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

71–80 of 132 posts

Re: The 'intellectual property' oxymoron

#71

Post by adsr »

icebraining wrote: post #65
adsr wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's society's responsibility to enforce the laws, this isn't a discussion about internet per se, it's not excluded from the laws of the society. Other phenomenons are also thriving on the internet like credit card frauds. By your logic this isn't society's responsibility either, we simply have to accept the current state and adapt.

The point is whether such laws should exist or not, not if they should be enforced. The fact that without such laws some activities are unprofitable is not a reason to keep those laws, unless you think we should ban email to avoid layoffs of post office worker. Or ban Netflix to avoid losing jobs in video rentals.

Absolutely, and this is my point as well. If you read the post I responded to it should be clear I think. That is, if you believe in the theoretical basis of the law, then the internet does not change that fact.

Re: The 'intellectual property' oxymoron

#72

Post by icebraining »

olavk wrote: post #43

Intellectual property at least makes a certain sense, since it is something you create yourself out of thin air, and therefore can decide to make available to others under certain conditions if both parties agree. If you don't make it available, nobody suffers, and if you do, you have created value without depriving others, so it is only fair to receive compensation. Owning land, on the other hand is clearly immoral.…

>Intellectual property at least makes a certain sense, since it is something you create yourself out of thin air

That's obviously not true; all works are based on every work the artists has experienced in his life. All art stands on itself, not as isolated works.

If you mean the support in which it is impressed, then it's not true either - the materials are finite just like land.

Re: The 'intellectual property' oxymoron

#73

Post by gnaritas »

michael_dorfman wrote: post #52
Jach wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. Why is it $1? Suppose you make a contract with one publisher who will pay you $1 per copy sold and also negotiate with a different publisher who will pay you $2 per copy sold. How much are you deprived then, $1.50? $2? You're assuming that every copy the pirate sold could have been sold by your current publisher(s) but wasn't.

Because I stipulated that the contract was exclusive and time-limited. In other words, the assumption that every copy the pirate sold would have been sold by my current publisher is accurate-- hence the simplicity of the hypothetical.

> Because I stipulated that the contract was exclusive and time-limited

And why should you have the right to control that?

Re: The 'intellectual property' oxymoron

#74

Post by icebraining »

tzs wrote: post #44
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.

He didn't think there was a natural right to ideas. He didn't say that they shouldn't be protected--just that whether to do so or not was up to society which could weigh the benefits vs. the harms.

Personally, I believe the concept of natural rights is nonsense, but for someone who does believing in them, supporting IP is contradictory because it violates such rights.

If I own a music CD, a blank CD and a computer, it's a violation of my property rights to stop me from copying using the latter to copy the CDs, or from distributing such copies.

Re: The 'intellectual property' oxymoron

#75

Post by ignifero »

tzs wrote: post #53

There's an economic justification for the current type of IP law in societies that philosophically believe that the free market should be used whenever possible to determine the allocation of resources. It goes like this: ------ It can be shown by the mathematical economics folks that the free market leads to economically optimum results if and only if the goods in the market have certain attributes. If goods do not…

It would not be wise to replace the current IP system with nothing. We need to replace it with something better, more granular, that will use technology to reward based on who uses what IP product and how. Popularity alone is not the ideal criterion, or else we would not have the Picassos or the Frank Gehrys of the world.

Re: The 'intellectual property' oxymoron

#76

Post by cschwarm »

hxa7241 wrote: post #17
michael_dorfman wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 b…

> Why is IP justified?

From an economic point of view, by trying to prevent something like the tragedy of the commons.

Since everyone can make copies if there is no ownership, the majority of authors have no incentive to make their works public. And since authors can figure this out before starting to work, there's less production of works than beneficial.

In other words: Nobody would have spend the money to make movies like Lords of the Rings, or whatever you fancy.

The free market argument applies in a world with ownership, too: Those who paid the price for a work are assumed to be better off, otherwise they wouldn't have agreed to the bargain. If they would want works without ownership, they can always assemble, throw their money into one pot, and have works made for them.

Since they don't do this, an average, the incentive of having works with no ownership can't be that great.

You got to admit that every author is the possessor of his work, even in a world without ownership, since he possesses the first copy. So, the question is: How can you make him publish his copy?

Re: The 'intellectual property' oxymoron

#77

Post by gnaritas »

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.

You assume it to be, but that's the point of this discussion, it isn't or shouldn't be. If you spend a year doing something no one wants to pay for, you don't have a right to force them to.

Re: The 'intellectual property' oxymoron

#78

Post by icebraining »

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.

>It's a basic right

Right now, it's a right, yes (what exactly does 'basic' mean?). The question is whether it should be.

>Same with software, a GPL license would be worthless without copyright.

The GPL is just an hack, using copyright to achieve a goal. If you were rewriting IP law, you could very well institute copyleft without copyright.

Re: The 'intellectual property' oxymoron

#79

Post by SigmundA »

xilun0 wrote: post #58
SigmundA wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You haven't explained how they are different, what is the difference between a co-worker stealing your idea for personal gain and someone else in society doing the same? In IP it's essentially about someone lying to society about the source of the idea. The only difference I see is the organizational entities scope, but the ethic is the same. IP is basically contractualized attribution. Owning an idea as property is…

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 cop out.

Re: The 'intellectual property' oxymoron

#80

Post by sp332 »

icebraining wrote: post #74
tzs wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He didn't think there was a natural right to ideas. He didn't say that they shouldn't be protected--just that whether to do so or not was up to society which could weigh the benefits vs. the harms.

Personally, I believe the concept of natural rights is nonsense, but for someone who does believing in them, supporting IP is contradictory because it violates such rights. If I own a music CD, a blank CD and a computer, it's a violation of my property rights to stop me from copying using the latter to copy the CDs, or from distributing such copies.

I don't agree. Punching someone would be a protected right because, after all, it's my fist, I can do whatever I want with it.
Post reply on HN