4 ms·

> Intellectual property has changed the game fundamentally You know there's no such thing as "intellectual property". Property, or ownership, is a thing about

> Intellectual property has changed the game fundamentally You know there's no such thing as "intellectual property". Property, or ownership, is a thing about physical stuff. Scarce stuff. Stuff you lose when others take it. Knowledge is so different that any analogy from the physical realm is bound to lead to critical misconceptions. (Just like anthropomorphism spur critical misconceptions about computers.) What people actually refer to when they talk about "intellectual property" is intellectual exclusivity, or intellectual monopoly. Copyright and patent laws are about just that: the exclusive right to copy some data, or the monopoly over the usage of some idea. Now we know that intellectual property doesn't exists, we also know that it couldn't have change the game at all. Actually, what did changed the game is the Ultimate Copying Machine, namely the internet. And as Copying Machines became more efficient, exclusivities and monopolies are harder to maintain. So naturally, those who have a stake in them stroked back. Hence the term "intellectual property", one of the most effective propaganda oxymoron I have ever seen. See, "property" is a heavily loaded term, which has an extremely good connotation. The right to property is perceived to be fundamental (I think it is, by the way). And that does it. few see that this term glosses over the fact that knowledge can't be owned at all. But the emotional impact of the starving inventor and "stealing intellectual property" are such that it become very hard to see the flaws of this analogy.

Cushman 16y ago
I agree with you, partially. Ideas are real-- as real as anything. Intellectual property is a fiction applied to ideas, just like physical property is a fiction applied to physical objects. But of course physical objects don't follow the same rules as ideas do, so IP needs to have different rules from property. (We're still figuring out what the best rules are.) But the hard question we're talking about here is what do we do when most of the value of a physical object is in the idea that it represents, rather than it's physical nature? Should that fall under the fiction of physical property, or intellectual property? Or some third abstraction that hasn't caught on yet? I think that's a hard question, and stopping after saying "I own it, it's mine" isn't doing justice to it or to the spirit of intellectual curiosity.
- loup-vaillant 16y ago
  > Ideas are real-- as real as anything Ideas aren't real by themselves, in the sense that they aren't even a part of reality. Now the fact that we have ideas is definitely real, in the sense that having a idea is a physical process (some sort of brain chemistry). I know I sound pedantic, but such confusion is the basis of many silly disputes, like the one that's about deciding whether ideas "out there" or "man made", while it doesn't actually change anything. Now, you keep saying "property", but do you really think that any rule we should come up with are closer to physical property than exclusivity or monopoly? Frankly, the only IP rules I can come up with are directly a form of exclusivity or monopoly, and have nothing to do with ownership. Now your question may be hard for you, but for me it's dead easy. I believe that all software should be free. That patents should be banished (including, if not especially, the pharmaceutical ones). That copyright length should be reduced down to 10 years tops, and it's scope limited to commercial exploitation. The only thing I'm not sure yet is whether we should abolish copyright altogether. Therefore, I believe that you should totally own what you rightfully hold in your hands, even if most its value comes from the idea it represents. I may make an exception for DVD and such, but when the object can do useful things beyond storing some pre-set data, then you should be allowed to do anything, including publishing the schematics and the firmware.
  - Cushman 16y ago
    I was being pedantic in saying that ideas are real. An idea is the subjective experience of a brain state; there's nothing extra-real about that. It's not really possible to own an idea, but then if you deconstruct ownership, it's not really possible to own anything; all "property" is a legal fiction, so that by itself is a dead end. Now, personally, I believe having access to more information is better than less. Purely on utilitarian grounds, I feel like I've seen pretty strong arguments that short-term patents and copyrights are great at incentivizing creation, which then lapses to the public creating greater good for all. Our IP system may be pretty broken, but that's a different subject. You seem to be opposing IP categorically because of a moral judgment, but I don't understand what the principle is. You clearly have some consequentialist concerns, but they don't extend far enough to, say, allow a developer to earn a living by selling software. What's the moral value here? More on point, why doesn't the same thing apply to physical property? Why is it okay for the government to tell you you're not allowed to drive "my" car, but not for them to tell you you're not allowed to reprint "my" book?

Cushman 16y ago

I agree with you, partially. Ideas are real-- as real as anything. Intellectual property is a fiction applied to ideas, just like physical property is a fiction applied to physical objects. But of course physical objects don't follow the same rules as ideas do, so IP needs to have different rules from property. (We're still figuring out what the best rules are.) But the hard question we're talking about here is what do we do when most of the value of a physical object is in the idea that it represents, rather than it's physical nature? Should that fall under the fiction of physical property, or intellectual property? Or some third abstraction that hasn't caught on yet? I think that's a hard question, and stopping after saying "I own it, it's mine" isn't doing justice to it or to the spirit of intellectual curiosity.

loup-vaillant 16y ago
> Ideas are real-- as real as anything Ideas aren't real by themselves, in the sense that they aren't even a part of reality. Now the fact that we have ideas is definitely real, in the sense that having a idea is a physical process (some sort of brain chemistry). I know I sound pedantic, but such confusion is the basis of many silly disputes, like the one that's about deciding whether ideas "out there" or "man made", while it doesn't actually change anything. Now, you keep saying "property", but do you really think that any rule we should come up with are closer to physical property than exclusivity or monopoly? Frankly, the only IP rules I can come up with are directly a form of exclusivity or monopoly, and have nothing to do with ownership. Now your question may be hard for you, but for me it's dead easy. I believe that all software should be free. That patents should be banished (including, if not especially, the pharmaceutical ones). That copyright length should be reduced down to 10 years tops, and it's scope limited to commercial exploitation. The only thing I'm not sure yet is whether we should abolish copyright altogether. Therefore, I believe that you should totally own what you rightfully hold in your hands, even if most its value comes from the idea it represents. I may make an exception for DVD and such, but when the object can do useful things beyond storing some pre-set data, then you should be allowed to do anything, including publishing the schematics and the firmware.
- Cushman 16y ago
  I was being pedantic in saying that ideas are real. An idea is the subjective experience of a brain state; there's nothing extra-real about that. It's not really possible to own an idea, but then if you deconstruct ownership, it's not really possible to own anything; all "property" is a legal fiction, so that by itself is a dead end. Now, personally, I believe having access to more information is better than less. Purely on utilitarian grounds, I feel like I've seen pretty strong arguments that short-term patents and copyrights are great at incentivizing creation, which then lapses to the public creating greater good for all. Our IP system may be pretty broken, but that's a different subject. You seem to be opposing IP categorically because of a moral judgment, but I don't understand what the principle is. You clearly have some consequentialist concerns, but they don't extend far enough to, say, allow a developer to earn a living by selling software. What's the moral value here? More on point, why doesn't the same thing apply to physical property? Why is it okay for the government to tell you you're not allowed to drive "my" car, but not for them to tell you you're not allowed to reprint "my" book?