4 ms·

Happy to be corrected here, but what I understand is that what we call Intellectual Property (other than trademarks, and focusing mostly in copywriteable materi

Happy to be corrected here, but what I understand is that what we call Intellectual Property (other than trademarks, and focusing mostly in copywriteable material) is a fleeting concept that arose between the time humans invented the printing press and the time we invented digital media where the incremental cost of copying is zero. During that time, IP mainly helped distributors make money by monopolizing physical manifestation and delivery of the IP, by running a printing press or record label or whatever. Before that, there was no distribution of e.g. music, and bands profited from live performances, much as they still do. The work to copy a manuscript set the value of books. It didn't stop writers from writing. I believe we're done with that period, and should accept it and go back to the historical standard that ideas have limited value (sorry) and the prize is in the execution. We are seeing this already I believe, with obvious things like Netflix and spotify, which are about accessibly and selection, and do not derive consumer value from the IP itself (evidence: it's easy to pirate music, why would I when I have access everywhere to a huge catalog for $10 a month from Spotify). Same with "good" cloud business models. Simple example, password managers like 1password give you access to passwords etc. everywhere, and manage security. That is how they produce value, the source code of their apps is valueless and in any event could be substituted with open source. This is in contrast with some software vendors that literally want to charge a subscription just to execute their code. I don't see that as a sustainable business model, because it wrongly assumes that the code itself has any value as property. I believe this is borne out by the way the market is heading, and by what already is open source vs what types of things people will pay for. So even if it's not mainstream, I'm happy to see anyone rethinking intellectual property.

notJim 5y ago
I think munificent gives a good justification for IP here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27716935 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27716935 > I do not derive consumer value from the IP itself (evidence: it's easy to pirate music, why would I when I have access everywhere to a huge catalog for $10 a month from Netflix) It's imperfect and in need of reform, but IP exists to ensure that some of that $10 gets funneled back to the people who created that work. I'm a photographer, and people steal photographs and use them for profit constantly. IP enables me to force them to pay me for creating that work. Yes distributing a JPEG has essentially zero marginal cost, but producing it required me to wake up at 3 AM and hike off into the woods. Aside from my time, I had costs like acquiring equipment and gas to drive out there. I don't work with models, but if I did, they would deserve to be paid for their labor as well.
- version_five 5y ago
  Thanks for responding (and I meant spotify in the excerpt from my post obviously). I dont presume to know your business, but the way I look at it, there's no inherent rule of natural justice that says you deserve to be compensated for creating (and having the government enforce) artificial barriers to accessing your work. I agree you have real costs, but you have options, for example photographing on a commission from a client that needs a new photo of something. Or if a stock photo service, that has paying clients because derive value from having quality photos aggregated, the service itself paying photographers because they find it convenient to get photos this way, then it all works out. But the concept of intellectual property is not necessary for it to do so. There may be other business models (like I say, I dont know that business) but I don't see how trying to create an artificial barrier around something is sustainable, and I dont see value in the IP itself, only in the convenience of getting it. Again concrete example, I subscribe to the Noun Project for icons, because they are all in one place, and it makes it hassle free and low cost to get icons for my job. Like Netflix, its about the catalog and convenience, and I pay them even though it's technically voluntary because I see a tangible value in it. Again, IP doesn't need to come into it, it's about compensation for a service or convenience, not inherently about the right to perpetual royalties from a piece of work.
  - notJim 5y ago
    I think you have a massive free-rider problem with your proposal though. The Noun Project requires that you pay them or put attributions on the work. They would not be able to do this without IP protections, so most companies would use the free version. Not only that, but other companies would take their icons and use them to build their own catalogues. This would leave no one to pay for the creation of the icons. > I don't see how trying to create an artificial barrier around something is sustainable A world where no one can be paid to create work is not sustainable. IP is the backbone that makes all of this possible, due to the free rider problem. > photographing on a commission from a client that needs a new photo of something This does happen, but then the client gets exclusive rights to the photos they paid for. But under your world, this is impossible. Their competitors can just take the material without paying for it. This applies not just to photography of course, but to everything they create.
mcguire 5y ago
Your definition of IP is very limited. Suppose I took the 1password code, made a modification to save unencrypted account information for me to later sell, and published it under the name "1password"?---trademarks are a form of IP. Suppose I invent a new way of doing something very valuable. If I keep my invention secret, everybody is happy until I get run over by a bus, at which point that secret is lost. If I do not keep my invention secret, anyone is free to copy it, undercut my prices, and drive me out of business---patents are a form of IP. The one form of IP you seem to be thinking about is copyright. It's somewhat true that it didn't stop writers from writing, but a surprising proportion of the famous ones (and a large chunk of the non-famous ones) died broke. Fortunately, the number of brilliant works that were not created simply because the theoretical creator had to spend all their time acquiring food is not knowable. Further, "the prize is in the execution", but it may not pay to develop the skill for the execution. For example, any "big budget" movie requires what is effectively a tremendous capital investment which would be hard to recoup without copyright. Also, and possibly unrelated, you seem to be making the mistake of assuming "content" is an undifferentiated mass: "why would I [pirate music] when I have access everywhere to a huge catalog for $10 a month from Spotify". Because Spotify doesn't carry the music you want?
breck 5y ago
There's an absolutely fantastic site (http://www.copyrighthistory.org/cam/index.php http://www.copyrighthistory.org/cam/index.php) with a dataset of old primary sources on IP. When I read the constitution, "Section 1. Article I, Section 8, Clause 8" stands out to me as weird. They provide a justification for why they have these laws—"To promote the progress of science and useful arts". Why do they need to provide a reason, whereas most of the text is based on a set of "self-evident" truths? What I found, thanks largely in part to the site linked above, is that Copyright and patent laws provided an amazingly cheap method of central intelligence for our early government. They got a copy of every book and every new invention for free, delivered straight to them! They didn't need a CIA or NSA. Everyone would just send them their most valuable stuff. Now the world has changed. That setup provides no real value to the government anymore. At this point, information and inventions are a deluge. So I don't think it ever was much of a boon to the progress of arts and sciences, but I do think it was a dirt cheap way for a new federal government to keep it's pulse on the state of the world.

