10 ms·

Our Intellectual Property Laws Are Out of Control

88 points by Libertatea 13y ago

jasallen 13y ago
Great article. Putting in terms of where these laws came from (the need to abolish the monopolies granted as favors) helps put it in perspective, and makes you realize we've come full circle. Same problems. Of course, I'm the choir on this one.
- DamnYuppie 13y ago
  As we all are, but at least all signs are pointing to the choir getting larger :)
mtgx 13y ago
The whole problem comes from the whole "Intellectual Property" concept. Patents and Copyright should not be called Intellectual Property. The idea of property exists in conflict with the idea of patent and copyright, which were created to further spur more innovation down the road from others - the whole "living on the shoulders of giants" and all. Property implies the idea or a certain implementation of creative work is yours for life (and possibly even beyond that). You can't have "property" and then expect others to use it and experiment with that. That's exactly why copyrights and patents were not created as another form of property, but merely as an incentive to create something.
- macspoofing 13y ago
  Who cares about semantics.
  - josephlord 13y ago
    Language affects perception. Perception affects reality. Especially in human constructs like law and culture.
    - meej 13y ago
      I logged in today just to upvote this comment. I have long wondered about people who dismiss concerns over semantics. How can we communicate clearly and honestly with each other if we can't agree on what words mean? Here is an anecdote about just how much language can affect perception: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Korzybski#Anecdotes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Korzybski#Anecdotes One day, Korzybski was giving a lecture to a group of students, and he interrupted the lesson suddenly in order to retrieve a packet of biscuits, wrapped in white paper, from his briefcase. He muttered that he just had to eat something, and he asked the students on the seats in the front row if they would also like a biscuit. A few students took a biscuit. "Nice biscuit, don't you think," said Korzybski, while he took a second one. The students were chewing vigorously. Then he tore the white paper from the biscuits, in order to reveal the original packaging. On it was a big picture of a dog's head and the words "Dog Cookies." The students looked at the package, and were shocked. Two of them wanted to vomit, put their hands in front of their mouths, and ran out of the lecture hall to the toilet. "You see," Korzybski remarked, "I have just demonstrated that people don't just eat food, but also words, and that the taste of the former is often outdone by the taste of the latter."
      - macspoofing 13y ago
        >I have long wondered about people who dismiss concerns over semantics. There is no doubt language is frequently misused to further ideology. In fact, this is exactly what OP is doing. He's trying to redefine a universally understood term to fit his particular ideology ("IP is not property" or maybe "information should be free"). There are problems with current laws around IP, but redefining terms is not a way to fix them. Furthermore, most people would not agree with the extreme position that that OP is taking (no IP laws) either, so arguing for semantics is either detrimental, confusing or pointless.
        josephlord 13y ago
        I think that the use of the word property isn't properly aligned with the current law and also isn't the right word to use. That doesn't mean that I believe that all information should be completely free from the moment of creation. A balance is needed and the word 'property' implies too exclusive and permanent a state for either the current law or to an even greater extent my view of a better balance. I don't believe once published/played/performed the artist/creator has a total exclusive right over the material. The public, fans and anyone that hears or sees the work gain some right over it as it affects their mind and thoughts. This isn't to say that the artist immediately should lose all control and protection but that the people of the culture they put the work into also gain some rights to it. The balance is probably best struck by a duration of exclusive rights and then release although those exclusive rights themselves may have limits. If you want to keep intellectual property as your own personal property in perpetuity you need to keep it in your own head or otherwise privately secured.
  - marshray 13y ago
    Yes, lemurs are indeed amazing animals.
  - Gormo 13y ago
    "Semantics" refers to the way we assign substantive meanings to the words we use. So, to answer your question, anyone who wants to have an honest and productive conversation, using precise words to describe coherent ideas, is someone who must necessarily care about semantics.
- speeder 13y ago
  Stallman (I know, I know...) wrote that using "Intellectual Property" term is very very very wrong, specially because it makes people think some stuff is property (it is not) and also make people conflate 4 different laws (Trademark, Patents, Copyright and I forgot the other one) as it was a single thing, and results in totally messed up ideas. Trademark is not your property, trademark is a registration of who is who, so the government can punish people that are being funny and mislead costumers. Happily the trademark regulating bodies are still more or less sane, and for example kicked Tim Langdell in the nuts for what he did. Patents, are not your property either, your property is whatever you built (patents were not supposed to apply to software algorithms as the original laws were written :/), if you want to keep others from doing a copy of your product, actually you can do it like Coca-Cola did: Make it hard to copy, and hide its formula/blueprint/project in a safe. Patents is a license to manufacture (and thus presumably sell and distribute) the product exclusively for some years, in exchange for you placing into public domain the details of how to create your product, so all humanity can create that product in the future (maybe if you get hit by a bus and cannot do it anymore, or your factory get hit by a meteor, and so on...) Copyright is as the name says, the right of making copies, it is