6 ms·

Please clarify: are you saying you reject the concept of intellectual property, or just the industry that has grown up around enforcing intellectual property la

by Alex63 16y ago

Please clarify: are you saying you reject the concept of intellectual property, or just the industry that has grown up around enforcing intellectual property laws?

steveklabnik 16y ago
I can't speak for him, but I'd say the same thing he would, and answer your question with 'reject the concept of intellectual property.' AMA ;)
sabat 16y ago
I reject the concept of "intellectual property" as unconstitutional. Read the copyright clause carefully, and read the letters of Thomas Jefferson on the issue in particular. There is no provision for treating ideas or expressions as property. Limited monopoly for the original artist or inventor was all that was being granted. Otherwise: Congress shall make no law -- meaning that if I tell you a joke, you should be able to repeat that joke without me coming to claim that you owe me money and potentially jail time because you "stole" something from me.
- Alex63 16y ago
  And do you accept/support a limited monopoly for the original artist or inventor? Presuming that you do, do you believe that that monopoly right is transferable?
  - sabat 16y ago
    And do you accept/support a limited monopoly for the original artist or inventor? It's right there in black and white. I don't believe the constitution is infallible, but I do think the founders got this one right -- the way they intended it, anyway. Presuming that you do, do you believe that that monopoly right is transferable? No, for two reasons: 1- it's not actually permitted and doing so automatically creates "property" which the guys who actually wrote the copyright clause were completely against, and 2- it goes against the whole purpose of the copyright clause. See, the idea is that if you get a limited monopoly, you're more likely to keep inventing and creating. But Walt Disney is dead, and still Mickey Mouse is somehow off-limits. He's not a cartoon character -- he's the "property" of a mega-corp.
    - roel_v 16y ago
      So basically, according to you there could be no legal security for large software firms in the software they license? Because all the employees retain their copyrights as original authors? So anytime you 'buy' (to use a colloquialism) Windows, you are effectively entering into an agreement with the 1000's of people who contributed to it over the years and if one of them decides that he no longer wishes to license his contribution to others, a replacement for that work needs to be made?
      - sabat 16y ago
        I suppose that's a good argument for open-source-style licensing. What you're describing fits Linux perfectly, and I don't think any driver author has tried to pull that. Also: authors are perfectly free to write up licenses that allow use until the copyright term is up.
        roel_v 16y ago
        Wrong. Recent (as in, this millennium) Linux kernel contributions require all submissions to be under an open source license. For GNU, the FSF has recommended since the beginning that the copyrights of all GNU contributions be assigned to the FSF. They have documents for download on their website and the whole shebang. "Also: authors are perfectly free to write up licenses that allow use until the copyright term is up." Well that negates the whole point of the non-transferability doesn't it. If people are allowed to license all rights they have to a third party, until the end of the term, then what's the difference with transferring the copyright outright?
    - Alex63 16y ago
      I agree with you that the limited aspect of the monopoly has become watered down over the years, but I'm concerned that you appear to be suggesting that a corporation cannot have a limited monopoly (because that would require the transfer of the monopoly rights from a real entity to a legal entity).
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- mattmaroon 16y ago
  Using The Constitution as justification for an opinion is roughly on par with using the Bible, The Koran, or Beowulf. This is a document that says that slavery is ok and a black man is worth exactly 60% of a white man (but gets 0% of his votes). My main criticism of the American educational system is that it instills the sort of hero worship that makes otherwise intelligent people use a piece of paper written by people who believed in witches and didn't even know what an atom was as the basis of an argument about intellectual property in the digital era. I expect it from Sarah Palin, not from Hacker News. On the other hand, we wouldn't get awesome satire like this without it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbRom1Rz8OA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbRom1Rz8OA . NSFW.
  - SoftwareMaven 16y ago
    For those of us in the US, the Constitution is the basis for the law of the land. To ignore it would be ridiculous. Ad hominem attacks from somebody who such a strong admitted bias towards copyright just makes you look desperate. Many published writers have shown that they can get by without copyright. The problem is not copyright, which, in and of itself, is fine. The problem is when copyright moves from a balance between the creator and society as a whole to being only favorable for the creator. That point (which we are at, IMO) is the point the laws need to be shucked, and that will happen as a result of people ignoring the laws until government decides to make people legal again.
    - mattmaroon 16y ago
      I wouldn't suggest ignoring it exactly. It's relevant when determining whether or not something is legal. It's just not relevant when determining whether or not something should be legal. It's a logical fallacy (called an appeal to authority). I was not making any attack against the author personally, especially since I don't know anything about him. I also don't have a strong bias towards copyright. I believe that there has been a clear progression throughout history of protection from theft (of both the tangible and intangible) being followed by innovation and wealth creation, and therefore that the idea that copyrights as a class should be abolished is naive and shortsighted, but that's not really a bias toward copyrights as they exist currently. I also believe that in any functioning copyright system, litigation will be the best (and for the most part, only) method of enforcement. And that the word "patent troll" is an ad hominem attack meant to discourage rather than encourage discussion about a complex topic typically used by people who don't even remotely understand it. You never get coherent arguments like that from people who support the abolition of all IP. All you get are appeals to authority, name calling, and the occasional "Cory Doctorow makes his books free and still makes money."

