> What makes that sharing theft? The reduction of royalties from sales.
Fred Foldvary >>>> I want to do a quickie analysis of this before proceeding to the discussion about the alleged economic utility of unrestricted immigration. Although this sounds like a legal or moral question, the transformation of monopoly rights into an ethical rather than utilitarian question has important economic consequences by impeding reform and even debate about these government-granted temporary monopolies. (And if this is really a question of property rights, isn't it unethical to place an expiration date on these rights?) Using the same reasoning commonly used to protect intellectual monopolies, if I own the only grocery store in Toadville Arkansas, giving me a de facto local monopoly, and you open up another store and underprice me, thus depriving me of a substantial portion of the profits I was making while I benefited from a de facto monopoly, then you are a thief, because you have reduced the profits from my sales. Copying is an illegal infringement on a legally protected monopoly position, but that is not the same thing as theft. Theft deprives one of the possession of his property. Growing vegetables in my back yard that are identical to those sold by the local grocer will reduce his profits, but depriving the grocer of potential profits is not the moral equivalent of depriving the grocer of his actual goods. But if government made a law granting the grocer a monopoly and forbidding me from producing identical goods, then growing veggies in my backyard has become an illegal infringement of a legal monopoly, even though it is not theft. ----- > However, having available a lower bottom wage certainly makes that area more > attractive/ profitable, potentially, for new jobs. I'm pretty sure rates of > job creation are higher where there are more immigrants, That would be California, America's no. 1 destination for new immigrants. How's their rate of job creation? Any data? Of course, I realize that public policy in California has gotten increasingly dysfunctional for the last 20 years or so, but that is part of the immigration equation too. Most immigrants come from countries with more statist political and economic traditions than the Anglo-Saxon world, and especially the United States, and political traditions tend to be very conservative; that is, they tend to pass like religious affiliations to the next generation. >(Wouldn't it be interesting if gov. Arnold decided to register all illegals, and not deport them as long as they pay some $100/ month to the state of CA.?) > California already has a policy of not deporting or reporting illegals, and it actively seeks to facilitate the acquisition of legal documents like driver's licenses that allow them to integrate as much as possible into California's economy. And they don't even have to pay your $100 a month for these services (which actively aid and abet a violation of federal law--what happens if a private citizen does this?). Why do you think California is the most popular destination for immigrants, even as it experiences a net exodus of the nativeborn? > I oppose using force to reward creators for their work. Why? Is it a question of utility or "morality" for you? If morality, what is the source of this moral dictum? As far as I can tell, categorical prohibitions on force are unprecedented in mankind's ethical systems. Even the Amish spank their children and punish (by shunning) adults who break their communal rules, although they will not protect themselves from armed attack. > And some other form of donation/ voluntary/ prolly tax-funded rewards for > creators will be found ... for medical & drug research. Prolly not for film > nor music nor software -- open source all infotainment. In neo-classical economics, monopolies have been justified only by their social utility. But in recent years, there doesn't seem to be any debate over the social utility of copyright and patent monopolies. Instead, the public debate often seems to regard such monopolies as the equivalent of a property right, which is absurd. No business has an intrinsic "right" to a monopoly. I also doubt that the abandonment of all copyright and patent laws would maximize utility either, but I think the monopoly benefits have become excessive in some cases--for example, copyrights have been extended longer than necessary to provide a production incentive; indeed, reducing the length of copyrights might even increase the incentive to produce more creative material. Patents are granted today for trivial improvements, such as Amazon.com's "one click" purchasing over the internet. In the case of file sharing of popular music, one has to consider both whether technology has made music copyrights essentially unenforceable--especially when the development of improved technology is being discouraged or prevented in order to protect the monopoly profits of the pop music industry; and one also must weigh the relative utility to society of pop music as opposed to technology and information. These items are not at all in the same class as far as objective benefits to society. Of course, one could argue that the state has no business making judgments of social utility at all, that the market alone should determine this; but in that case, the logical conclusion is to oppose all copyright and patent laws, since they presume the state should make a judgment about the social utility of innovation. ~Alypius
