Except that you can still make free works available, conditional on derivative works being freely available as well, even in IP systems, but you can’t make gated works in any sense without IP; and producing works that are good enough to make money under copyright (but released without) involves a non-trivial cost, unlike the cost of not-using a work that only exists because of a creator (and given that the creator was the reason for its existence). And you’ve broken the role of SAMELs, as the want-to-profit creators aren’t subjunctively self-defeating their ability to produce works, as they wouldn’t be able to use the free ones.
(SAMEL is an abbreviation I used on this site but not my blog.)
So all the crucial properties are absent in the reverse case. A good attempt, though.
I can think of a lot of nitpicking applicable to both scenarios. Like this:
Copyleft is a very limited tool, especially against patents, while without IP you can produce many works with other forms of funding—like work contracts. It’s nearly impossible to produce a work that isn’t based on other’s freely available works (regardless if this kind of derivation counts as legally “derivative work” or not), while sticking IP on trivial things just because you can is commonplace. In sufficiently strong IP system pretty much nothing would ever be created, because everything would violate far too many other people’s IP, so it is indeed self-defeating.
I’m sure you can find some other minor differences, and we could go on indefinitely, at least until we figured out that maybe this isn’t the best way to reason.
On another level, I have no idea why you used Omaga as analogous to IP instead of far more obvious analogy to plain old legally enforceable contracts.
The only defense for IP that makes even tiniest bit of economic sense is that transaction costs would prevent consumers negotiating with producers. By straightforward Coase theorem reasoning, for any work that would be profitably produced in IP-based system, at least as good or better outcome could be achieved without IP system if transaction and negotiation costs were zero (plus a few other totally unrealistic assumptions, but none worse than assuming omniscient Omega).
My point isn’t about IP, it’s about how easy it is to twist this way of reasoning with story and analogy in any direction you want by choosing a different analogy.
If your original post was anti-IP, I’d just twist it into pro-IP case. Or if you used aynrandist story about “self-ownership” + analogy to capitalism, I’d use a different analogy that makes it strongly oppose capitalism. Or whatever.
As long as there’s “let’s pick arbitrary analogy” step anywhere in your reasoning system, it’s all infinitely twistable.
The part about Coase theorem was about how your analogy choice was highly unusual. Not that using a more obvious one would entirely avoid the problem.
Except that you can still make free works available, conditional on derivative works being freely available as well, even in IP systems, but you can’t make gated works in any sense without IP; and producing works that are good enough to make money under copyright (but released without) involves a non-trivial cost, unlike the cost of not-using a work that only exists because of a creator (and given that the creator was the reason for its existence). And you’ve broken the role of SAMELs, as the want-to-profit creators aren’t subjunctively self-defeating their ability to produce works, as they wouldn’t be able to use the free ones.
(SAMEL is an abbreviation I used on this site but not my blog.)
So all the crucial properties are absent in the reverse case. A good attempt, though.
I can think of a lot of nitpicking applicable to both scenarios. Like this:
Copyleft is a very limited tool, especially against patents, while without IP you can produce many works with other forms of funding—like work contracts. It’s nearly impossible to produce a work that isn’t based on other’s freely available works (regardless if this kind of derivation counts as legally “derivative work” or not), while sticking IP on trivial things just because you can is commonplace. In sufficiently strong IP system pretty much nothing would ever be created, because everything would violate far too many other people’s IP, so it is indeed self-defeating.
I’m sure you can find some other minor differences, and we could go on indefinitely, at least until we figured out that maybe this isn’t the best way to reason.
On another level, I have no idea why you used Omaga as analogous to IP instead of far more obvious analogy to plain old legally enforceable contracts.
The only defense for IP that makes even tiniest bit of economic sense is that transaction costs would prevent consumers negotiating with producers. By straightforward Coase theorem reasoning, for any work that would be profitably produced in IP-based system, at least as good or better outcome could be achieved without IP system if transaction and negotiation costs were zero (plus a few other totally unrealistic assumptions, but none worse than assuming omniscient Omega).
Much as I’d like to reply, I prefer LW’s norm, so I’m going to grant you a heckler’s veto until you can move these criticisms to my blog.
My point isn’t about IP, it’s about how easy it is to twist this way of reasoning with story and analogy in any direction you want by choosing a different analogy.
If your original post was anti-IP, I’d just twist it into pro-IP case. Or if you used aynrandist story about “self-ownership” + analogy to capitalism, I’d use a different analogy that makes it strongly oppose capitalism. Or whatever.
As long as there’s “let’s pick arbitrary analogy” step anywhere in your reasoning system, it’s all infinitely twistable.
The part about Coase theorem was about how your analogy choice was highly unusual. Not that using a more obvious one would entirely avoid the problem.
Where does the article that is on this site make this flaw in reasoning?
Much as I’d like to reply, I prefer LW’s norm, so I’m going to grant you a heckler’s veto until you can move these criticisms to my blog.