Innovation without Intellectual Property

Under Voluntaryist philosophy, intellectual property through the monopoly of violence called “the state” is considered inherently unethical.

To understand why, let’s first define intellectual property.

Intellectual property is the force of the state used to keep others from copying or deriving other works from a person’s creative idea put into a fixed medium such as on paper or in a digital file.

The reason why intellectual property cannot be upheld under Voluntaryist norms is that ideas are not themselves scarce and, in enforcing intellectual property, there is an initiation of force against others for how they use their wholly-owned, independent property.

For a simple example, if someone were to make a drawing of Mickey Mouse using their own pencil and paper, that would be considered copyright infringement.

Enforcement would involve agents of the state threatening physical violence against a person for making the drawing without the consent of the Disney Corporation.

So, if intellectual property as enforced by the state is unethical, the question then is how inventors and creators can get rewarded for their innovation if they cannot rely on the state doing violence on their behalf for a limited period of time.

Fortunately, there are many means for innovation to take place and for creators to be rewarded without having to rely on IP alone.

And these means have sprung up largely due to the ease of copying ideas with modern technology.

Let’s look at the music industry for a good example of what has already taken place to adapt to this ease of copying.

Since the advent of torrenting sites like Napster in 1999 and LimeWire in 2000, musicians have faced the reality that people could rip their music and share it without having to pay a licensing fee.

No longer could musicians count on record and CD sales to line their pockets as people started to get music digitally through the internet.

Myspace’s creation in 2003 further changed the landscape for big-name musicians as indie artists began releasing their music for free on the platform in the hopes that people would listen to their songs and become fans through viral attraction.

Bands like Attack Attack!, Panic! At the Disco, Fall Out Boy, and The Arctic Monkeys, used the platform to grow their audiences, and millions listened to their music with no up-front price to pay on Myspace’s platform.

Money-making opportunities that could not be replicated otherwise arose in response, such as VIP tickets with photo ops, private concerts, special merchandise sold only at a live performances, and direct-support crowdfunding whether through Patreon, Kickstarter, or Indiegogo.

Artists adapted by looking to provide experiences that could not readily be replicated by others, and, in doing so, created a whole host of new ways to inspire fandom.

Even with songs being readily copied, Artists could still rely on platform-based identity to keep fans informed of official content, whether from their unique Website URL or their YouTube channel or Twitter account.

In this way, artists could prove original authorship through releases on their scarce channels.

And demonstrating original authorship is looking brighter than ever now with blockchain technology.

Using blockchain, creators in the future will be able to prove first-to-market creation via a decentralized blockchain system that stores a public record of when a work was first published.

Using blockchain, artists and authors can have a means to prove origination to others.

Of course, adaptation for those in the creative space is not the same as those who are making physical products where significant research and development costs are involved.

So, how do those who are innovating in mechanics and medicine get a reward for their work?

Looking to the current landscape, it’s important to realize that there is mass copying taking place even in the hard sciences.

Chinese companies readily take the details for manufactured products and copy them with knock-offs.

Engineering firms in the U.S. attempt to reverse engineer drugs and electronic technologies to see how they can arrive at the same outcome using a different method from that which was patented.

Dealing with these kinds of issues is where other kinds of incentives come into play, from meeting consumer demands in warranty to helping a research hospital find a cure.

Those looking to innovate with or within a company will likely have to tie their innovation to contractual non-disclosure offerings.

For example, if an inventor wanted to pitch their product to a company, those at the company would sign a non-disclosure with the inventor which, as it is contractual, can be held against the company should the company use or disclose the invention.

The company would seek to profit as against competitors by offering warranties only through authorized retailers who have signed agreements.

In this way, consumers can be assured that the product they are getting is authentic and is backed by a warranty.
Those who fraudulently claim to be the inventor or to be a part of the parent company could be held liable by customers for the fraudulent claims.

This method for fostering physical product innovation is, of course, not the only one.

As it stands, people give billions of dollars to charity every year and, among those charities, are research hospitals and scientific bodies looking to cure disease or improve disability.

People already have the incentive to support such endeavors out of a personal interest, whether it’s because they have an ailment, or a loved one does.

Research can be funded voluntarily out of the self-interest of individuals wanting to ameliorate their own or a loved one’s suffering.

And this kind of decentralization in shared knowledge for innovation isn’t limited to medicine.

Open-source software has already been a huge driver of improving technology around the world.

Websites like GitHub host code blocks and threads where the developer community shares knowledge out of personal self-interest to improve their own software development practice.

This drift toward open-source is so powerful, even global software companies like Microsoft have moved toward open-source solutions while focusing to profit on that which is scarce: databasing and storage.

The reason why is that leaders in these companies have come to realize that sharing knowledge radically improves development quality and allows for quick adoption of new technology while still being able to profit off adjunct services.

Open sourcing has shifted the market away from people trying to monopolize and profit off of an idea alone, to profiting off of who can deliver the best customer service.

When you see that intellectual property removal shifts the market from idea monopolization to competition in service, it becomes less frightening to see the direction of a free future in ideas.

These means I discussed are not the only ways that people may innovate without intellectual property, but they do show from the existing world that adaptation can and will take place.

Accepting an ethical future without state-based intellectual property is just a matter of recognizing that people will find a way to be rewarded for their creativity, whether that’s through contract or through customer service.