Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The 'intellectual property' oxymoron

harmful.cat-v.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 132 posts

Re: The 'intellectual property' oxymoron

#81

Post by olavk »

FrojoS wrote: post #62
olavk wrote: post #43

Intellectual property at least makes a certain sense, since it is something you create yourself out of thin air, and therefore can decide to make available to others under certain conditions if both parties agree. If you don't make it available, nobody suffers, and if you do, you have created value without depriving others, so it is only fair to receive compensation. Owning land, on the other hand is clearly immoral.…

you have created value without depriving others, so it is only fair to receive compensation. How is this fair to everyone else who had the same idea but wasn't as fast or greedy?

Good point - that is why I don't support IP rights for ideas so simple that other people would come up with them independently. This includes many software patents. I do believe in IP rights for creations above a certain level of complexity. For example, no two people would come op with the same novel or symphony independently.

Re: The 'intellectual property' oxymoron

#83

Post by icebraining »

sp332 wrote: post #80
icebraining wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally, I believe the concept of natural rights is nonsense, but for someone who does believing in them, supporting IP is contradictory because it violates such rights. If I own a music CD, a blank CD and a computer, it's a violation of my property rights to stop me from copying using the latter to copy the CDs, or from distributing such copies.

I don't agree. Punching someone would be a protected right because, after all, it's my fist, I can do whatever I want with it.

No, because it would violate the other person's natural right. Copying a CD wouldn't, since copyright isn't a natural right.

Re: The 'intellectual property' oxymoron

#84

Post by adsr »

gnaritas wrote: post #77
adsr wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a basic right, if you spend a year writing a book, you are the one who have the rights to sell it and thus make money from your work. Same with software, a GPL license would be worthless without copyright.

You assume it to be, but that's the point of this discussion, it isn't or shouldn't be. If you spend a year doing something no one wants to pay for, you don't have a right to force them to.

Of course, but if no one wants to buy it no one is forced to either.

Re: The 'intellectual property' oxymoron

#85

Post by adsr »

icebraining wrote: post #78
adsr wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a basic right, if you spend a year writing a book, you are the one who have the rights to sell it and thus make money from your work. Same with software, a GPL license would be worthless without copyright.

>It's a basic right Right now, it's a right, yes (what exactly does 'basic' mean?). The question is whether it should be. >Same with software, a GPL license would be worthless without copyright. The GPL is just an hack, using copyright to achieve a goal. If you were rewriting IP law, you could very well institute copyleft without copyright.

GPL is good, since it's up to the author to chose if he/she want's to license it under the terms of the license. It's the authors role of a copyright owner that makes this possible. Forcing everyone to share their work seems like a bigger violation than copyright. Lastly, a GPL license wouldn't be possible to enforce without copyright, or the concept of a copyright owner.

Re: The 'intellectual property' oxymoron

#86

Post by Estragon »

apotheon wrote: post #20
sp332 wrote: post #5

Here's the rest of that letter from Thomas Jefferson. http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_8s12.... It's interesting to realize that even such a fierce supporter of personal rights in our country didn't recognize ideas as something that should be "protected" like personal property.

This is a great example of a common pattern with Jefferson: He articulates a strong position of principle, offering arguments that none have successfully countered and that, frankly, I'm not sure anyone can reasonably counter. Next, he says ". . . but a couple of people I know disagree with this, so I'll just give in." It's maddening. It is as if MLK had finished his "I have a dream!" speech with the words ". . . but…

What do you expect from a man who advocated for liberty, yet kept hundreds of slaves to maintain his way of life? He lacked the courage of his convictions.

Re: The 'intellectual property' oxymoron

#87

Post by aaavw »

Given that (1) most people are or are becoming "authors" now that the tools to create and distribute have become much more distributed then ever before; that (2) the way copyright works at the moment is to reward only popularity, not original creativity; that (3) for any author obscurity is a much larger problem then infringement ever could be; that (4) creativity may not need encouragement as becomes obvious seeing how much is intentionally produced to be widely distributed for free (open source, creative commons, youtube, etc)?; that (5) only a very tiny percentage of authors will ever get "rich" of their work.

So perhaps we need to look at another solution?

An unconditional basic income for all would support authors/artists/anyone exactly at the moment they need it to do their work. It will not make anyone rich, but it will enable works that can't be created at the moment (because the artist needs to do other work instead). When an author does become populair they will not have been forced into an unfavorable contract with a publisher when they where broke, working poor.

An unconditional basic income would enable people to be creative, it would pay just enough so that money isn't an issue anymore. This would be more effective way to promote the arts and sciences then copyright in its current form.

Re: The 'intellectual property' oxymoron

#88

Post by DrJokepu »

jvandonsel wrote: post #24

The quote by John Perry Barlow: "Royalties are not how most writers or musicians make their living. Musicians by and large make a living with a relationship with an audience that is economically harnessed through performance and ticket sales." leaves a lot to be desired. OK, so how do writers make their living? By giving live readings? I think not.

I vehemently disagree with this statement. I have a few musician friends who now that they're over 40 and their rockstar career is over and they are settled and have family and all that, they are making a living by composing jingles for TV commercials. More than 50% of their income comes from royalties.

Re: The 'intellectual property' oxymoron

#89

Post by gnaritas »

adsr wrote: post #84
gnaritas wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You assume it to be, but that's the point of this discussion, it isn't or shouldn't be. If you spend a year doing something no one wants to pay for, you don't have a right to force them to.

Of course, but if no one wants to buy it no one is forced to either.

That's not the point; once released, why should people not be allowed to freely copy and share it? Why do you think you get to control what other people do with information?

Re: The 'intellectual property' oxymoron

#90

Post by adsr »

gnaritas wrote: post #89
adsr wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course, but if no one wants to buy it no one is forced to either.

That's not the point; once released, why should people not be allowed to freely copy and share it? Why do you think you get to control what other people do with information?

It's not only about copying and sharing, but also who has the right to sell and distribute. If you create software, you are copyright owner of that software, which means I can not take it, sell it and take credit for it. I don't think I get to control what other people do with information, but you should have the right to control what others do with your work.
Post reply on HN