The 'intellectual property' oxymoron • Hacker News Board

Re: The 'intellectual property' oxymoron

#101

Post by icebraining » Mon, Jul 04, 2011, 12:04 AM UTC

antiterra wrote: post #41

Jach wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting you chose the word 'deprived' instead of the more typical 'stole'. I think it's hard to justify stealing when only a copy was copied. So then 'deprived of income' in the sense of withheld income. Who is doing the withholding, and why do you think you're entitled to what they're withholding? And how much? (While the third party didn't have to write your work, they nevertheless would have to do a lot of wor…

(While the third party didn't have to write your work, they nevertheless would have to do a lot of work themselves to make a profit from it.) This is both bad and wrong. I will attempt to explain why for each. It is bad on the level that it creates an exchange of sweat of the brow work with originality. That is to say if I copied someone else's book in the more laborious way, I'm more allowed to copy it and make prof…

My mother is an excellent actress, yet inferior actresses get cast more frequently. Should we make that illegal?

Unfairness is not reason enough to justify copyright.

Re: The 'intellectual property' oxymoron

#102

Post by adsr » Mon, Jul 04, 2011, 12:12 AM UTC

gnaritas wrote: post #96

adsr wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I said copying is only one part of copyright. If you spend a year in production and spending a large amount of money in the process. You should be the owner of the product, or anyone could just make a copy and sell it at a heavy discount with no associated costs of production. The interesting thing is that the same argument can in fact be made for property. How can you claim to own something at all? It's related t…

> If you spend a year in production and spending a large amount of money in the process. You should be the owner of the product, or anyone could just make a copy and sell it at a heavy discount with no associated costs of production. You're still assuming a world where copyright exists. Are you unable to think outside of those bounds? Do you not see that perhaps you wouldn't even attempt to do this in a world without…

You can copy my car if you want, if you steal my novel I don't have it anymore. But seriously, why do you think that physical things costs money at all? Is this an inherent property of something being physical, or is the cost related to salaries payed for processing and production? If everyone worked for free, nothing would cost money. Are you unable to think outside of those bounds? I'm not arguing for this mind you, but the decision to protect property or the notion of property as such, is arbitrary and a human convention at the core.

Re: The 'intellectual property' oxymoron

#103

Post by ericd » Mon, Jul 04, 2011, 1:17 AM UTC

gnaritas wrote: post #96

adsr wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I said copying is only one part of copyright. If you spend a year in production and spending a large amount of money in the process. You should be the owner of the product, or anyone could just make a copy and sell it at a heavy discount with no associated costs of production. The interesting thing is that the same argument can in fact be made for property. How can you claim to own something at all? It's related t…

> If you spend a year in production and spending a large amount of money in the process. You should be the owner of the product, or anyone could just make a copy and sell it at a heavy discount with no associated costs of production. You're still assuming a world where copyright exists. Are you unable to think outside of those bounds? Do you not see that perhaps you wouldn't even attempt to do this in a world without…

The idea that it's unfair to take other people's ideas and works and use them as you like without their permission predates the idea of copyright.

Re: The 'intellectual property' oxymoron

#104

Post by seabee » Mon, Jul 04, 2011, 1:25 AM UTC

adsr wrote: post #34

seabee wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> OK, so how do writers make their living? The glib answer is "most don't", and indeed you will find a lot of writers who have other jobs. Journalists are writers, and the relationship there is fairly clear. PR and marketing materials need writing too. In short, you make your living by a company renting or commissioning your talents. Musicians had only one other option before recorded music - performing - and even th…

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.

That's a non sequitur. Copyright does not grant you a living; it grants you the opportunity for one.

Few writers make a living from writing, not because they are denied the opportunity, but because not enough people are willing to pay for it, or even interested in it! The same is true with other artists.

Re: The 'intellectual property' oxymoron

#105

Post by gnaritas » Mon, Jul 04, 2011, 1:36 AM UTC

ericd wrote: post #103

gnaritas wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you spend a year in production and spending a large amount of money in the process. You should be the owner of the product, or anyone could just make a copy and sell it at a heavy discount with no associated costs of production. You're still assuming a world where copyright exists. Are you unable to think outside of those bounds? Do you not see that perhaps you wouldn't even attempt to do this in a world without…

The idea that it's unfair to take other people's ideas and works and use them as you like without their permission predates the idea of copyright.

That's not an argument.

