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

11–20 of 132 posts

Re: The 'intellectual property' oxymoron

#11

Post by hxa7241 »

A basic roundup of ethical problems for IP:

* Conflict with fundamental personal liberty: Mill's idea that we have unrestricted liberty except to the extent that it injures someone else, is fairly standard. But IP conflicts with that, yet IP is not fundamental, not grounded in physical fact. (See Koepsell: http://www.hxa.name/articles/content/ethical-case-against-ip...)

* Cannot be justified on the basis of harm: One could justify rights by showing that lack of them causes harm to those denied. But IP represents no physical relation where any harm could be rendered. (See Wilson: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~rehbjgs/docs/could-there-be-a-right.pd...)

* Does not make complete sense as a generalised rule: The idea that a moral rule is generalisable, as a critical feature, is also standard (probably more so). But if everyone owned IP equally much there is no advantage, and everyone would be better off freely sharing copies. (And indeed, what do we seem to see amongst similarly large corporations? They buy big patent portfolios and agree, or tacitly accept, truces between them.)

Re: The 'intellectual property' oxymoron

#12

Post by Vivtek »

sp332 wrote: post #8
m__ wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, "protecting" ideas as if they were property is in direct opposition to personal rights, so this should be expected. It's weird how "intellectual property" somehow got associated with personal liberty, the free market etc., when in fact it totally goes against those ideas.

Well, I've heard that in Britain, IP is considered an inherent right just like personal property. If I own the result of my own physical labor, why wouldn't I own the result of intellectual labor as well?

Because if you physically make something and it's taken from you, you no longer have it. Information can't be taken from you - granted, a medium on which it's stored could be, but again, that would be a physical, not an intellectual loss. You can't be deprived of the knowledge that allowed you to create the item in the first place.

Unless, of course, somebody else is granted the intellectual property rights to it.

Re: The 'intellectual property' oxymoron

#13

Post by michael_dorfman »

Vivtek wrote: post #12
sp332 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I've heard that in Britain, IP is considered an inherent right just like personal property. If I own the result of my own physical labor, why wouldn't I own the result of intellectual labor as well?

Because if you physically make something and it's taken from you, you no longer have it. Information can't be taken from you - granted, a medium on which it's stored could be, but again, that would be a physical, not an intellectual loss. You can't be deprived of the knowledge that allowed you to create the item in the first place. Unless, of course, somebody else is granted the intellectual property rights to it.

But that's not quite the argument.

If I compose a poem or a play, and contract with a publisher to publish said poem and pay me a portion of the proceeds (or contract with a theater company to perform the play, and similarly pay me a portion of the proceeds), and some third party takes the poem/play and publishes/performs it without paying me, I have, in fact, been deprived of something, i.e., income.

And, if my reading of history is not mistaken, it is precisely from this use case that the notion of intellectual property (in the initial form of copyright) takes its foundation.

Re: The 'intellectual property' oxymoron

#14

Post by michael_dorfman »

hxa7241 wrote: post #11

A basic roundup of ethical problems for IP: * Conflict with fundamental personal liberty: Mill's idea that we have unrestricted liberty except to the extent that it injures someone else, is fairly standard. But IP conflicts with that, yet IP is not fundamental, not grounded in physical fact. (See Koepsell: http://www.hxa.name/articles/content/ethical-case-against-ip... ) * Cannot be justified on the basis of harm: On…

None of these are ethical problems if you accept the premise that the author of a work is entitled to be remunerated for the production of said work, and can contract (exclusively, for a period of time) with a publisher for the distribution of said work.

Put another way: you may (or may not) be old enough to remember when an American paperback company, Ace books, produced and sold paperback copies of Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings" without paying Tolkien for the rights (and in direct competition with Houghton Mifflin, to whom Tolkien had contracted).

Are you prepared to argue that Ace did Tolkien no harm?

Re: The 'intellectual property' oxymoron

#15

Post by hxa7241 »

michael_dorfman wrote: post #13
Vivtek wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because if you physically make something and it's taken from you, you no longer have it. Information can't be taken from you - granted, a medium on which it's stored could be, but again, that would be a physical, not an intellectual loss. You can't be deprived of the knowledge that allowed you to create the item in the first place. Unless, of course, somebody else is granted the intellectual property rights to it.

But that's not quite the argument. If I compose a poem or a play, and contract with a publisher to publish said poem and pay me a portion of the proceeds (or contract with a theater company to perform the play, and similarly pay me a portion of the proceeds), and some third party takes the poem/play and publishes/performs it without paying me, I have, in fact, been deprived of something, i.e., income. And, if my read…

First: a third party is not bound by the contract. And if the contract cannot validly or practically secure you income, you cannot very well be said to be losing anything.

Second: the big question is: why should we make the form of such a contract a general rule/law? Just assuming it is a matter of contract is just assuming away the interesting question.

Re: The 'intellectual property' oxymoron

#16

Post by slowpoke »

michael_dorfman wrote: post #14
hxa7241 wrote: post #11

A basic roundup of ethical problems for IP: * Conflict with fundamental personal liberty: Mill's idea that we have unrestricted liberty except to the extent that it injures someone else, is fairly standard. But IP conflicts with that, yet IP is not fundamental, not grounded in physical fact. (See Koepsell: http://www.hxa.name/articles/content/ethical-case-against-ip... ) * Cannot be justified on the basis of harm: On…

None of these are ethical problems if you accept the premise that the author of a work is entitled to be remunerated for the production of said work, and can contract (exclusively, for a period of time) with a publisher for the distribution of said work. Put another way: you may (or may not) be old enough to remember when an American paperback company, Ace books, produced and sold paperback copies of Tolkien's "Lord…

>if you accept the premise that the author of a work is entitled to be remunerated for the production of said work

Then please elaborate why we should accept said premise. You just state it like it's an universal law of the universe. It isn't. No artisan (or actually, no one at all) is entitled to a successful business modell.

