10 ms·

A basic roundup of ethical problems for IP: * Conflict with fundamental personal liberty: Mill's idea that we have unrestricted liberty except to the extent th

by hxa7241 15y ago

A basic roundup of ethical problems for IP: * Conflict with fundamental personal liberty: Mill's idea that we have unrestricted liberty except to the extent that it injures someone else, is fairly standard. But IP conflicts with that, yet IP is not fundamental, not grounded in physical fact. (See Koepsell: http://www.hxa.name/articles/content/ethical-case-against-ip_koepsell_2009.html http://www.hxa.name/articles/content/ethical-case-against-ip...) * Cannot be justified on the basis of harm: One could justify rights by showing that lack of them causes harm to those denied. But IP represents no physical relation where any harm could be rendered. (See Wilson: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~rehbjgs/docs/could-there-be-a-right.pdf http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~rehbjgs/docs/could-there-be-a-right.pd...) * Does not make complete sense as a generalised rule: The idea that a moral rule is generalisable, as a critical feature, is also standard (probably more so). But if everyone owned IP equally much there is no advantage, and everyone would be better off freely sharing copies. (And indeed, what do we seem to see amongst similarly large corporations? They buy big patent portfolios and agree, or tacitly accept, truces between them.)

michael_dorfman 15y ago
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 of the Rings" without paying Tolkien for the rights (and in direct competition with Houghton Mifflin, to whom Tolkien had contracted). Are you prepared to argue that Ace did Tolkien no harm?
- slowpoke 15y ago
  >if you accept the premise that the author of a work is entitled to be remunerated for the production of said work Then please elaborate why we should accept said premise. You just state it like it's an universal law of the universe. It isn't. No artisan (or actually, no one at all) is entitled to a successful business modell. And by the way, the "problem" aren't the people who are unwilling to pay for anything (which I am sure you or someone else will cite sooner or later). It's the people expecting to make money with art. It's cool if you can. If you can't, then you're not entitled to laws or monopolies that protect your failed business modell. >Are you prepared to argue that Ace did Tolkien no harm? Why should it have? More people were able to read his beautiful works. Are you prepared to argue how that constitutes as harm in the first place?
  - michael_dorfman 15y ago
    I'm not stating that the premise (that the author of a work is entitled to be remunerated for the production) is a universal law of the universe. In fact, I'm not even stating that I agree with the premise. I'm just pointing out that it is an unstated assumption in much of the discussion surrounding IP. In other words, the account given of the "ethical problems of intellectual property" above is dependent upon one rejecting that premise, and that contrarily, those that accept the premise will find the "ethical objections" to be unpersuasive. If one is prepared to argue (as you apparently are), that Tolkien had no moral right to the proceeds of the sale of his books, then indeed no harm has been done. If, on the other hand, you accept the premise I elaborated (and which Tolkien explicitly appealed to, in a famous statement), the harm is evident.
    - praptak 15y ago
      "If one is prepared to argue (as you apparently are), that Tolkien had no moral right to the proceeds of the sale of his books [...]" It is possible to believe that he had the moral right to the proceeds but only on the basis of the copyright policy that existed at the time he wrote the books. This doesn't mean you cannot at the same time argue that such policy should be abolished. In other words the Tolkien case is a red herring here.
  - dctoedt 15y ago