Re: The 'intellectual property' oxymoron

#106

Post by gnaritas » Mon, Jul 04, 2011, 1:39 AM UTC

adsr wrote: post #102

gnaritas wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you spend a year in production and spending a large amount of money in the process. You should be the owner of the product, or anyone could just make a copy and sell it at a heavy discount with no associated costs of production. You're still assuming a world where copyright exists. Are you unable to think outside of those bounds? Do you not see that perhaps you wouldn't even attempt to do this in a world without…

You can copy my car if you want, if you steal my novel I don't have it anymore. But seriously, why do you think that physical things costs money at all? Is this an inherent property of something being physical, or is the cost related to salaries payed for processing and production? If everyone worked for free, nothing would cost money. Are you unable to think outside of those bounds? I'm not arguing for this mind you…

Still not an argument for why intellectual property should be allowed. Physical property is different, you can try and say it isn't all you want, but you're wrong, it is. I can't copy your car, I can copy your novel in milliseconds; these things are radically different. One deserves to be called property, one doesn't.

Re: The 'intellectual property' oxymoron

#107

Post by repsilat » Mon, Jul 04, 2011, 2:18 AM UTC

Estragon wrote: post #86

apotheon wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is well demonstrated in the Louisiana purchase - Jefferson believed he didn't have the constitutional authority to make it happen, but went through with it against that judgement because he figured the ends justified the means (in this instance, at least).

Re: The 'intellectual property' oxymoron

#108

Post by adsr » Mon, Jul 04, 2011, 2:40 AM UTC

gnaritas wrote: post #106

adsr wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can copy my car if you want, if you steal my novel I don't have it anymore. But seriously, why do you think that physical things costs money at all? Is this an inherent property of something being physical, or is the cost related to salaries payed for processing and production? If everyone worked for free, nothing would cost money. Are you unable to think outside of those bounds? I'm not arguing for this mind you…

Still not an argument for why intellectual property should be allowed. Physical property is different , you can try and say it isn't all you want, but you're wrong, it is. I can't copy your car, I can copy your novel in milliseconds; these things are radically different. One deserves to be called property, one doesn't.

Sure you can, first you measure the parts then you manufacture identical parts and assemble a car that is a copy of mine. I wouldn't have any issues with this, but you would violate similar laws and the car manufacturer might sue you if you went on producing and selling that car.

Physical property is not different, your argument is: "it is" (in italic). But just to show you that a similar argument can be made that includes physical property I leave this Rousseau quote here.

"The first man who had fenced in a piece of land, said "This is mine," and found people naïve enough to believe him, that man was the true founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody"

Re: The 'intellectual property' oxymoron

#109

Post by stonemetal » Mon, Jul 04, 2011, 3:12 AM UTC

SigmundA wrote: post #79

xilun0 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you are pretending there is on difference between attribution of ideas and utilisation of ideas. I won't even explain why this is not true.

Where did I pretend there is no difference? If in my example the company chooses not to implement the idea, I still deserve credit for the idea correct, not someone else? Perhaps I would not receive a promotion because it was never implemented and proven to be beneficial to the company, but that does not make stealing an idea ethically fine does it, just because it was not utilized? Not bothering to explain is just a…

In IP it's essentially about someone lying to society about the source of the idea.

Right here. If I print a copy of Lord of the Rings and sell it, and there is no difference between my copy and the official copy. Then there has been no lying to society Tolkien's name is written on the cover an attributed as the author. Full credit for the idea has been given. In your example full credit for authorship was not given.

Re: The 'intellectual property' oxymoron

#110

Post by stonemetal » Mon, Jul 04, 2011, 3:28 AM UTC

conanite wrote: post #69

jarrett wrote: post #37

While I agree that our current intellectual property system is doing a great deal of harm (particularly due to it being slanted in favor of monied interests), there is a protect-the-little-guy rationale for some form of copyright. Let's imagine a world without copyright. Suppose I spend a year writing a novel. This novel is great; it has the capacity to become the #1 bestseller, provided the right marketing is there.…

> Suppose I spend a year writing a novel. In a world without copyright, why would you even do that? The very concept of "#1 bestseller" would disappear, probably with interesting ramifications for cultural diversity.

How so? If copyright didn't exist, books would come with point of sell contracts(think software EULAs today) that would be much worse than current copyright. Fair use would be a crazy idea invented by RMS at that point.