notJim 5y ago

I think munificent gives a good justification for IP here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27716935 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27716935 > I do not derive consumer value from the IP itself (evidence: it's easy to pirate music, why would I when I have access everywhere to a huge catalog for $10 a month from Netflix) It's imperfect and in need of reform, but IP exists to ensure that some of that $10 gets funneled back to the people who created that work. I'm a photographer, and people steal photographs and use them for profit constantly. IP enables me to force them to pay me for creating that work. Yes distributing a JPEG has essentially zero marginal cost, but producing it required me to wake up at 3 AM and hike off into the woods. Aside from my time, I had costs like acquiring equipment and gas to drive out there. I don't work with models, but if I did, they would deserve to be paid for their labor as well.

version_five 5y ago
Thanks for responding (and I meant spotify in the excerpt from my post obviously). I dont presume to know your business, but the way I look at it, there's no inherent rule of natural justice that says you deserve to be compensated for creating (and having the government enforce) artificial barriers to accessing your work. I agree you have real costs, but you have options, for example photographing on a commission from a client that needs a new photo of something. Or if a stock photo service, that has paying clients because derive value from having quality photos aggregated, the service itself paying photographers because they find it convenient to get photos this way, then it all works out. But the concept of intellectual property is not necessary for it to do so. There may be other business models (like I say, I dont know that business) but I don't see how trying to create an artificial barrier around something is sustainable, and I dont see value in the IP itself, only in the convenience of getting it. Again concrete example, I subscribe to the Noun Project for icons, because they are all in one place, and it makes it hassle free and low cost to get icons for my job. Like Netflix, its about the catalog and convenience, and I pay them even though it's technically voluntary because I see a tangible value in it. Again, IP doesn't need to come into it, it's about compensation for a service or convenience, not inherently about the right to perpetual royalties from a piece of work.
- notJim 5y ago
  I think you have a massive free-rider problem with your proposal though. The Noun Project requires that you pay them or put attributions on the work. They would not be able to do this without IP protections, so most companies would use the free version. Not only that, but other companies would take their icons and use them to build their own catalogues. This would leave no one to pay for the creation of the icons. > I don't see how trying to create an artificial barrier around something is sustainable A world where no one can be paid to create work is not sustainable. IP is the backbone that makes all of this possible, due to the free rider problem. > photographing on a commission from a client that needs a new photo of something This does happen, but then the client gets exclusive rights to the photos they paid for. But under your world, this is impossible. Their competitors can just take the material without paying for it. This applies not just to photography of course, but to everything they create.

mcguire 5y ago

Your definition of IP is very limited. Suppose I took the 1password code, made a modification to save unencrypted account information for me to later sell, and published it under the name "1password"?---trademarks are a form of IP. Suppose I invent a new way of doing something very valuable. If I keep my invention secret, everybody is happy until I get run over by a bus, at which point that secret is lost. If I do not keep my invention secret, anyone is free to copy it, undercut my prices, and drive me out of business---patents are a form of IP. The one form of IP you seem to be thinking about is copyright. It's somewhat true that it didn't stop writers from writing, but a surprising proportion of the famous ones (and a large chunk of the non-famous ones) died broke. Fortunately, the number of brilliant works that were not created simply because the theoretical creator had to spend all their time acquiring food is not knowable. Further, "the prize is in the execution", but it may not pay to develop the skill for the execution. For example, any "big budget" movie requires what is effectively a tremendous capital investment which would be hard to recoup without copyright. Also, and possibly unrelated, you seem to be making the mistake of assuming "content" is an undifferentiated mass: "why would I [pirate music] when I have access everywhere to a huge catalog for $10 a month from Spotify". Because Spotify doesn't carry the music you want?

breck 5y ago

There's an absolutely fantastic site (http://www.copyrighthistory.org/cam/index.php http://www.copyrighthistory.org/cam/index.php) with a dataset of old primary sources on IP. When I read the constitution, "Section 1. Article I, Section 8, Clause 8" stands out to me as weird. They provide a justification for why they have these laws—"To promote the progress of science and useful arts". Why do they need to provide a reason, whereas most of the text is based on a set of "self-evident" truths? What I found, thanks largely in part to the site linked above, is that Copyright and patent laws provided an amazingly cheap method of central intelligence for our early government. They got a copy of every book and every new invention for free, delivered straight to them! They didn't need a CIA or NSA. Everyone would just send them their most valuable stuff. Now the world has changed. That setup provides no real value to the government anymore. At this point, information and inventions are a deluge. So I don't think it ever was much of a boon to the progress of arts and sciences, but I do think it was a dirt cheap way for a new federal government to keep it's pulse on the state of the world.