

Piracy and Fraud Propelled the US Industrial Revolution - nikcub
http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-01/piracy-and-fraud-propelled-the-u-s-industrial-revolution.html

======
codex
I don't think it has ever been disputed that piracy helps the pirates, as is
confirmed by this article. I think most of the debate has centered around
whether it helps society as a whole. In some ways the patent system
discourages the industrial espionage described here by enforcing protection in
return for disclosure, but could also be interpreted as the haves suppressing
the have nots.

~~~
joseflavio
The problem is that US want keep less developed countries as de facto
colonies, the same way UK tried to keep US as a colony. I am pretty sure that
patents are good for the American Society, but not for the poor countries...
On top of this US tries to convince with Propaganda that patents are "rights"
or "property", while in truth they are artificial monopolies only possible
through strong state regulation.

~~~
rayiner
> The problem is that US want keep less developed countries as de facto
> colonies,

I don't see how this is a problem for the U.S. The U.S. should, and indeed
arguably has a moral obligation, to push for policies that benefit its
citizens.

> On top of this US tries to convince with Propaganda that patents are
> "rights" or "property", while in truth they are artificial monopolies only
> possible through strong state regulation.

This is no more or less true than for any kind of property right. Without
strong state regulation, the only "property right" you have is to whatever you
can physically defend. I'd imagine most people posting here would not be in
the same place in the overall hierarchy in such a world...

~~~
MichaelGG
You see no qualitative difference between holding an apple in your hand versus
an idea in your mind?

------
monochromatic
_“Borrow,” of course, really meant “steal,” since there was certainly no
intention of giving the inventions back._

No, it did not mean "steal." They were not depriving the inventors of their
creations, but using the ideas. What would it even mean to give the inventions
back?

~~~
sp332
Thomas Jefferson put it this way: _If nature has made any one thing less
susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the
thinking power called an idea.... He who receives an idea from me, receives
instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper
[candle] at mine, receives light without darkening me._ [http://press-
pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_8s12....](http://press-
pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_8s12.html)

------
alexott
The similar for Germany: [http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/no-
copyright-l...](http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/no-copyright-
law-the-real-reason-for-germany-s-industrial-expansion-a-710976.html)

~~~
lorenzfx
There is also an interesting presentation of the author of the book reviewed.
It has some more detailed information on the book market in Great Britain and
Germany in 18th Century in regard to copyright.

Conclusion: "Copyright […] harmed the average author."

[http://www.scribd.com/doc/46966863/Copyright-and-
structure-o...](http://www.scribd.com/doc/46966863/Copyright-and-structure-of-
authors’-earnings)

------
polskibus
happened between east and west coast too:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Patents_Company>

------
Surio
This article seems like an excerpt/promo for the author's new book, which
seems to be an interesting read,

[http://www.amazon.com/Smuggler-Nation-Illicit-Trade-
America/...](http://www.amazon.com/Smuggler-Nation-Illicit-Trade-
America/dp/0199746885)

and has garnered a few favourable reviews so far.

P.S: Is there a way to provide inline URL linking in HN threads that I am not
aware of?

~~~
SkyMarshal
Nope. People usually just do something like this [1] for multiple urls [2].

[1]: [http://www.amazon.com/Smuggler-Nation-Illicit-Trade-
America/...](http://www.amazon.com/Smuggler-Nation-Illicit-Trade-
America/dp/0199746885)

[2]: <http://news.ycombinator.com/>

~~~
Surio
Thanks. It's what I also do. Wondering if there was a better way. Seems not.
:-)

------
WayneDB
The full, non-mobile, nicely formatted version is here -

[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-01/piracy-and-fraud-
pr...](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-01/piracy-and-fraud-propelled-
the-u-s-industrial-revolution.html)

------
friendly_chap
We already know the whole world is a creepy demagogue joke, do we? I find this
article interesting, but extremely unsurprising.

------
GHFigs
The history is interesting, but the author's attempt--in the first two
sentences--to frame the whole thing as an instance of hypocrisy strikes me as
flimsy. If you're trying to invalidate an argument, you can't rest your case
on the observation that someone is saying "do as I say, not as I did". It
doesn't work when you're a teenager arguing with your parents and it doesn't
work when there's such a gleaming and contemporaneous counter-example sitting
just a few degrees South of your present attention.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States>

~~~
PavlovsCat
_If you're trying to invalidate an argument, you can't rest your case on the
observation that someone is saying "do as I say, not as I did"._

What argument is the author trying to invalidate here? It simply points these
things out which are commonly glossed over, with no conclusions drawn from
them that I can see. Pointing out hypocrisy is perfectly fine and no fallacy
in itself?

~~~
geon
I would say there is no hypocrisy, since the people of the industrial
revolution are long dead. Being born in the same nation 200 years later
doesn't make you bound by the opinions of your ancestors.

Likewise, the germans of today should not be considered evil Nazis, even
though some of the original Nazis are still alive.

~~~
PavlovsCat
That doesn't answer my question as to what argument is supposedly attempted to
be invalidated by pointing out hipocrisy.

But to answer anyway: being born into the same nation doesn't have as much to
do with it as inheriting, as person, as corporation, or even as nation, the
fortune/power accumulated, by means which are then made forbidden to others.
It's not about any random American citizen, so pointing out the fact that
"they aren't all hypocrites" is a strawman; nobody ever claimed they are.

~~~
GHFigs
_That doesn't answer my question as to what argument is supposedly attempted
to be invalidated by pointing out hipocrisy._

The article refers to "...the U.S. government’s message to China and other
nations today...". I understood the author to be saying that said message is
_wrong_.

I admit that it wasn't stated outright[1], but I don't think I was
misunderstanding the author to read his opening the article by contrasting
history with the present policy as a criticism of that policy -- that the
implication is that it's _wrong_ for someone to say to do something other than
what they did. If you look at the comments here, I think it's evident that a
many people agree with that criticism and share that view. I was only pointing
out that within the article, that point is poorly argued. It's just sort of
taken for granted that "do as I say, not as I did" is obviously wrong.

I'm saying that it's not inherently wrong, and--appropriate to the author's
discussion of US cotton manufacture in the 1700-1800s--citing slavery as an
example of something where "do as I say, not as I did" is entirely righteous.

[1] For all I know, the lede could have been tacked on by an editor to make an
timely article out of a book excerpt, but that doesn't make it any more right.

