Cory Doctorow: IP (2020)
locusmag.com
Cory Doctorow: IP (2020)
1–10 of 126 posts
Re: Cory Doctorow: IP (2020)
#2"Forty years ago, we had cake and asked for icing on top of it. Today, all we have left is the icing, and we’ve forgotten that the cake was ever there. If code isn’t licensed as “free,” you’d best leave it alone."
Re: Cory Doctorow: IP (2020)
#3Cory nails it. Or at least part of it.
I've long had a nagging feeling that there was a deep connection between the current state of our "post truth" society and the continuously widening scope of "IP" (digital monopoly) protections. Cory disentangles some of those connections and shows some of the ways IP has become a tool for restricting freedoms. But there's more: I think that those same mechanics are narrowing the overton window and putting all thinking that's outside on the same level... and we end up in a world where the ordinary person can't distinguish between the credibility of un-approved ideas.
Re: Cory Doctorow: IP (2020)
#4“IP is any law that I can invoke that allows me to control the conduct of my competitors, critics, and customers.”
Doctorow never uses this word, but the dynamic he describes — where tech companies, rather than try to keep customers by offering good products, prefer to keep customers by making it impossible for them to leave — is fundamentally abusive.
The entire essay is a detailed explanation of the ways that tech companies exploit and abuse their customers and society as a whole, but he never uses those words.
I’m in agreement — they are abusive; they are exploitive; they are preying upon society and need to be regulated — but it’s odd that he doesn’t use the words.
Re: Cory Doctorow: IP (2020)
#5A very good article. A section that really spoke to me:
> Prior to the rise of the “intellectual property” as an umbrella term, the different legal regimes it refers to were customarily referred to by their individual names. When you were talking about patents, you said “patents,” and when you were talking about copyrights, you said “copyrights.” Bunching together copyrights and trademarks and patents and other rules wasn’t particularly useful, since these are all very different legal regimes. On those rare instances in which all of these laws were grouped together, the usual term for them was “creator’s monopolies” or “author’s monopolies.”
> The anti-IP argument leans into the differences between the underlying rationale for each of these rules:
> * US copyrights exist to “promote the useful arts and sciences” (as set out in the US Constitution); that is, to provide an incentive to the creation of new works of art: copyright should offer enough protection to create these incentives, but no more. Copyright does not extend to “ideas” and only protects “expressions of ideas”;
> * Patents exist as incentive for inventors to reveal the workings of their inventions; to receive a patent, you must provide the patent office with a functional description of your invention, which is then published. Even though others may not copy your invention during the patent period, they can study your patent filings and use them to figure out how to do the same thing in different ways, or how to make an interoperable add-on to your invention;
> * Trademarks exist as consumer protection: trademarks empower manufacturers to punish rivals who misleadingly market competing products or services that are like to cause confusion among their customers. It’s not about giving Coca-Cola the exclusive right to use the work “Coke” – it’s about deputizing Coca-Cola to punish crooks who trick Coke drinkers into buying knockoffs. Coke’s trademark rights don’t cover non-deceptive, non-confusing uses of its marks, even if these users harm Coca-Cola, because these do not harm Coke drinkers.
> Seen in this light, “intellectual property” is an incoherent category: when you assert that your work has “intellectual property” protection, do you mean that you can sue rivals to protect your customers from deception; or that the government will block rivals if you disclose the inner workings of your machines; or that you have been given just enough (but no more) incentive to publish your expressions of your ideas, with the understanding that the ideas themselves are fair game?
> When you look at how “IP” is used by firms, a very precise – albeit colloquial – meaning emerges:
> “IP is any law that I can invoke that allows me to control the conduct of my competitors, critics, and customers.”
Re: Cory Doctorow: IP (2020)
#6what worries me is that our mind (at the very least mine and all like it) are ultimately intellectual constructions. thus intellectual property leads the way to mind property.
how can it be that if I know something, this knowledge is not mine?
Re: Cory Doctorow: IP (2020)
#7Software copyright was an absolute mistake that fundamentally misunderstood the delicate balances between copyright owners, the market for creative works, and the public at large. I have no faith in Congress to fix it.
Re: Cory Doctorow: IP (2020)
#8what worries me is that our mind (at the very least mine and all like it) are ultimately intellectual constructions. thus intellectual property leads the way to mind property. how can it be that if I know something, this knowledge is not mine?
What you're talking about isn't a problem until and unless whole-brain emulation becomes a thing. You cannot assert copyright over a human brain because you cannot copy a human brain; and insamuch that brain is capable of copying other works, that's already covered by standard copyright law. It would be a good plot for a 2000s-retro-futuristic cyberpunk book (P2Ppunk?) but I suspect the Supreme Court would rule that the 14th Amendment overrides copyright interest in human brains were that to become a problem.
(If you wanted a 2010s-retro-futuristic cyberpunk sequel book you'd have some far-right militia group arguing for bringing back slavery to protect author's rights or something. Call it Twitterpunk.)
Re: Cory Doctorow: IP (2020)
#9what worries me is that our mind (at the very least mine and all like it) are ultimately intellectual constructions. thus intellectual property leads the way to mind property. how can it be that if I know something, this knowledge is not mine?
What you're talking about isn't a problem until and unless whole-brain emulation becomes a thing. You cannot assert copyright over a human brain because you cannot copy a human brain; and insamuch that brain is capable of copying other works, that's already covered by standard copyright law. It would be a good plot for a 2000s-retro-futuristic cyberpunk book (P2Ppunk?) but I suspect the Supreme Court would rule that…
I disagree, what you describe is the extreme version of what I am worried about.
I'm not worried that about an external entity owning my entire mind. I'm worried about a society in which institutions and corporations have ownership over some parts of what I know.
And this is already happening, so many engineers and academics have signed NDAs, essentially giving up ownership (the ability to determine how to use) of certain information they have learned, in some cases even their own original ideas.
Re: Cory Doctorow: IP (2020)
#10what worries me is that our mind (at the very least mine and all like it) are ultimately intellectual constructions. thus intellectual property leads the way to mind property. how can it be that if I know something, this knowledge is not mine?
What you're talking about isn't a problem until and unless whole-brain emulation becomes a thing. You cannot assert copyright over a human brain because you cannot copy a human brain; and insamuch that brain is capable of copying other works, that's already covered by standard copyright law. It would be a good plot for a 2000s-retro-futuristic cyberpunk book (P2Ppunk?) but I suspect the Supreme Court would rule that…
I disagree with this - if I've memorised a tune, I'm not allowed to replay it without paying a fee. But the line between biological and physical memory seems arbitrary to me, and this will become increasingly so.
We can already read basic images from a brain using AI to reconstruct the image[1]. If that device shows an image which is copyrighted, who is liable, the person with the scanner, or the brain that was scanned?
How about if I create a device which helps people who are physically disabled - or locked in - to communicate by projecting sounds from their brains - but not at will? If the person thinks about a tune ("Happy Birthday"), have they "performed" it?
What happens if they think something which is considered enough to have you banned from popular platforms? What about if the technology is forced to remove their services because the thoughts you're creating are unacceptable?
These things don't seem at all unlikely within the next 10-20 years.
1. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/01/mind-reading-algorit...