And by the way, the "problem" aren't the people who are unwilling to pay for anything (which I am sure you or someone else will cite sooner or later). It's the people expecting to make money with art. It's cool if you can. If you can't, then you're not entitled to laws or monopolies that protect your failed business modell.

>Are you prepared to argue that Ace did Tolkien no harm?

Why should it have? More people were able to read his beautiful works. Are you prepared to argue how that constitutes as harm in the first place?

Re: The 'intellectual property' oxymoron

#17

Post by hxa7241 »

michael_dorfman wrote: post #14
hxa7241 wrote: post #11

A basic roundup of ethical problems for IP: * Conflict with fundamental personal liberty: Mill's idea that we have unrestricted liberty except to the extent that it injures someone else, is fairly standard. But IP conflicts with that, yet IP is not fundamental, not grounded in physical fact. (See Koepsell: http://www.hxa.name/articles/content/ethical-case-against-ip... ) * Cannot be justified on the basis of harm: On…

None of these are ethical problems if you accept the premise that the author of a work is entitled to be remunerated for the production of said work, and can contract (exclusively, for a period of time) with a publisher for the distribution of said work. Put another way: you may (or may not) be old enough to remember when an American paperback company, Ace books, produced and sold paperback copies of Tolkien's "Lord…

> if you accept the premise that the author of a work is entitled to be remunerated for the production of said work

That is not the premise, that is the matter in question.

If it is simply assumed as the answer, nothing has been said.

As to the idea of harm here, it is not in the actions or materials themselves. It depends on assuming the particular law is the baseline, and then saying without that the person would be worse-off. That is effectively saying: people can make a living in a particular way because of the rule, and we have the rule because people can make a living in a particular way from it. This is a circular fallacy. It cannot be justified by itself.

Why is IP justified? -- as a rational argument, in terms more basic than the question itself . . . (having looked around a bit, there seems to be only one half-decent/plausible one: the standard economic one -- which is not really an ethical argument (and conspicuously lacks actual evidence anyway))

Re: The 'intellectual property' oxymoron

#18

Post by slowpoke »

michael_dorfman wrote: post #13
Vivtek wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because if you physically make something and it's taken from you, you no longer have it. Information can't be taken from you - granted, a medium on which it's stored could be, but again, that would be a physical, not an intellectual loss. You can't be deprived of the knowledge that allowed you to create the item in the first place. Unless, of course, somebody else is granted the intellectual property rights to it.

But that's not quite the argument. If I compose a poem or a play, and contract with a publisher to publish said poem and pay me a portion of the proceeds (or contract with a theater company to perform the play, and similarly pay me a portion of the proceeds), and some third party takes the poem/play and publishes/performs it without paying me, I have, in fact, been deprived of something, i.e., income. And, if my read…

>And, if my reading of history is not mistaken

It is. Copyright is and always was designed for distributors, not authors. It's nothing more than a myth - or rather, industry propaganda - that copyright was invented by authors. Here's a nice round-up of the entire history of copyright:

http://questioncopyright.org/promise

Re: The 'intellectual property' oxymoron

#19

Post by apotheon »

michael_dorfman wrote: post #14
hxa7241 wrote: post #11

A basic roundup of ethical problems for IP: * Conflict with fundamental personal liberty: Mill's idea that we have unrestricted liberty except to the extent that it injures someone else, is fairly standard. But IP conflicts with that, yet IP is not fundamental, not grounded in physical fact. (See Koepsell: http://www.hxa.name/articles/content/ethical-case-against-ip... ) * Cannot be justified on the basis of harm: On…

None of these are ethical problems if you accept the premise that the author of a work is entitled to be remunerated for the production of said work, and can contract (exclusively, for a period of time) with a publisher for the distribution of said work. Put another way: you may (or may not) be old enough to remember when an American paperback company, Ace books, produced and sold paperback copies of Tolkien's "Lord…

> None of these are ethical problems if you accept the premise that the author of a work is entitled to be remunerated for the production of said work

How do you figure? The problems still exist; you've just decided to de-prioritize them compared to the remuneration entitlement you posit.

Consider this alternative: the author of a work is entitled to be remunerated for anything for which he or she arranges an agreement with someone to remunerate him or her. Period. This would mean it is up to the author to make arrangements for someone to pay him or her when he or she produces something and turns it over to the employer, and that it is then the employer's responsibility to figure out how to make a profit from it by similarly arranging an agreement with someone else (when speaking of a standard employment relationship for authors).

> Are you prepared to argue that Ace did Tolkien no harm?

You're missing the distinction between direct harm on one hand, and unexpected competition for a monopolized market on the other. From a certain perspective, the harm in the second case is not harm caused by the unexpected competitor, but rather harm caused by the monopolist's failure to account for competition in its business model.

Re: The 'intellectual property' oxymoron

#20

Post by apotheon »

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 I guess if society regards black people as inferior, I'm probably wrong."

Post reply on HN