| Subject: Wheee! More rant! |
Author:
D0SBoots
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 19:02:35 06/14/03 Sat
In reply to:
Jake
's message, "Re: You guys win >_<" on 10:43:04 06/14/03 Sat
Now I get to try and be brief, but fail miserably. ^_^
>Your example about duplicating someone's chair isn't
>stealing because you steal neither the physical
>material the person owns nor any intellectual property
>(IP). However, if someone designed and patented the
>most comfortable chair in the world and you started
>mass-producing and distributing it, then you *would*
>be stealing; you'd be stealing his design. Without
>protection of IP, there is no incentive to innovate or
>create art because anyone can take it and start
>selling it or giving it away.
The point I was trying to make is a bit more abstract - think a bit more "outside the box" for a minute. ;) Fundamentally, what is IP? It's the idea that someone (or a collection of someones, some company/legal entity/whatever,) can own an idea just like they can own a physical object, say, a chair. Now, why do we have property rights at all? Why do we have this concept of stealing? It's because a physical object can only be used by one person at a time. Because of this, we assign "owners" to objects, and the owner has the right to do what they want with that object. (Including allowing others to use the object, exchanging "ownership" of the object for money, etc.) Also, these rights are enforceable - an object is physical in nature, so it has to move physically through the universe, and is thus easy to track. If someone steals your object, you can safely claim that, "No, that's MY object," because being made out of physical stuff, it is unique. Now let'c contrast this to "intellectual property." The fundamental difference is that IP is NOT made out of physical matter, and thus, there is not going to be one and only one instance of it. IP fundamentally cannot be "stolen," because there is no atomic operation that gives one person an idea while removing it from another person. Instead, IP is "copied," where another party gains the idea in question _without_ depriving the original "owner" of said idea. Similarly, IP is unenforcable. For ideas of sufficient complexity, it is unlikely ("beyond a reasonable doubt") that others will come to the same idea independantly, but it is not impossible. Since ideas and other information are NOT physical, they are not required to move through the physical world, and thus cannot be effectively tracked. A great example of this is when the Catholic church tried to make the idea of a heliocentric universe illegal. Were this idea a physical object, they could have destroyed it and punished those who possesed it, but being an ephermal idea, the entire church couldn't stop it. What it comes down to is that property rights exist so that the owner can do as he wishes with his property, but IP rights exist _solely_ to make money.
There is a societal argument against IP, as well. The individual might gain (in a temporary capitalistic sense) by "owning" an idea, but as long as the idea is limited to that person, society cannot gain from it. History bears this out - successful cultures, especially those we consider "enlightened," were successful because they benifited from the spread and exchange of ideas.
I understand that this is a highly radical view, and that most people don't share it. :) However, I find it slightly offensive that you claim, "without protection of IP, there is no incentive to innovate or create art because anyone can take it and start selling it or giving it away." This implies that people innovate and create art for money, which is completely backwards. Find me an artist who practices their art for money, and not for the love of their art, and I'll show you someone who's about to give up that art. ^_^ The part about innovation is even further from the truth - last time I checked, the scientific community published all its findings for free, without fear that other people were going to give their findings away. Society seems to consider this a good thing, since scientists are given grants to fund their research, even though no one will get to sell their findings once they're done.
>You give
>the example of Megatokyo, but I think this is an
>exceptional case. Most people aren't lucky enough to
>have such a large and devoted fanbase for something
>that costs so little to produce.
Last time I heard, Fred's bandwith bills were over $1000/month, although they're probably much bigger by now. If that's "costing so little" in your book... ^_^;; It is true that it's an exceptional case, but I don't think it has to be.
>I think that covers everything... Hehe, I guess it
>turned out to be not very condensed, which is why I'm
>tired of writing about this stuff. There's just no
>way to be brief. ^_^;
So true, so true. ^_^ A few closing remarks:
I don't think we'll ever see eye-to-eye on this, because I fundamentally don't believe in intellectual property. I think that anyone should be allowed to do whatever with any information they get their hands on. This doesn't mean that I think all information should be public, (there is still a place for secrets, after all,) nor do I think that you always _should_ do whatever, even if you are allowed to. As an example, even in our current system, you are _allowed_ to tell your grandma, as she is on her deathbed, that you're not really her grandchild and everything she thought she knew was a lie. (Assume that all that is actually true.) It doesn't mean you _should_ tell her, however. So we'll probably have to agree to disagree. ;) I figured as much going in, but I think that everyone should have exposure to profoundly different worldviews in order to flesh out their own. (And the best way I know of to get other people to share their worldviews with me is when they're using them to try to shoot down my own. ^_^) I don't think our society is ready for a world full of people who think like me (Ugh. A world full of Daves. Now *there's* a scary thought. ;) ) - it would mean the collapse of the music and software industries (as we know them), and the movie industry would probably take a hit, too. I personally would shed no tears at their passing, but if it happend all of a sudden it would be disasterous for the economy, etc... However, the increasing trend of piracy, especially overseas, seems to indicate that many people's moral compasses are pointed the same way as mine, even if they don't have a solid philosophy behind that moral compass. China and Russia in particular are notorious for their rampant piracy, to the point where intellectual property doesn't really exist there. It will be interesting to see how things work out in the future, because of this.
--
=D ave
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 