Jan 18, 2012


More info at: http://sopastrike.com/


So it seems the protest is being succesful...
I hope freedom will be preserved and that the fact that intellectual property means monopoly will be recognized as inefficient as it is.
Authorship and identity are crearly a fair right, but why should someone have a monopoly over the copies of a work? Why should I pay someone for using their work when my use does not impose any additional cost for the production of the orginal work?
It's a matter of freedom, first. But that might be a particular vision of the world. However, it's a matter of efficiency and that's objective: Intellectual property imposes a cost on society without any proof that is boosts innovative works. Stop.
If producing a copy costs near to 0 (marginal cost is zero), then the best thing we can to it to set its price near to zero. If there are fixed costs that need to be repaid, their remuneration must not come from pricing, for the simple reason that it is inefficient.
Some other way to repay the fixed cost must be found, and the evidence I know shows that it normally happens by some first-move advantage of the author even in the absence of intellectual property (or invasive intellectual property). So actually nothing needs to be done in most situations.
What's the best way to be effcient and get marginal cost pricing? Competition. Granting, by law, an intellectual monopoly is inefficient and enforcing it is very costly both in monetary and freedom terms.
Moreover as long as any original work and innovation is based on previous works, having to pay for using those works just adds to costs of innovating: Another source of inefficiency.

Here another video explainging SOPA and PIPA:

Popular Posts