not supposed to be your property either, copyright when created it was not in the intention of the law authors that people would sell it around like if it was merchandise, back then copyright was created muddled and mixed with the concept of moral rights (that some countries later turned into law too). The idea of copyright, at least in theory (the real reason for creation of copyright seemly was covert censorship), is that by ensuring the author can choose who can sell copies of his work for some years, he could be safe expending some years to create such work, and then as he sells this work though others, he has money ensured to create his next work and so on. Mind you, copyright was NOT invented to stop common people from making copies of your work, in fact when it was made, many people were absolutely fine with that, copyright was made for example to stop the asshole behavior of a friend of Baldassare Castiglione, that took his borrowed manuscript, and not only made a copy for himself, but started to make so much copies, that Baldassare when he made a trip from Italy to Spain (when he started the trip that he left the book with his friend) upon arrival he was greeted by people saying that his book was awesome... (yes, he left the book in Italy and travelled to Spain, when he arrived on Spain, people on Spain had lots of copies of his still unfinished book made by a asshole friend in Italy)
- snowwrestler 13y ago
  People refer to it as "intellectual property" because it has the legal attributes of property--it belongs to a person, who has the legal power to restrict or exclude use by others. Is this power unlimited in time and scope? No. But that is also true of physical and real property--which, depending on various factors, come with all sorts of restrictions, limitations, and regulations.
- tzs 13y ago
  > Property implies the idea or a certain implementation of creative work is yours for life No it doesn't. There's more to property than fee simple absolute.
- yerlaw 13y ago
  Patents are not an incnetive to create something. They are a protection for people who (for whatever reason) create and want to profit from their creations. United States patents do not give anyone a license to create anything. They grant a "license" to sue others, for alleged infringement. If the patent registrant fails to pay the government fees, the "license" can be "revoked". If in doubt, ask your IP lawyer for confirmation of this fact. It would perhaps be better for the discussion if all HN commenters knew how to define a US patent. It is a right to sue. Nothing more, nothing less. Whatever else the registrant gets up to besides paying his patent maintenance fees (e.g. manufacturing, licensing, etc.), that's his business. He may choose to do nothing. Maybe he's just blocking someone else through the threat of litigation. Do you all think the "incentives" for innovation come from having a right to sue? As if prior to the 1600's and "Letters Patent" there existed no incentive for anyone to innovate. Does a government incentivize innovation through giving the right to sue, for a recurring fee? Do people stop innovating when they cannot sue each other? Is it that simple? Is there more to the story? Maybe innovation exists without patents, but giving a right to sue is a way to "protect" the natural innovation instinct? Maybe it's just a way to tax it? What do you think?
xradionut 13y ago
Follow the money. The folks with the money pay the folks that make the law. Check out where some of the "virtuous defenders" of IP live and tell me IP's not a cash cow. http://www.candysdirt.com/2013/05/06/monday-morning-millionaire-another-record-setting-19-5-million-dallas-real-estate-listing-to-lust-for-dans-bois-crete-features-movie-theater-and-concession-stand/ http://www.candysdirt.com/2013/05/06/monday-morning-milliona...
- rayiner 13y ago
  The entire US music and movie industry is smaller than Apple. Money is not the issue here, except to the extent that the tech industry wants to make money off the content created by the media industry.
  - bediger4000 13y ago
    I think you're correct. Governments, I think, go along with the idea of "intellectual property" because property rights are stronger than free speech rights (usually). Calling ideas "property" gives governments a hope of stuffing the internet's free speech genie back into the lamp.
    - rayiner 13y ago
      I don't really see how intellectual property impinges on free speech rights. Governments support IP rights because: 1) the idea that creators have a right to control their works is more popular than the idea that the public has certain rights to access "culture"; 2) industries dependent on IP create jobs. A senator supports the MPAA companies versus downloaders because he can easily see that the MPAA companies are a source of a large number of jobs. It's as simple as that.
      - dublinben 13y ago
        Intellectual property 'rights' are diametrically opposed to free speech rights. Free speech allows you to reproduce copyrighted materials, except the IP rights overrule your speech rights. Free speech allows you to transact under a trademarked brand, but IP rights overrule your speech rights.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
np422 13y ago
Why do we have IP-laws? What are their purpose? Do they serve that purpose well? Are there any unintended consequences? Any and all comparisons to physical property and ownership laws is meaningless, copying and theft is not comparable in any way. Whoever says so needs to think it over a few more times or is willingly spreading propaganda. Is it fair to call copyright "a monopoly on an idea"? If so, is that something that is reasonable? Monopolies are usually not considered to be something that promotes the general welfare of society ... Is the patent system of today doing what is supposed to do? Should we use IP-laws to maximize the usefulness of creativity and ingenuity of humans for the good of the common man or for the profits of corporations? Do these two goals sometimes conflict with each other? If so, do one take precedence over the other or how may the be balanced? My opinion is that a complete overhaul of the entire system of IP-laws is in dear need. What do you think?
- rayiner 13y ago
