> How? Is putting IP disputes in the court system "without government intervention?"
Assume they’re advocating for some sort of arbitration system.
Assume they’re advocating for some sort of arbitration system.
Without IP laws, how would one party force the other into arbitration? Or to be more specific, if I spend two years writing an excellent novel but Random House legally makes all the money off it it with a pirate edition, why would they enter arbitration with me? They'd just say "get lost," and laugh all the way to the bank.
P.S. Do note that the platform of the Libertarian Party of Colorado explicitly denies that the government has a monopoly on violent force, does not allow the government to initiate violence, and in fact, doesn't describe any way of paying for what force the government may legitimately apply. Enforcing any of your rights requires you to be a part of a more powerful gang than theirs.
Contractually. (Non-participants wouldn’t be subject.)
> Contractually. (Non-participants wouldn’t be subject.)
So the "arbitration" mechanism would be useless in almost all relevant circumstances and is not a serious suggestion.
Not really. Industry arbitration venues exist. So if you want to distribute through such and such channel, or want to buy certain components, part of the agreement is agreeing to certain rules including binding arbitration at certain venues.
It’s silly. But not unworkable for most kinds of IP.
Advocating that IP claims should be forced to fail in private arbitration before being eligible for a hearing in public court is a reasonable way to prioritize the private market fixing problems on the cheap before consuming public resources - but removing the courts as the ultimate arbiter is a really big shift in my mind.
If your work is important or valuable to you, keep it under lock and key.
They could talk at you until you cease resisting.