Ask Prof Wolff: Copyrights & Capitalism, A Critique

A patron of Economic Update asks: "Dear Prof. Wolff, could you please comment on intellectual property in capitalism. How did it come to be? Is it a driving or rather a gating mechanism for a progress of ideas? What do you think about the currently growing movement called copyleft?" This is Professor Richard Wolff's video response.

_________________________________________________________________________

“A magnificent source of hope and insight.” Yanis Varoufakis, Greek economist, academic, philosopher, politician, author of Talking to my daughter about the economy.
_________________________________________________________________________
Follow Wolff ONLINE:

[HillbillyHippyOG]

The real reason for intellectual property is so that large companies can hire the inventors and then patent their employees’ inventions for themselves. Rarely does an inventor get the patent AND the capital to produce the idea by themselves.

[ladooshka]

Thank you, Prof., as always for your detailed answer! I really appreciate it!!!

[lyndachristman]

The economic inequality stands in the way of progress

[nandfednu]

In a superior economic system, money is not the only product of the system

[chrismalcomson]

My brother was a composer before he died of cancer 5 years ago. His copyright portfolio is paying my sister inlaw, his widow more money 5 years after his death than he recieved when he was alive, because one of his compositions is being used in a hit TV series..It does throw up the question of the extent of copyright..

[michaelmcgoldrick]

Get your point and it's valid as always👍✌️💯

[penguinnh]

The discussion of Patents, Copyrights, Trademarks, Public Domain, Trade Secrets and other areas of Intellectual Property is fairly complex and really can not be done in a ten minute lecture. The question asked of Dr. Wolff was very pointed and in trying to give an answer on "copyleft" probably should have driven a much longer lecture.

You may not like the concept of IP, but it is actually included in the United States Constitution (which is really a business document...."Rights" came along much later). The current laws on IP need REFORM, perhaps with some interesting concepts like "copyleft" and "Creative Commons" made more mainstream. Unfortunately most business people only know a tiny bit of IP law, and default to what they know. And the Patent and Trademark office is understaffed and overwhelmed, IMHO.

The transistor was invented and patented by Bell Laboratories, the research arm of AT&T (the telephone company). Because AT&T was viewed as a regulated monopoly (70% of the telephone business in the USA) they were forced to license their technologies at a "reasonable license fee" even to there competitors. This was an example of a good license path.

[popasmurf]

about time someone said it, nice argument

[ShikataGaNai]

Some academics are so "protected" by copyright that they have to pay to look at their own work online.

[itzenormous]

Protecting copyrights and so-called "private property" has always been the way, in which, Western "Liberal" Societies have championed the individual over the community, and private property rights over the greater good. Liberalism (or if you like, we can say 'Conservatism') - they are, essentially, the same set of ideas - has always held that the individual, individual liberties, individual responsibility, individual prerogatives, individual identity, and so on and so forth have always been tantamount to the wider society, the greater good, the community-at-large et cetera. And we have built a society, based on Western "Liberal Values" that is centered around protecting the privileged, the landowners, landlords, rent extractors, money lenders, and so on. So-called "intellectual property rights" are just another way that our Atlanticist Culture allows certain individuals to extract perpetual rent payments, and accrue unearned income. The rich call it "passive income."

[penguinnh]

Before patents "intellectual property" was practiced by hiding the way you did your processes. You come up with a better way of doing something (such as the making of steel) you kept the process secret. And the secret died with you. Patents made you disclose your process for a limited period of time. After that the process was in the public domain. Of course you could go on and develop improvements to that process and patent that, but the basic patent was free for people to use. The real problem today is that we need patent REFORM, because the things that people are patenting do not meet one of the tests of "non obvious".

Patenting of natural seeds, for instance, should be banned. Just submitting a seed genome from a naturally occurring plant to the patent office and saying that no one else can grow that seed should not be allowed.

Trying to patent a design of a "flat, light tablet with rounded corners" is also crazy.

[btdmariomusiccube]

Open source software like Firefox, Linux, Audacity, Blender are proof that innovation can thrive without patents. The real purpose of patents is not to encourage innovation, but to extract value from it. If you're interested in the copyleft movement, I recommend looking into the free and open source software (FOSS) movement.

[penguinnh]

While ideas were invented before copyright law, the copying and dissemination of that idea was very expensive. It was typically done by the expensive process of a scribe.

The Gutenberg printing press changed all this, where the author would generate the idea, publish it.

Then someone else would buy one copy, typeset another book, print it and undersell you.

[kapa]

a couple of years ago everybody was talking about 3D printers, and the reason wasn't because they were invented recently, but because a patent ran out that suddenly allowed people to use them freely.
one of the things a patent does is that it prevents everybody from benefitting from certain technologies, by giving the 'right' to use a certain technology only to the patent holder (usually some corporation or rich guy).
with copyrights there is an additional component tho. it's an attack on freedom of expression. the default is: you can say/sing/write whatever you wants, but if somebody else owns a copyright or a trademark of something, than suddenly you're not allowed to do this particular thing (like make your own StarWars or XMen or MickeyMouse movie..).
it sacrifices freedom of the arts/expression and denies people technology (or increases prices for technology).

[eldizo_]

IP in a way is one of the most vile forms of property.
Support open sourced software whenever you can. Even if they don't carry good licenses, going for them is lightyears ahead of closed-proprietary bullshit.

[lamodernista]

The world could use another Doctor Jonas Salk right now.

[dentonfender]

I have a patent on an electronic device, that I couldn't sell. Couldn't find financing to manufacturer it myself either. I have seen much less beneficial inventions sold in the market place. So I scratch my head on the whole process, and would never recommend anybody getting a patent unless it is extremely beneficial, and most importantly will make lots of money. Even more important, that it could be copied with a very slight change, and patented by someone else. There are ways to hide the workings of an idea, and keep it from copy cats. My patent was broadly defined in the patent, and still it was copied, and sold almost immediately after I gave up, and didn't pay my final installment to the US Patent, and Trademark office. I haven't seen my idea sold in stores, so the copy cat must of failed, and my idea was not recognized by the public as a product most people would want, although their are expensive versions of it that are sold to Architects to be installed in the homes of the very wealthy. It's a cold, and cutthroat world out there especially in a capitalist world.

[hosueb]

Is this not just describing academia? or at least replicating it for all inventions? I'm curious on a more detailed response on copyleft than the 5 seconds at the end. Its much more than Dr. Wolff describes, and uses copyright to ensure freedom (not free as in no cost).

[HxHDRA]

We need a Right to Copy not a copyright #abolishcopyright

[davidromney]

Do you have a framework for a society post-Capitalism? Granted, the rich will never admit the collapse of Capitalism, and will become overt dictators before parting with the wealth that they claim from our labor and that of our ancestors. But if we have answers to every question and can navigate the change with the help of AI, the transition could happen almost instantly.