  You're punning on the word "monopoly." The monopoly on a specific manifestation on an idea (e.g. a book) is used in the same sense as a property right being a "monopoly" on a specific piece of land, not in the sense of say the AT&T monopoly. It's exclusive control over a specific thing versus exclusive control over a market. The latter is bad for economies. The former is necessary for them to exist. In a way, a copyright monopoly is far more morally justifiable than monopoly over land. Land in the US is stuff we stole from the American Indians. It was here before you were born and it will be here after you die. Why should you get a monopoly over a piece of the earth? With regards to a book or a song, you created that work. It did not exist before you. Your moral right to control it is much stronger.
  - smokeyj 13y ago
    I fail to see why we should treat tangibile and intangible entities equally. In your opinion, how do you deduce what type of intangible property should qualify as intillectual property? Should chefs own his recipe? Should fragrance designers own their smell? Should phillosophers own their phillosophy?
    - 13y ago
wes-exp 13y ago
I am a little bit perplexed by the recent pushback against the DMCA as embodied by this article and http://fixthedmca.org/ http://fixthedmca.org/. Don't get me wrong, I think software patents need to be abolished. But on the copyright side, explain to me why game console jailbreaking tools should be readily available?
- betterunix 13y ago
  Instead of using marketing terms like "game console," try rephrasing your sentence like this and see how it sounds: "But on the copyright side, explain to me why personal computer jailbreaking tools should be readily available?" This is about control over the computers we buy, which is becoming more and more important. The purpose of the DMCA anti-circumvention clause is to remove control from the users or owners of computers, and put it in the hands of the manufacturers and their well-connected "partners." It says that you must have permission from someone else to run software or read files, or even to use printer cartridges. The politicians who passed the DMCA were not merely naive; they were blinded by their own conservative worldview. They had no understanding of individual computer users writing their own programs, of software being distributed freely on the Internet, of sharing computing resources, etc. In their minds, people use their computers to access information stored on servers, or to consume entertainment sold to them by others, and everything must happen with the permission of someone else. It is the same mindset that leads people to say things of the form, "Well that XBox was not intended for you to run GNU/Linux on it, so stop complaining!"
  - wes-exp 13y ago
    They had no understanding of individual computer users writing their own programs Individual computer users creating their own programs is a very specific group of people. Consider for a moment that devices aren't really made for nerd programmers. They are made for average people. As a technology nerd, of course I want the freedom to modify and develop stuff, without restrictions, on my devices. As a family member though, I'm not convinced that my non-technical parents, grandparents, siblings and so on really need root-level access to their hardware. Software can easily get screwed up. For the same reason, IT departments frequently take away admin rights from employees. This is rarely tyrannical, but just meant to keep things running smoothly without having to reinstall the OS every six weeks. Already we are seeing with the Android "freedom" model a lot more malware than the "closed" Apple model. Sure, there is a trade-off there of ceding some device control to Apple, but at the end of the day, the benefits are quite significant. So at least for me, I am willing to give up some control, if it means that I don't have to be plagued by technical support calls from my non-technical family members.
emp_zealoth 13y ago
I am a big fan of making copyright sane again. But i had a thought. If most of humanity's contemporary culture is put into public domain, won't it saturate the paid market? Why buy CD's if you have hundreds of thousands of quality music/movies/books and so on? It actually might be detrimental to higher forms of art, as i would wager that only mass pop would sell thanks to trends and such. Just a thought i had.
- yew 13y ago
  There are already hundreds of thousands (millions, really) of quality works in the public domain. From a pop-cultural perspective the difference between twenty-year-old music and fifty- or hundred-year-old music isn't large. Too, many 'abandoned works' that are effectively available for free with the author's permission are even newer. People read old books (which is a very good thing!) but most haven't stopped buying new media because of it.
  - emp_zealoth 13y ago
    Well, the problem is discoverability, from personal experience. I listen to rock mostly and I really doubt there is much public domain quality rock music out there. Imagine almost entirety of rock being forced into public domain. Why would I buy anything in that situation? Most of my music collection would be in public domain by now. Imagine all the quality study materials being in public domain. I would love it, but after a while it might crash the market completely. At least for non-cutting edge fields like advanced but still reasonable math or physics or mechanics. I haven't really looked through all the available stuff, but most of it seems of little 'worth' to me. Old and hardly relevant to my interests. It might be cool to read 1912 book on aircraft propulsion, but it's just a odd thing to kill time with. 1999 (date chosen with regard to studies mentioned in some other comment thread) air propulsion book is mostly up to date, at least for studying. I'd late here and my rambling might be a bit inconsistent. I'm not really arguing for either side, but I do find overbearing IP a nuisance. Just trying to cast a different light on the issue.
- KC8ZKF 13y ago
  Higher art has trends and such. Consider the trend for period instruments and alternative tunings in music. For example, the new Decca studio recording of Bellini's Norma. http://ceciliabartolionline.com/norma/ http://ceciliabartolionline.com/norma/
SideburnsOfDoom 13y ago
Title is misleading ;) Intellectual property laws are firmly under control. Just not ours.

