Live data from Hacker News

Cory Doctorow: IP (2020)

locusmag.com

41–50 of 126 posts

Re: Cory Doctorow: IP (2020)

#41
post #35

“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…

If you're willing to connect the dots in this way, where anything that gives you legal authority to control the conduct of others (competitors, critics, customers) in specific ways is "abusive", then you should realize that this sort of argument is very easily extended, because that's exactly what all property does. Intellectual property is the right to say how others are allowed to use an abstract thing that belongs…

If you believe that #ImaginaryProperty makes any sense at all I've got some "Dry Water" to sell you.

Re: Cory Doctorow: IP (2020)

#42
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're willing to connect the dots in this way, where anything that gives you legal authority to control the conduct of others (competitors, critics, customers) in specific ways is "abusive", then you should realize that this sort of argument is very easily extended, because that's exactly what all property does. Intellectual property is the right to say how others are allowed to use an abstract thing that belongs…

No. The ability to abuse comes specifically from power imbalances, and that’s what we need to take into account when designing policy. This is something that can’t be explicitly enumerated in all cases, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be addressed. We do have anti-trust law for a reason (even if it hasn’t been enforced).

What power imbalances are you thinking of in the case of tech companies?

Re: Cory Doctorow: IP (2020)

#43
I get an unpleasant feeling that Free Software was never really popular. It was somewhat popular early on, because it formalised the way things were done at the time. This is why it received relatively little friction. So it wasn't really accepted. It was ignored.

Re: Cory Doctorow: IP (2020)

#44
post #35

“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…

If you're willing to connect the dots in this way, where anything that gives you legal authority to control the conduct of others (competitors, critics, customers) in specific ways is "abusive", then you should realize that this sort of argument is very easily extended, because that's exactly what all property does. Intellectual property is the right to say how others are allowed to use an abstract thing that belongs…

> Of course, it doesn't immediately follow from either physical property or intellectual property that it will be abused in the way Doctorow describes (by "keeping customers by making it impossible for them to leave"), but it certainly could be. For example, suppose a relatively small number of individuals or companies owned most of the land, and most of the industrial machinery, and all the investment capital - then everyone else would have to go work for them, and produce whatever the property owners wanted to produce, instead of what they wanted to make for themselves. Someone might describe such a dynamic as fundamentally abusive in exactly the same way that intellectual property is.

I completely agree it can be extended in that way and it has been done so in the past; There are even countries that have political parties that generally agree with such a statement and work towards (albeit imperfectly) to limit or abolish such monopolies of capital.

(The US on the other hand left their anti-trust laws to rust on the side and let monopolistic entities gain power such as Amazon and Facebook; here is a report on how Amazon has been using sale and review data to launch AmazonBasics products undercutting other brands: https://www.wsj.com/articles/amazon-competition-shopify-wayf... on the "Amazon's Version" section)

Re: Cory Doctorow: IP (2020)

#45
post #35

“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…

If you're willing to connect the dots in this way, where anything that gives you legal authority to control the conduct of others (competitors, critics, customers) in specific ways is "abusive", then you should realize that this sort of argument is very easily extended, because that's exactly what all property does. Intellectual property is the right to say how others are allowed to use an abstract thing that belongs…

> It's effectively the same concept, just extended.

No, it isn't, because ordinary physical property can't be copied the way digital "property" can be. And the whole scheme of property rights with regard to ordinary physical property only makes sense because ordinary physical property can't be copied. If I steal your car, you are deprived of the car; that's why it's a crime for me to do it. But if I make a digital copy of some computer file you have, I'm not depriving you of it; you still have your copy and can still use it exactly as you did before. So why should it be a crime for me to make the copy?

The corporations that are pushing "intellectual property" rights over digital "property" would like it to be a crime, of course, but that doesn't mean we, the people, should agree.

Re: Cory Doctorow: IP (2020)

#46
post #6

what 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?

Copyright is concerned with the (specific) expression of ideas... by definition if it is in your mind it’s unexpressed. So copyright cannot apply. I don’t quite follow what you’re worried about...

Th point of knowledge is being able to make use of it - express it.

If knowlege cannot be legally expressed, it's useless and not really yours.

Re: Cory Doctorow: IP (2020)

#47
This is an excellent article; as always, Cory Doctorow succinctly and perceptively cuts to the core of the matter.