    > [The problem is] the people expecting to make money with art. It's cool if you can. If you can't, then you're not entitled to laws or monopolies that protect your failed business modell. Agreed that there's no entitlement to laws or monopolies. And I grant you that some ultra-libertarians oppose any restriction on their personal economic freedom, citing moral reasons. But society sometimes decides, for pragmatic reasons, that it's a sensible bet to grant limited-term monopolies [1], in the hope that over the long term everyone will benefit. We see that in the Writings and Discoveries Clause, article I, section 8, clause 8 of the U.S. Constitution.[2] EDIT in response to comments: Just what monopolies to grant, and for how long, is of course the $64K question. It's been my observation that this is one of those issues where, for many people, where you stand depends on where you sit (or is it the other way around?) [1] Technically, "monopoly" is a misnomer when applied IP rights in the general case. In economics, the term refers to someone having a lock on access to goods or services for which there's no 'viable' substitute. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly. [2] http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section8 http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section8
- hxa7241 15y ago
  > 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 be worse-off. That is effectively saying: people can make a living in a particular way because of the rule, and we have the rule because people can make a living in a particular way from it. This is a circular fallacy. It cannot be justified by itself. Why is IP justified? -- as a rational argument, in terms more basic than the question itself . . . (having looked around a bit, there seems to be only one half-decent/plausible one: the standard economic one -- which is not really an ethical argument (and conspicuously lacks actual evidence anyway))
  - SigmundA 15y ago
    Ethically it simply comes down to giving credit where credit is due. If you discuss a new idea that you have spent time formulating with a co-worker that is good for the company and the co-worker presents this idea to your common boss as their own and receive a promotion for it, is this ethically wrong?
    - hxa7241 15y ago
      Yes, that is wrong -- it seems covered by the ethics of lying/truth-telling (from Kant, it is contradictory: if lying were a universal rule, it would destroy the possibility of communication in general). But IP is about more than just clear attribution. And clear attribution is not dependent on IP -- we can have it without the other IP features. So a justification of attribution is not sufficient to support IP too.
      - SigmundA 15y ago
        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 simply a societal contract that guarantee's you attribution for your idea.
- apotheon 15y ago
  > 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 How do you figure? The problems still exist; you've just decided to de-prioritize them compared to the remuneration entitlement you posit. Consider this alternative: the author of a work is entitled to be remunerated for anything for which he or she arranges an agreement with someone to remunerate him or her. Period. This would mean it is up to the author to make arrangements for someone to pay him or her when he or she produces something and turns it over to the employer, and that it is then the employer's responsibility to figure out how to make a profit from it by similarly arranging an agreement with someone else (when speaking of a standard employment relationship for authors). > Are you prepared to argue that Ace did Tolkien no harm? You're missing the distinction between direct harm on one hand, and unexpected competition for a monopolized market on the other. From a certain perspective, the harm in the second case is not harm caused by the unexpected competitor, but rather harm caused by the monopolist's failure to account for competition in its business model.
- uriel 15y ago
  This is a strawman, nobody is arguing that people should not be allowed to demand compensation for their work, authors and musicians were able to demand compensation no differently from anyone else before IP came around, the problem is the demand that they should be granted a monopoly and control over the physical property of others, that is what IP is.

