Like most people, I used to think intellectual property (IP) was a legitimate property right, yet from time to time, I could see in it serious flaws. Are you really a thief because you made yourself (or a friend) a mixed-tape (cd)? Who is it that no longer possesses the property you (allegedly) stole?
Something just seemed too artificial about IP.
How can someone "own" an idea? I like to read books. Am I supposed to forget everything I read because I didn't originate the idea? How is that even possible? What would be the point of reading a book if you can't absorb its ideas?
The Austrian School of Economics provides the definitive case against IP: The Case Against IP: A Concise Guide. I've argued against IP myself: Against Intellectual Property.
Why should I care about IP?
Well, for starters ... As the following video details, IP is an unprofitable business model.
Johanna Blakley: Lessons from fashion's free culture
H/T - Intellectual Property = Lower Profits
[E]thically, property rights of any kind have to be justified as extensions of the right of individuals to control their own lives. Thus any alleged property rights that conflict with this moral basis – like the “right” to own slaves – are invalidated. Intellectual property rights also fail to pass this test. To enforce copyright laws and the like is to prevent people from making peaceful use of the information they possess.
It may be objected that the person who originated the information deserves ownership rights over it. But information is not a concrete thing an individual can control; it is a universal, existing in other people’s minds and other people’s property, and over those the originator has no legitimate sovereignty. You cannot own information without owning other people.
As for the economic case for property rights, that case depends on scarcity, and information is not, technically speaking, a scarce resource. If A uses some material resource, that makes less of the resource for B, so we need some legal mechanism for determining who gets to use what when. But information is not like that; when A acquires information, that does not decrease B’ share, so property rights are not needed.
Supreme Court rules against the NFL
The National Football League (NFL) is well known for controlling the accessNFL to all things NFL. I know of one website that was devoted to OU running back Adrian Peterson that had to remove some of it’s videos after Peterson went to the Minnesota Vikings. The NFL claimed ownership of some of the videos of Peterson, after he entered the NFL. You can view the videos only if you purchase them from the NFL. That starts sounding a bit cutthroat to me, but there isn’t much a fan can do about it. I mention this as a means to show you just how controlling the NFL is.
Now, let’s get to the case at hand, American Needle v. National Football League. American Needle is an apparel company who used to be able to negotiate with each individual team for licensing and apparel contracts.
The lawsuit went against American Needle in the 7th U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals, but the U. S. Supreme Court ruled yesterday that the teams making up the NFL should be considered 32 individual teams, instead of one entity. The ruling was unanimous and causes the lawsuit to be sent back to the lower courts to work out a licensing agreement that would be possibly favor American Needle.
What are the implications of this ruling?
Intellectual property law touches all of our lives in multiple ways, so it makes sense to learn more about them.
I believe the more you learn about IP too, the more you'll realize they aren't a product of the free market, but arbitrary political constructs instead.
