6 ms·

Intellectual Property is a dumb idea, a legacy of thousands of years of exclusive (physically unique) markets of goods (i.e. making copies is expensive). Digit

by bsedlm 5y ago

Intellectual Property is a dumb idea, a legacy of thousands of years of exclusive (physically unique) markets of goods (i.e. making copies is expensive). Digital artifacts require a new non-exclusive property market scheme (to be determined; it's a difficult problem). Enforcing the older paradigm with laws and coercion is not a long term solution.

brighton36 5y ago
Agreed. I would add that 'Intellectual property' is mostly postmodern nonsense. No different than calling our bits 'Digital Gold' and proceeding to construct legislation based on the proton configuration of said bits.
kristaps 5y ago
Sure, copies are cheap, but producing the original is often not. Unrestricted copying would discourage quite a few projects being started due to not having any chance to recoup investment. While IP may be a flawed tool at times, it still is a useful tool.
- cma 5y ago
  There are alternatives with no artificial scarcity, this one is public funds for everyone to make patreon style grants to creatorsthey support (2003): https://cepr.net/report/the-artistic-freedom-voucher-internet-age-alternative-to-copyrights/ https://cepr.net/report/the-artistic-freedom-voucher-interne...
- dghlsakjg 5y ago
  I think that the problem is that patent law allows for broad software concepts that have never been implemented. And it ignores differences in implementation. Can you imagine if copyright law allowed for things as broad as: “A novel or series of novels where a boy is educated at a school for wizards”. That’s what amazons 1-click patent was like. It was more or less: we will allow a client device to send both a product id and a user id by clicking a button, that will then cause a purchase to be made for that product and client. That patent caused something as trivial as “buy now” to be locked up by Amazon for years.
  - w1nk 5y ago
    This isn't a commentary on patent law or I.P. which I find mostly absurd, but did the 1-click patent actually have any impact on reality? I remember the internet lighting up with rage about how stupid and obvious it was. I don't recall e-commerce being hamstrung by it. Do you have any more information on some cases where the patent was actually leveraged?
    - Iolaum 5y ago
      IIRC it had the impact of forcing a confirmation page on e-commerence that made scamming people more difficult.
      - Sebb767 5y ago
        If you're going to scam people anyway, infringing on a patent is probably not your biggest concern.
rackjack 5y ago
This problem has already been "solved". In drug companies, making new a drug is extremely expensive, but once you have the formula, it is (usually) very cheap to produce. So the government gives the maker of a new drug a patent for some number of years. Enough to milk the formula for cash, while still forcing innovation once it expires and rest of the companies start making it. These patents also prevent derivative works. The problem with intellectual property (I might be mixing copyright and intellectual property here, if I am, my apologies) is that by preventing derivative works while also having a near infinite lifespan, it absolutely crushes any kind of creative innovation. IMO the lifespan of intellectual property should be 40-50 years, reduced when going to market, similar to how drug patents work. This lets smaller creators who don't have the vast war chests of literal drug companies to make a good living off of it, while still allowing for innovation for the next (or next next) generation. The REAL problem is that Disney and such have been lobbying for extending copyright and IP protections. I think we're up to nearly 100 years now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act
- hitpointdrew 5y ago
  40-50 years in software is an eternity, it should be MUCH lower than that like 10-15. There is zero reason that Windows 3.1, Windows 95, and Windows 98 should be protected by any copyright/patent at this point. All of those should be in the public domain by now.
- EamonnMR 5y ago
  If IP expired quickly like patents we wouldn't be subjected to so many franchise films and that would be a huge win.
  - omarhaneef 5y ago
    Wouldn’t we have more franchise films since anyone could make one? We might get more cross overs too (x men vs teen titans)
    - PaulHoule 5y ago
kmeisthax 5y ago
You have this backwards. Making copies is cheap, especially in the digital realm; that's why copyright law restricts the market for copies. If anything, copyright law is forward thinking and anticipated copying getting cheaper over time. There's really no need for a "non-exclusive property market scheme"[0] either. The whole point of restricting copying is to make money move out of your wallet and to publishers and creators. The problem we have is that the copyright monopoly lasts far longer than what's needed to pay for the production of new creative works, so we're rewarding ownership of existing ones which is contrary to the point of the law. [0] I'm assuming this is code for something akin to, but not exactly like, NFTs.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

by bsedlm 5y ago

brighton36 5y ago

Agreed. I would add that 'Intellectual property' is mostly postmodern nonsense. No different than calling our bits 'Digital Gold' and proceeding to construct legislation based on the proton configuration of said bits.

