Development Without Intellectual PropertyFikri Mülkiyet Olmadan Gelişim

Is technological and artistic development possible without intellectual property?

Intellectual property means that if you spend, say, $100 million to make a movie, all the revenue from the movie will belong to you. A foreigner cannot make money by selling your movie. Only people who have agreements with you can sell your film.

There seems to be little incentive to create a $30 million video game or a $200 million movie when one is allowed to freely distribute the product after purchasing it. Is there any point in investing $1 billion in researching a new drug when anyone can sell the formula immediately after you discover it?

These are valid criticisms, but they ignore how intellectual property agreements would work in a free market.

People who are opposed to intellectual property will actually make contracts among themselves that protect intellectual property. So, instead of being completely opposed to intellectual property, we can be said to be opposed to intellectual property laws.

All of us, hundreds of millions of people, make some kind of contract. If you find immortality: If you sell indiscriminately: If you sell at a reasonable price according to the person's income: All the money belongs to you.

Likewise, if you make a new video game, we signed a contract with 2.5 billion people: The money you earn will be yours and we will not copy the codes of the game.

What will happen to the remaining 5.6 billion people? They are stealing your free game but these 2.5 billion people will boycott them in every aspect of life.

So society signs general agreements:

[Whoever makes a video game gets the revenue from that game]

[Whoever finds immortality will make money from it for 1000 (or infinite) years.]

Let's say immortality was discovered in my grandfather's time. I did not sign a contract. What prevents me from gaining immortality for free? = If you do this, the people who sign intellectual property agreements will boycott you. That is, intellectual property is protected in every generation.

So, we don't believe in intellectual property, but we don't see a problem in protecting intellectual property through contracts.

So Why Is Intellectual Property Wrong?

Let's say you are developing a drug. There are two other companies in the development phase of the same drug. One improved by 90%, the other by 60%. Why should the company that first developed the drug monopolize the right to sell it? Why shouldn't companies that developed the drug later be able to sell the drug?

They say that if this is not done, technology and art will not develop. This is a completely artificial monopoly defense. The first developer should not be able to eliminate its competitors and declare itself a monopoly.

If multiple companies sell the same drug, the consumer can purchase the product at the best price-performance point. If a single company sells it, the consumer will have to buy at the high monopoly price.

For example, I might think that if a company finds immortality, it should make all the money on its own. But I can also imagine that if multiple companies sell immortality, immortality would be cheaper. I can also believe that by the method I choose, the time I have to wait for immortality to be found will be shortened. So it's all about personal opinions.

We want intellectual property to be enforced on a purely contractual basis. I can, not sign any intellectual property agreements and continue my life by accepting the boycott. This should be my freedom.

Translated with the help of Google translate. Please report translation errors on reddit.