by hxa7241 15y ago

michael_dorfman 15y ago

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 of the Rings" without paying Tolkien for the rights (and in direct competition with Houghton Mifflin, to whom Tolkien had contracted). Are you prepared to argue that Ace did Tolkien no harm?

slowpoke 15y ago
>if you accept the premise that the author of a work is entitled to be remunerated for the production of said work Then please elaborate why we should accept said premise. You just state it like it's an universal law of the universe. It isn't. No artisan (or actually, no one at all) is entitled to a successful business modell. And by the way, the "problem" aren't the people who are unwilling to pay for anything (which I am sure you or someone else will cite sooner or later). It's the people expecting to make money with art. It's cool if you can. If you can't, then you're not entitled to laws or monopolies that protect your failed business modell. >Are you prepared to argue that Ace did Tolkien no harm? Why should it have? More people were able to read his beautiful works. Are you prepared to argue how that constitutes as harm in the first place?
- michael_dorfman 15y ago
  I'm not stating that the premise (that the author of a work is entitled to be remunerated for the production) is a universal law of the universe. In fact, I'm not even stating that I agree with the premise. I'm just pointing out that it is an unstated assumption in much of the discussion surrounding IP. In other words, the account given of the "ethical problems of intellectual property" above is dependent upon one rejecting that premise, and that contrarily, those that accept the premise will find the "ethical objections" to be unpersuasive. If one is prepared to argue (as you apparently are), that Tolkien had no moral right to the proceeds of the sale of his books, then indeed no harm has been done. If, on the other hand, you accept the premise I elaborated (and which Tolkien explicitly appealed to, in a famous statement), the harm is evident.
  - praptak 15y ago
    "If one is prepared to argue (as you apparently are), that Tolkien had no moral right to the proceeds of the sale of his books [...]" It is possible to believe that he had the moral right to the proceeds but only on the basis of the copyright policy that existed at the time he wrote the books. This doesn't mean you cannot at the same time argue that such policy should be abolished. In other words the Tolkien case is a red herring here.
- dctoedt 15y ago
  > [The problem is] the people expecting to make money with art. It's cool if you can. If you can't, then you're not entitled to laws or monopolies that protect your failed business modell. Agreed that there's no entitlement to laws or monopolies. And I grant you that some ultra-libertarians oppose any restriction on their personal economic freedom, citing moral reasons. But society sometimes decides, for pragmatic reasons, that it's a sensible bet to grant limited-term monopolies [1], in the hope that over the long term everyone will benefit. We see that in the Writings and Discoveries Clause, article I, section 8, clause 8 of the U.S. Constitution.[2] EDIT in response to comments: Just what monopolies to grant, and for how long, is of course the $64K question. It's been my observation that this is one of those issues where, for many people, where you stand depends on where you sit (or is it the other way around?) [1] Technically, "monopoly" is a misnomer when applied IP rights in the general case. In economics, the term refers to someone having a lock on access to goods or services for which there's no 'viable' substitute. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly. [2] http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section8 http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section8
hxa7241 15y ago
> 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 be worse-off. That is effectively saying: people can make a living in a particular way because of the rule, and we have the rule because people can make a living in a particular way from it. This is a circular fallacy. It cannot be justified by itself. Why is IP justified? -- as a rational argument, in terms more basic than the question itself . . . (having looked around a bit, there seems to be only one half-decent/plausible one: the standard economic one -- which is not really an ethical argument (and conspicuously lacks actual evidence anyway))
- SigmundA 15y ago
  Ethically it simply comes down to giving credit where credit is due. If you discuss a new idea that you have spent time formulating with a co-worker that is good for the company and the co-worker presents this idea to your common boss as their own and receive a promotion for it, is this ethically wrong?
  - hxa7241 15y ago
    Yes, that is wrong -- it seems covered by the ethics of lying/truth-telling (from Kant, it is contradictory: if lying were a universal rule, it would destroy the possibility of communication in general). But IP is about more than just clear attribution. And clear attribution is not dependent on IP -- we can have it without the other IP features. So a justification of attribution is not sufficient to support IP too.
    - SigmundA 15y ago
      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 simply a societal contract that guarantee's you attribution for your idea.
apotheon 15y ago
> 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 How do you figure? The problems still exist; you've just decided to de-prioritize them compared to the remuneration entitlement you posit. Consider this alternative: the author of a work is entitled to be remunerated for anything for which he or she arranges an agreement with someone to remunerate him or her. Period. This would mean it is up to the author to make arrangements for someone to pay him or her when he or she produces something and turns it over to the employer, and that it is then the employer's responsibility to figure out how to make a profit from it by similarly arranging an agreement with someone else (when speaking of a standard employment relationship for authors). > Are you prepared to argue that Ace did Tolkien no harm? You're missing the distinction between direct harm on one hand, and unexpected competition for a monopolized market on the other. From a certain perspective, the harm in the second case is not harm caused by the unexpected competitor, but rather harm caused by the monopolist's failure to account for competition in its business model.
uriel 15y ago
This is a strawman, nobody is arguing that people should not be allowed to demand compensation for their work, authors and musicians were able to demand compensation no differently from anyone else before IP came around, the problem is the demand that they should be granted a monopoly and control over the physical property of others, that is what IP is.