kristaps 5y ago

Sure, copies are cheap, but producing the original is often not. Unrestricted copying would discourage quite a few projects being started due to not having any chance to recoup investment. While IP may be a flawed tool at times, it still is a useful tool.

cma 5y ago
There are alternatives with no artificial scarcity, this one is public funds for everyone to make patreon style grants to creatorsthey support (2003): https://cepr.net/report/the-artistic-freedom-voucher-internet-age-alternative-to-copyrights/ https://cepr.net/report/the-artistic-freedom-voucher-interne...
dghlsakjg 5y ago
I think that the problem is that patent law allows for broad software concepts that have never been implemented. And it ignores differences in implementation. Can you imagine if copyright law allowed for things as broad as: “A novel or series of novels where a boy is educated at a school for wizards”. That’s what amazons 1-click patent was like. It was more or less: we will allow a client device to send both a product id and a user id by clicking a button, that will then cause a purchase to be made for that product and client. That patent caused something as trivial as “buy now” to be locked up by Amazon for years.
- w1nk 5y ago
  This isn't a commentary on patent law or I.P. which I find mostly absurd, but did the 1-click patent actually have any impact on reality? I remember the internet lighting up with rage about how stupid and obvious it was. I don't recall e-commerce being hamstrung by it. Do you have any more information on some cases where the patent was actually leveraged?
  - Iolaum 5y ago
    IIRC it had the impact of forcing a confirmation page on e-commerence that made scamming people more difficult.
    - Sebb767 5y ago
      If you're going to scam people anyway, infringing on a patent is probably not your biggest concern.

rackjack 5y ago

This problem has already been "solved". In drug companies, making new a drug is extremely expensive, but once you have the formula, it is (usually) very cheap to produce. So the government gives the maker of a new drug a patent for some number of years. Enough to milk the formula for cash, while still forcing innovation once it expires and rest of the companies start making it. These patents also prevent derivative works. The problem with intellectual property (I might be mixing copyright and intellectual property here, if I am, my apologies) is that by preventing derivative works while also having a near infinite lifespan, it absolutely crushes any kind of creative innovation. IMO the lifespan of intellectual property should be 40-50 years, reduced when going to market, similar to how drug patents work. This lets smaller creators who don't have the vast war chests of literal drug companies to make a good living off of it, while still allowing for innovation for the next (or next next) generation. The REAL problem is that Disney and such have been lobbying for extending copyright and IP protections. I think we're up to nearly 100 years now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act

hitpointdrew 5y ago
40-50 years in software is an eternity, it should be MUCH lower than that like 10-15. There is zero reason that Windows 3.1, Windows 95, and Windows 98 should be protected by any copyright/patent at this point. All of those should be in the public domain by now.
EamonnMR 5y ago
If IP expired quickly like patents we wouldn't be subjected to so many franchise films and that would be a huge win.
- omarhaneef 5y ago
  Wouldn’t we have more franchise films since anyone could make one? We might get more cross overs too (x men vs teen titans)
  - PaulHoule 5y ago

kmeisthax 5y ago

You have this backwards. Making copies is cheap, especially in the digital realm; that's why copyright law restricts the market for copies. If anything, copyright law is forward thinking and anticipated copying getting cheaper over time. There's really no need for a "non-exclusive property market scheme"[0] either. The whole point of restricting copying is to make money move out of your wallet and to publishers and creators. The problem we have is that the copyright monopoly lasts far longer than what's needed to pay for the production of new creative works, so we're rewarding ownership of existing ones which is contrary to the point of the law. [0] I'm assuming this is code for something akin to, but not exactly like, NFTs.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]