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

Chomsky on Intellectual Property

groups.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 133 posts

Re: Chomsky on Intellectual Property

#121

Post by pathjumper »

Here's a different perspective for you guys that is more or less in agreement with Chomsky's:

The universe does not recognize our artificial restrictions on information.

This is inherently why people generally think it's ok to violate the copyrights of others. Because we know, and the universe knows that nothing was taken away from them. The restrictions are entirely artifical and designed to do nothing except create an enormous inequality between the the "owner" of the information, and everyone else. That's the sole purpose. These Imaginary Stuff owners then use this disparity (a legal fiction entirely) to generate massive wealth based on entirely contrived circumstances.

Since the dawn of speech nothing like this has existed because it never made sense. Anything one person said could be repeated by anyone who could remembered it. So when did information suddenly become ownable? It's a nonsensical legal fiction of epic proportions.

I contend that if the information is publicly available, you no longer own it. This is how the universe operates. Fans of Imaginary Stuff rights will not be able to get their way for long. Or rather, they shouldn't be allowed to use the legal system to enforce their artificial disparity. If you want to own information, keep it a secret. Otherwise, it's everyone's.

Another way of looking at it is, if you want to get paid for good information/content/art production, you're going to have to do what every other human does, continue working even after producing great works. You should be valued for your talent, and ability to produce from it over and over - just like everyone else. A bricklayer doesn't lay one brick really well and then charge everyone to use it daily. The value should be placed on the ability, not the product, since there's no physical product at all really. The slight exception being physical works of art etc, but then they're not just information, so the rules I'm talking about do not entirely apply. Photographic reproductions are information, but an original work in physical form is still valuable for being the first and physical.

What do you other smart folks think about this? I know a lot of us work in information production in some form. I myself am a software engineer, so I'm not just trying to take from everyone else and pretend the rule doesn't apply to me because I'm not an information/content producer. I actually am. So this hits me hardest too.

Re: Chomsky on Intellectual Property

#122

Post by njharman »

edw519 wrote: post #17

First this: They don't make any economic sense or any other sense. Then this: They should be working for the public good. (Applause) And that means it should be available to the public. So... So...why aren't any of these (his 145 books): http://www.amazon.com/gp/search/ref=sr_tc_2_0?rh=i%3Astripbo... in the public domain?

ad hominem much?

Re: Chomsky on Intellectual Property

#123

Post by neves »

dexen wrote: post #53
davidw wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if they were all in the public domain, he's basically "set", being a university professor with tenure. It would be a less pleasant world where only those with other secure income from other sources could produce information goods.

He is `set' because he continuously fulfills the expectation of the employer: he publishes (and teaches etc.). And expectations of the wide public: he provides information to us. The employer (university) is happy, because those publications bring them money, even if indirectly. And you were going to say that's a bad thing because...? Sure university is a somewhat special case; we don't expect everybody to become a p…

Man, Does he "fulfill the expectation of the employer"? This guy rocks: According to the Arts and Humanities Citation Index in 1992, Chomsky was cited as a source more often than any other living scholar from 1980 to 1992. He is also the eighth most cited source of all time, and is considered the "most cited living author". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky

Re: Chomsky on Intellectual Property

#124

Post by danssig »

numeromancer wrote: post #120
danssig wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's always someone trying to make everyone out to be a hypocrite. It is not a conflict to both have a belief and not act within that belief. If the world suddenly started working the way he described and he still tried to sell things he expected others to give away then it would be hypocritical behavior.

There's always someone trying to make everyone out to be a hypocrite. It is not a conflict to both have a belief and not act within that belief. It is only not a conflict if you are, in fact, a hypocrite, and do not bother to judge yourself by your own standards. If the world suddenly started working the way he described and he still tried to sell things he expected others to give away then it would be hypocritical b…

I disagree with this bit of hyperbole. You only live one time. Living the life of a pauper because of some ideals if just not practical. Most people will never hear of your sacrifice and those who do will write you off as a nutter. Chomsky is doing what he can by delivering his message to the youth, the future. He wouldn't be in a position to deliver that message if he were off trying to start a one-man revolution.

Re: Chomsky on Intellectual Property

#125

Post by eyeforgotmyname »

angus77 wrote: post #90
eyeforgotmyname wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's ironic that Einstein couldn't file a patent on relativity.

To whoever downvoted this: I think eyeforgotmyname was saying it was ironic considering Einstein worked in a patent office , not that he thought Einstein should have been able to patent it. It was a joke. You were supposed to laugh.

It's ironic that a joke about Einstein has to be explained.