From my own observations over recent years, I've come to the conclusion that the IP, copyright, patent and DRM issues that Doctorow discusses in this article are even worse than he has let on about (perhaps he's worried about overly frightening the horses and or is worried that his opponents would attempt to discredit him if he spilled all the beans).

In Western countries and especially the US, the field of software and so-called IP has become so monopolistic and proprietary—and ordinary users so disempowered from the consequences thereof that they're having not only a serious negative effect on productivity and the national economy but also they're dysfunctional to the extent that they even threaten national security.

Much software development is technically moribund (or it's more of the same). Time limits me to cite only one example here—the multiple, never-ending security breaches that we see day-by-day—breaches that we're never able to manage properly or get on top of—or engineer our way out of. (There, too, are dozens more examples.)

Whilst Western corporations maul both one another as well as poor long-suffering users over IP licenses, copyright and patent disputes that are, by nature, intrinsically trivial, China's 'command' economy is able to bypass all that nonsense and move on regardless—for the Chinese, it's IP be damned, and it's patently obvious that that attitude is benefiting them mightily.

China pays lip service to international copyright law but behind the scenes it does the exact opposite despite the fact that everyone knows it. As we've seen over the past 30 or so years, China has stolen more Western IP than would fill many a volume of old-fashioned telephone directories and all that Western countries have ever done in response is to make token complaints and objections which never amount to anything more than a kowtowing whimper. Clearly if you're big and frightening enough, no one's game enough to complain (or do anything) about the fact that one's ideas were stolen). To make matters worse, the West even has the utter damned hypocrisy to buy manufactured product from China that was made using this pirated technology! (It all reminds me a bit of Neville Chamberlain and the appeasement of Hitler.)

It seems to me that unless the West (and again, especially the US) pulls its collective head in over this IP nonsense and dismisses most of it—all the unfair stuff—then China Inc. will continue to gain an even further technological march upon us.

To catch up to China's manufacturing technology and output, the US and other Western nations need to adopt a capitalist command economy (à la China's and along the lines the US implemented in WWII). Even the Chinese have never equaled the heights the US achieved in manufacturing during WWII:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_aircraft_product...

"William S. Knudsen, an automotive industry executive who was made Chairman of the Office of Production Management and member of the National Defense Advisory Commission by the Roosevelt administration to organize war production, said, "We won because we smothered the enemy in an avalanche of production, the like of which he had never seen, nor dreamed possible."

https://civilianmilitaryintelligencegroup.com/8695/us-indust...

In any such scenario, the current unfair and very unreasonable IP/copyright/patent laws (and concomitant wars) wouldn’t be tolerated. Post COVID-19, it'd make sense to implement such a scheme to rebuild the economy.

Right, it's only a pipe dream—we no longer have people of sufficient aptitude, caliber and with solid ethics of the likes of FDR, Harry Hopkins, Vannevar Bush (FDR’s top science advisor), Fredrick Terman, LTG Leslie R. Groves, William S. Knudsen et al to undertake such an ambitious project.

Re: Cory Doctorow: IP (2020)

#48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it isn’t. As law. It might be accepted as practice. They are different.

Examples of where it is not?

Can't speak to other countries but I know in NZ you're not allowed legally to rip DVDs or blurays you own (even just for private use, no distribution intended). The copyright act is structured with a whitelist of permissible format shifts, and while CDs made it onto that list, movie discs didn't.

Re: Cory Doctorow: IP (2020)

#49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it isn’t. As law. It might be accepted as practice. They are different.

Examples of where it is not?

I can't seem to respond to the sibling comment directly, so I'll comment here to say that ripping a CD or DVD is making a copy of it, which isn't what this thread is about.

You can't rip it, but you can sell, share, or do whatever you want with the original copy you bought and own. That is true everywhere in the world.

Re: Cory Doctorow: IP (2020)

#50
post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. The ability to abuse comes specifically from power imbalances, and that’s what we need to take into account when designing policy. This is something that can’t be explicitly enumerated in all cases, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be addressed. We do have anti-trust law for a reason (even if it hasn’t been enforced).

What power imbalances are you thinking of in the case of tech companies?

A single company owning and having their fingers in everything from search engines, operating systems, phone and laptop hardware, self-driving cars, payment platforms, online shopping platforms, cloud computing platforms and a myriad of other things. I'm of the opinion no single entity should be allowed to be in control of so many things.
Post reply on HN