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

121–130 of 132 posts

Re: The 'intellectual property' oxymoron

#121

Post by andrewflnr »

uriel wrote: post #115
andrewflnr wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A tax on internet connectivity to fund creators of intellectual goods sounds like an awful idea to me. Who qualifies as a "creator of intellectual goods"? Do you have to register for that? Can you have another job as well? How is popularity measured, especially where multiple works by the same person are involved? Multiple contributors to the same work, with varying degrees of input? You can assume that the number of…

That hasn't stopped taxes on CDs, DVDs and even external hardisks in many countries which supposedly then get redistributed to "creators" (ie., the record/film industry cartels). So yea, it is pretty horrible, like most of the "intellectual property" system (just look at patents..).

Yes, apparently those countries landed on the "implemented horribly" side.

Re: The 'intellectual property' oxymoron

#122

Post by lukeschlather »

eropple wrote: post #120
johnnyjustice wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well that's not fair, its not simply foolish. He prefaced his comment with "Or" meaning that its a possible business model. I think it would be fantastic to speak to my favorite writers and I know their time is valuable so I would pay to. But I am not stating that it is the perfect path. Though it would be nice if people considered it as a possibility.

It certainly is possible revenue source--once you have a big enough fanbase to support it. Which is probably multiple books and a number of years, during which your effective cash flow from an activity that takes up a staggering amount of time (and benefits others in the meantime) is essentially zero. It is not, in the general case, very viable. Which is why nobody takes it very seriously as a good path for all, or e…

>Which is probably multiple books and a number of years, during which your effective cash flow from an activity that takes up a staggering amount of time (and benefits others in the meantime) is essentially zero.

That's pretty much what most artists go through now, isn't it? I'm not convinced that copyright does a particularly good job of solving that problem. I'm not saying I definitely think copyright should be abolished, but it does at best a very mediocre job of rewarding artists.

Re: The 'intellectual property' oxymoron

#123

Post by FrojoS »

andrewflnr wrote: post #94
FrojoS wrote: post #56

In my mind kickstarter.com is the solution to the intelectual property problem. How can, knowledge workers, for instance musicians, earn money in the 21. century? Simple, charge upfront before publishing. Imagine a popular band like U2 would ask for the money, they expect from their next album, upfront. I think, their fans, including me, would do what ever it takes to raise that money together. Et voila, you can stil…

That does sound like an interesting model. Producers would, I suppose, initially have to establish their reputations by releasing things for free. The dynamics of choosing prices would be completely different, more like selling equity. One thing that would worry me: a lot of people would have to be involved in getting a piece to a point where it could be sold. How would it be protected while all these people are look…

That does sound like an interesting model. Producers would, I suppose, initially have to establish their reputations by releasing things for free.

Yes.

One thing that would worry me: a lot of people would have to be involved in getting a piece to a point where it could be sold. How would it be protected while all these people are looking at it and working on it?

Based on trust, just like today. How is this different from how music, books, games etc. are produced now?

Also, if you work out one of these deals with a publisher, and transmit it over the Internet, are you legally protected against people stealing it en route?

Not sure if you got me. No publisher required. Its direct b2c. Just like kickstarter.com works today. I'm only missing the "big fish".

And no one could "steal" it. Once its published its published. Free like any information thats published into our world today. A free license like BSD would be appropriate.

Re: The 'intellectual property' oxymoron

#124

Post by lukeschlather »

benologist wrote: post #55
lukeschlather wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or nobody sells your book at all. You give it away for free on the Internet, and you make money off speaking appearances.

It's very easy to say someone else should work for nothing and do additional work to earn money. Do you have a free-job that consumes most of your time, and a paid-job you fit in around it?

It's sort of difficult to say whether I have a free-job or a paid-job. I certainly do a lot of volunteering.

Re: The 'intellectual property' oxymoron

#125

Post by FrojoS »

olavk wrote: post #81
FrojoS wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Interesting thought. Though, where do you draw the line? I don't want to oversimplify things. But a lack of IP obviously didn't demotivate Mr. Beethoven from writing lots of symphonies.

Re: The 'intellectual property' oxymoron

#126

Post by andrewflnr »

FrojoS wrote: post #123
andrewflnr wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That does sound like an interesting model. Producers would, I suppose, initially have to establish their reputations by releasing things for free. The dynamics of choosing prices would be completely different, more like selling equity. One thing that would worry me: a lot of people would have to be involved in getting a piece to a point where it could be sold. How would it be protected while all these people are look…

That does sound like an interesting model. Producers would, I suppose, initially have to establish their reputations by releasing things for free. Yes. One thing that would worry me: a lot of people would have to be involved in getting a piece to a point where it could be sold. How would it be protected while all these people are looking at it and working on it? Based on trust, just like today. How is this different…

> Based on trust, just like today. How is this different from how music, books, games etc. are produced now?