Re: Chomsky on Intellectual Property

#126

Post by nooneelse »

numeromancer wrote: post #120
danssig wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's always someone trying to make everyone out to be a hypocrite. It is not a conflict to both have a belief and not act within that belief. If the world suddenly started working the way he described and he still tried to sell things he expected others to give away then it would be hypocritical behavior.

There's always someone trying to make everyone out to be a hypocrite. It is not a conflict to both have a belief and not act within that belief. It is only not a conflict if you are, in fact, a hypocrite, and do not bother to judge yourself by your own standards. If the world suddenly started working the way he described and he still tried to sell things he expected others to give away then it would be hypocritical b…

One can easily believe "X is good." without believing "X is what everyone should do in all situations." So to, one can believe "it would be better in numerous important ways if everyone did Z all the time." without believing "it would be better in all situations on all important measures if one more person did Z." You are advocating we judge others using a simplistic abstraction of what principles are. Good rhetoric perhaps, but not good thinking.

Put another way, it is untrue to think that principles can only be beliefs without conditionals.

Re: Chomsky on Intellectual Property

#127

Post by dolokhov »

dexen wrote: post #76
loup-vaillant wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It always* comes from scarcity of some kind.* Meaning, if you want to gain any wealth, then work on something scarce, and make sure it stays scarce. Let everyone do that, and we get a world of scarcity. Hmm… I thought that a world of abundance was better?

There exists concept of Gift economy [1] where scarcity is not a driving factor. The (historical) implementations we had so far aren't exactly shining examples of quick development. But it may have been just partly related, or even unrelated, to the economic model. ---- [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gift_economy

the online gift economy does not have to remain limited to digital culture

www.giftflow.org (still in alpha)

Re: Chomsky on Intellectual Property

#128

Post by defen »

hasenj wrote: post #107
defen wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Minor rhetorical note - you used the phrase "exception that proves the rule" incorrectly. You used it to mean "the single exception to a general rule", with "open source software is necessary for a successful startup" being the rule, and Stack Overflow being the exception. The phrase actually means that the existence of a specific rule implies that the negation is true for circumstances not covered by the rule. So, i…

The rule is like: It's really really hard to make startups without the open-source Unix-based systems/tools

The point is that the phrase "exception that proves the rule" should only be used when talking about man-made rules and laws, not inductive hypotheses. You don't get to use evidence against your hypothesis as evidence for your hypothesis!

Put another way, when used correctly, "the exception that proves the rule" is a valid rhetorical phrase regardless of how many exceptions there are. Whereas if there were 500 successful startups using non-open-source tools, you wouldn't say that they were the exceptions that proved the rule.

Re: Chomsky on Intellectual Property

#129

Post by intended »

calibraxis wrote: post #117
davidw wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is throwing out IP laws completely going to get you those things? I don't see it. Who's going to bring drugs to market? Sure, government sponsors basic research, but to get there to the market is not exactly a walk in the park.

There are proposed alternatives to IP protections. For example, a society could decide to fund these as public goods. (Say, in a participatory bottom-up manner.) Then you don't have the stick-filesharers-in-jail problem.

I would champion this point - at least in terms of research and science.

On the other hand when it comes to artists and sharing of other similar IP, the current system can do with shorter copyright terms. At least thats my non-nuanced starting point on these discussions.

(!!Science!!)

Re: Chomsky on Intellectual Property

#130

Post by intended »

davidw wrote: post #116
intended wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've read the thread again, could you tell me where I came across as "throwing out IP Laws completely"?. I think - A) Competition is good for some types of goods, not all. (I don't remember/know the correct economic criteria to define this.) B) IP laws are good/great for some research, and bad/terrible for others. C) I do not see the current system incentivizing humanity's good over personal/shareholder profit. D) Th…

The original article was about Chomsky saying IP was a bad thing, and a lot of commenters here seem to like the idea of ditching it, lock stock and barrel. I agree with your points, and think that D and C are incremental improvements to the existing system to try and make with time, rather than a reason to junk the entire thing.

I agree that ditching the whole thing would be ineffective. Even if we did, I would bet that the new system would be the old system with minor differences.

There is good in the system, it needs more people to help managed and identify fraudulent/cheating behavior which is aimed at gaming the system.

I also think we need a smaller net so that fewer things can be patented. Again, this is for the freedom to exchange information and ideas, which leads to the betterment of humanity as a whole.

Everything we do has been built on the ideas and labor of others before us. It makes little sense to me to imagine we will be better off by not letting future generations do the same.

Post reply on HN