Sooner or later so-called IP was bound to become a weapon in sanctions 'diplomacy
Russia's proposed breach of IP based rentier economic hegemony is welcome.
The concept of IP is inherently false. Even worse, it endangers the thing it supposedly protects: creativity and industrial innovation. In a world where knowledge is kept behind paywalls (copyright) and monopoly is applied to applications of knowledge (patents) a core precursor for free-rein of ideas is stifled. Scrapping copyright and patents would release cultural ferment. The alternative to rentier economics is return to competing for patronage to support projects ranging from the mundane (pop music and film) via literary culture to innovation in science. In fact, the higher reaches of culture, as once were exemplified in universities, were, and many still are, dependent upon patronage from public funds, charitable bodies, and individual donations.
In post-rentier economics (essentially return to what pertained at the time of Leonardo da Vinci) the end product - be it an idea or digital artefact constructed from an idea - has no monetary value whatsoever. Similarly, use of ideas for constructing physical artefacts like widgets and pharmaceuticals carries no expense beyond that of construction.
In rentier economics applicable to the world of ideas, all constructed artefacts, digital and physical, are deemed as products to be sold on a open market. Supposedly IP determined markets are fallacious. They operate on monopoly basis. There can be no price discovery. 'Scarcity' is absent although pretence is made of it being the driving force. Lack of scarcity is obvious with digital artefacts because they can be copied endlessly without degradation. Scarcity of physical products protected by patent is false too and attained by restriction on production.
Post-rentier economics primarily consists of markets in skills. People, and companies, must convince other people that what they offer to produce given adequate funding is of cultural worth or monetary worth when later developed as physical product in an open (non-monopoly) market. The bedrock for markets in skills and imagination is 'reputation'. This is earned through previous deeds other people set store by. Reputation alone has value. This determines whether patronage can be obtained. It is reputation that requires legal protection: not any ideas generated. A key to disseminating reputation is an ethic requiring full disclosure (attribution) of ideas from other sources which have been re-presented (e.g. an alternative ending to a novel written by somebody else), otherwise borrowed from, and/or developed along new lines.
A simple example should suffice. Consider post-rentier economics film making. Many would-be film makers emerge from college with a short work they created during their studies. That past attainment indicates potential for greater things and access to resource raised through patronage enables undertaking bigger projects. Most likely, the sample "short" would act as passport into joining a co-operative of the like minded or being taken on by a cottage industry film company. The company would raise patronage for further works on basis of reputation gained from previous works. Patrons (e.g. through crowd funding) are not "investors". They seek no financial return. They look forward to a finished work to which they may have contributed a tiny sum.
The final product in digital incarnation has no intrinsic monetary worth despite cost of making it. Anyone may distribute it so long as attribution is intact.The originators may generate further income through selling added-value goods and services associated with their works. Global reach of the Internet enables easy dissemination and maximises prospect of recognition, i.e. reputation, from people interested in that film genre.
Just as for Leonardo da Vinci, people making a living through film (writers, technicians, producers, directors, and when applicable, actors) live off income streams generated through patronage. Nobody owes them a living other than that which is freely given. They have no royalties to live off and thus must make pension arrangement from income. Use of imagination offers revenue from sale of physical artefacts. For instance, autographed - indeed personalised - DVD copies much as when a photographer sells signed copies of his work. Operating in this manner encourages financial prudence regarding operating costs. A host of intermediaries effectively made redundant by digital production - they don't yet know it - are surplus to requirements and cannot gorge off a carcass from which production companies receive only a small share. End recipients - so-called 'consumers' - are left with greater personal disposable income and if so inclined may exercise more power of patronage.
Russia is proposing only limited renunciation of "rights" culture. However, that may be sufficient to provoke broad questioning of the rotten foundation to a huge body of law. Doing their sums, nations might begin to grasp that total abolition of the concept of IP along lines mentioned above, would produce greater benefit to their own economies than losses resulting from not being able to enforce indigenous "rights". African and Latin American countries could start by renouncing copyright on academic materials and patents for pharmaceuticals.
The only deeply vulnerable nation is the USA. It is highly dependent upon supposed IP rights. Perhaps the USA shall rue the day when it bearded Russia.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