by Alex63 16y ago

Please clarify: are you saying you reject the concept of intellectual property, or just the industry that has grown up around enforcing intellectual property laws?

steveklabnik 16y ago

I can't speak for him, but I'd say the same thing he would, and answer your question with 'reject the concept of intellectual property.' AMA ;)

sabat 16y ago

I reject the concept of "intellectual property" as unconstitutional. Read the copyright clause carefully, and read the letters of Thomas Jefferson on the issue in particular. There is no provision for treating ideas or expressions as property. Limited monopoly for the original artist or inventor was all that was being granted. Otherwise: Congress shall make no law -- meaning that if I tell you a joke, you should be able to repeat that joke without me coming to claim that you owe me money and potentially jail time because you "stole" something from me.

Alex63 16y ago
And do you accept/support a limited monopoly for the original artist or inventor? Presuming that you do, do you believe that that monopoly right is transferable?
- sabat 16y ago
  And do you accept/support a limited monopoly for the original artist or inventor? It's right there in black and white. I don't believe the constitution is infallible, but I do think the founders got this one right -- the way they intended it, anyway. Presuming that you do, do you believe that that monopoly right is transferable? No, for two reasons: 1- it's not actually permitted and doing so automatically creates "property" which the guys who actually wrote the copyright clause were completely against, and 2- it goes against the whole purpose of the copyright clause. See, the idea is that if you get a limited monopoly, you're more likely to keep inventing and creating. But Walt Disney is dead, and still Mickey Mouse is somehow off-limits. He's not a cartoon character -- he's the "property" of a mega-corp.
  - roel_v 16y ago
    So basically, according to you there could be no legal security for large software firms in the software they license? Because all the employees retain their copyrights as original authors? So anytime you 'buy' (to use a colloquialism) Windows, you are effectively entering into an agreement with the 1000's of people who contributed to it over the years and if one of them decides that he no longer wishes to license his contribution to others, a replacement for that work needs to be made?
    - sabat 16y ago
      I suppose that's a good argument for open-source-style licensing. What you're describing fits Linux perfectly, and I don't think any driver author has tried to pull that. Also: authors are perfectly free to write up licenses that allow use until the copyright term is up.
      - roel_v 16y ago
        Wrong. Recent (as in, this millennium) Linux kernel contributions require all submissions to be under an open source license. For GNU, the FSF has recommended since the beginning that the copyrights of all GNU contributions be assigned to the FSF. They have documents for download on their website and the whole shebang. "Also: authors are perfectly free to write up licenses that allow use until the copyright term is up." Well that negates the whole point of the non-transferability doesn't it. If people are allowed to license all rights they have to a third party, until the end of the term, then what's the difference with transferring the copyright outright?
  - Alex63 16y ago
    I agree with you that the limited aspect of the monopoly has become watered down over the years, but I'm concerned that you appear to be suggesting that a corporation cannot have a limited monopoly (because that would require the transfer of the monopoly rights from a real entity to a legal entity).
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
mattmaroon 16y ago
Using The Constitution as justification for an opinion is roughly on par with using the Bible, The Koran, or Beowulf. This is a document that says that slavery is ok and a black man is worth exactly 60% of a white man (but gets 0% of his votes). My main criticism of the American educational system is that it instills the sort of hero worship that makes otherwise intelligent people use a piece of paper written by people who believed in witches and didn't even know what an atom was as the basis of an argument about intellectual property in the digital era. I expect it from Sarah Palin, not from Hacker News. On the other hand, we wouldn't get awesome satire like this without it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbRom1Rz8OA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbRom1Rz8OA . NSFW.
- SoftwareMaven 16y ago
  For those of us in the US, the Constitution is the basis for the law of the land. To ignore it would be ridiculous. Ad hominem attacks from somebody who such a strong admitted bias towards copyright just makes you look desperate. Many published writers have shown that they can get by without copyright. The problem is not copyright, which, in and of itself, is fine. The problem is when copyright moves from a balance between the creator and society as a whole to being only favorable for the creator. That point (which we are at, IMO) is the point the laws need to be shucked, and that will happen as a result of people ignoring the laws until government decides to make people legal again.
  - mattmaroon 16y ago
    I wouldn't suggest ignoring it exactly. It's relevant when determining whether or not something is legal. It's just not relevant when determining whether or not something should be legal. It's a logical fallacy (called an appeal to authority). I was not making any attack against the author personally, especially since I don't know anything about him. I also don't have a strong bias towards copyright. I believe that there has been a clear progression throughout history of protection from theft (of both the tangible and intangible) being followed by innovation and wealth creation, and therefore that the idea that copyrights as a class should be abolished is naive and shortsighted, but that's not really a bias toward copyrights as they exist currently. I also believe that in any functioning copyright system, litigation will be the best (and for the most part, only) method of enforcement. And that the word "patent troll" is an ad hominem attack meant to discourage rather than encourage discussion about a complex topic typically used by people who don't even remotely understand it. You never get coherent arguments like that from people who support the abolition of all IP. All you get are appeals to authority, name calling, and the occasional "Cory Doctorow makes his books free and still makes money."