

Is this a symptom of the nanny state? If you think not, why should the government intervene in this matter and not other matters?

Ought there be a limit regarding what can and cannot be copyrighted or patented?

Do you consider China a nanny state?
 
Top