11–20 of 126 posts
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?
I don’t quite follow what you’re worried about...
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...
“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…
I don’t quite buy the leap that “software companies being exploitative” is at all related to “protecting IP through the use of copyright”. Cory does not link the two successfully in my mind.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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...
My point is not about copyright but about "Intellectual Property"
Even patents which protect an idea, cannot be enforced unless there is a concrete expression of that idea.
“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…
So he is referring to copyright. Books do the same thing, do you find books abusive as well? I don’t quite buy the leap that “software companies being exploitative” is at all related to “protecting IP through the use of copyright”. Cory does not link the two successfully in my mind.
Software 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.
The real problem with the current IP regime is its use to impose restrictions that go beyond reproduction.
It’s also worth pointing out that different countries have nuanced interpretations and applications of Copyright Law. The US is only one. For instance “Fair Use” is a US inspired thing that other countries don’t have. Rather than having a “defence” (when prosecuted) some countries actually give permission to copy things (as a right, not a defence)
“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…
So he is referring to copyright. Books do the same thing, do you find books abusive as well? I don’t quite buy the leap that “software companies being exploitative” is at all related to “protecting IP through the use of copyright”. Cory does not link the two successfully in my mind.
Huh? If I have a book, I can lend it to a friend, sell it on eBay, or even put it in a library where thousands of people can read it for free. If I "own" a book on a Kindle, I can do none of those things -- and if our corporate overlords decide they don't want me to read that book anymore, then they can remotely remove it from my device, even if I paid for it [0]. The abuse is that DRM is being weaponized to criminalize fair use and other consumer rights that copyright law otherwise would not give corporations authority over -- and because of DMCA 1201, it is illegal to work around DRM even for fair-use purposes.
In fact, DRM does next to nothing to prevent piracy, as evidenced by the thriving piracy "industry" today. Every DRM system can eventually be bypassed, somehow -- there has to be some way to decrypt the content, otherwise I wouldn't be able to watch it. It's akin to putting up a "no stealing" sign outside my house -- sure, it means that thieves are technically trespassing now -- but they were already breaking the law to begin with and no flimsy little sign is going to stop them. It could be argued that DRM only makes piracy more enticing, because consumers can use pirated content in completely normal, fair-use ways that are blocked by DRM.
As Doctorow explains in the article, DRM was never about protecting copyright, it's about protecting monopolies. DRM means I can only watch a movie with an approved web browser on an approved operating system on an approved computer using an approved cable to connect to an approved monitor, and that I can only repair a tractor at an approved tractor dealership.
[0]: https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/technology/companies/18am...
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?
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…