Currently, if someone violates your trust, by releasing their own version of a song you wrote, for example, you can sue them. It's not clear to me that this would be the case in a copyright-free world. You would have to explicitly have to make a contract with everyone who ever comes in contact with your work before it's ready. That would be tiresome, at best.

And it doesn't cover people who steal/stumble across pieces of it in progress. There is no way I would not be working on something before it was paid for. Before I even put an idea up for funding, I would have notes and such. If someone takes these and makes a derivative work, I get to prosecute them for... stealing paper, because I'm not allowed to claim the information content of the paper as my own.

Artists not skilled in secrecy are going to be in serious trouble.

> Not sure if you got me. No publisher required. Its direct b2c. Just like kickstarter.com works today. I'm only missing the "big fish"

No, I didn't quite understand that model. So if there is any large-scale physical production, say printing books or burning CD's, that will be handled by third parties and the artist won't have anything to do with it? And people who want the physical form will have to pay two parties?

One problem you'll run into is that everyone benefits equally no matter how much they put in, including those who didn't put anything in. That sorta sucks for anyone who put in a lot, who then watch those who didn't help at all benefit from their money. You're essentially relying on charity, and that's a worrisome business model.

I wonder if the reliance on idealism would have a positive effect on the quality of work produced.

I need to think about this more. And I should probably give Kickstarter a try for one of my own projects.

Re: The 'intellectual property' oxymoron

#127

Post by gnaritas »

adsr wrote: post #119
gnaritas wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sure you can, first you measure the parts then you manufacture identical parts and assemble a car that is a copy of mine. OK, if you're just going to be ignorant, goodbye.

It's a pretty common cause for law suits actually and is known as reverse-engineering. It touches on exactly what we are talking about here. You seem to believe that the inherent value of something is exclusively associated with the cost of the material, but of course it's not. Let me give you some examples. Dirt doesn't have any value to most people, but if someone creates pottery from it that people deem valuble, t…

You're still being ignorant or you're just really dense, in either case, I have no interest in continuing a conversation with someone who continually almost intentionally misses the point.

Re: The 'intellectual property' oxymoron

#128

Post by eropple »

lukeschlather wrote: post #122
eropple wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It certainly is possible revenue source--once you have a big enough fanbase to support it. Which is probably multiple books and a number of years, during which your effective cash flow from an activity that takes up a staggering amount of time (and benefits others in the meantime) is essentially zero. It is not, in the general case, very viable. Which is why nobody takes it very seriously as a good path for all, or e…

>Which is probably multiple books and a number of years, during which your effective cash flow from an activity that takes up a staggering amount of time (and benefits others in the meantime) is essentially zero. That's pretty much what most artists go through now, isn't it? I'm not convinced that copyright does a particularly good job of solving that problem. I'm not saying I definitely think copyright should be abo…

I'm not so sure. Given the rise of self-publishing services, once your product is done (or even close to done, I suppose), you can immediately start generating cash flow. If you have some pleasant "free culture" person spreading the book free of charge and against your copyright, you're probably losing some sales. (Obviously not every person who downloads it for free would have bought it otherwise, but c'mon. The number of people in that category is almost definitely not zero.)

It's not going to keep you in gold-plated Maseratis, but it can start to add up.

Re: The 'intellectual property' oxymoron

#129

Post by lukeschlather »

eropple wrote: post #128
lukeschlather wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Which is probably multiple books and a number of years, during which your effective cash flow from an activity that takes up a staggering amount of time (and benefits others in the meantime) is essentially zero. That's pretty much what most artists go through now, isn't it? I'm not convinced that copyright does a particularly good job of solving that problem. I'm not saying I definitely think copyright should be abo…

I'm not so sure. Given the rise of self-publishing services, once your product is done (or even close to done, I suppose), you can immediately start generating cash flow. If you have some pleasant "free culture" person spreading the book free of charge and against your copyright, you're probably losing some sales. (Obviously not every person who downloads it for free would have bought it otherwise, but c'mon. The num…

Yes, but can it pay rent? I guess, my concern is that it may be better to hold down a single, solid, paying job and do art in your spare time than trying to hold down enough art gigs to add up to a job. You end up doing a lot of hard work making ends meet. Making it appear like art is a generally viable career choice might be doing more harm than good in the average case.

Re: The 'intellectual property' oxymoron

#130

Post by adsr »

gnaritas wrote: post #127
adsr wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a pretty common cause for law suits actually and is known as reverse-engineering. It touches on exactly what we are talking about here. You seem to believe that the inherent value of something is exclusively associated with the cost of the material, but of course it's not. Let me give you some examples. Dirt doesn't have any value to most people, but if someone creates pottery from it that people deem valuble, t…

You're still being ignorant or you're just really dense, in either case, I have no interest in continuing a conversation with someone who continually almost intentionally misses the point.

I'm providing arguments, all you are able to do at this point is to insult. Pathetic.
Post reply on HN