88 points by Libertatea 13y ago

Great article. Putting in terms of where these laws came from (the need to abolish the monopolies granted as favors) helps put it in perspective, and makes you realize we've come full circle. Same problems. Of course, I'm the choir on this one.

DamnYuppie 13y ago
As we all are, but at least all signs are pointing to the choir getting larger :)

mtgx 13y ago

The whole problem comes from the whole "Intellectual Property" concept. Patents and Copyright should not be called Intellectual Property. The idea of property exists in conflict with the idea of patent and copyright, which were created to further spur more innovation down the road from others - the whole "living on the shoulders of giants" and all. Property implies the idea or a certain implementation of creative work is yours for life (and possibly even beyond that). You can't have "property" and then expect others to use it and experiment with that. That's exactly why copyrights and patents were not created as another form of property, but merely as an incentive to create something.

macspoofing 13y ago
Who cares about semantics.
- josephlord 13y ago
  Language affects perception. Perception affects reality. Especially in human constructs like law and culture.
  - meej 13y ago
    I logged in today just to upvote this comment. I have long wondered about people who dismiss concerns over semantics. How can we communicate clearly and honestly with each other if we can't agree on what words mean? Here is an anecdote about just how much language can affect perception: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Korzybski#Anecdotes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Korzybski#Anecdotes One day, Korzybski was giving a lecture to a group of students, and he interrupted the lesson suddenly in order to retrieve a packet of biscuits, wrapped in white paper, from his briefcase. He muttered that he just had to eat something, and he asked the students on the seats in the front row if they would also like a biscuit. A few students took a biscuit. "Nice biscuit, don't you think," said Korzybski, while he took a second one. The students were chewing vigorously. Then he tore the white paper from the biscuits, in order to reveal the original packaging. On it was a big picture of a dog's head and the words "Dog Cookies." The students looked at the package, and were shocked. Two of them wanted to vomit, put their hands in front of their mouths, and ran out of the lecture hall to the toilet. "You see," Korzybski remarked, "I have just demonstrated that people don't just eat food, but also words, and that the taste of the former is often outdone by the taste of the latter."
    - macspoofing 13y ago
      >I have long wondered about people who dismiss concerns over semantics. There is no doubt language is frequently misused to further ideology. In fact, this is exactly what OP is doing. He's trying to redefine a universally understood term to fit his particular ideology ("IP is not property" or maybe "information should be free"). There are problems with current laws around IP, but redefining terms is not a way to fix them. Furthermore, most people would not agree with the extreme position that that OP is taking (no IP laws) either, so arguing for semantics is either detrimental, confusing or pointless.
      - josephlord 13y ago
        I think that the use of the word property isn't properly aligned with the current law and also isn't the right word to use. That doesn't mean that I believe that all information should be completely free from the moment of creation. A balance is needed and the word 'property' implies too exclusive and permanent a state for either the current law or to an even greater extent my view of a better balance. I don't believe once published/played/performed the artist/creator has a total exclusive right over the material. The public, fans and anyone that hears or sees the work gain some right over it as it affects their mind and thoughts. This isn't to say that the artist immediately should lose all control and protection but that the people of the culture they put the work into also gain some rights to it. The balance is probably best struck by a duration of exclusive rights and then release although those exclusive rights themselves may have limits. If you want to keep intellectual property as your own personal property in perpetuity you need to keep it in your own head or otherwise privately secured.
- marshray 13y ago
  Yes, lemurs are indeed amazing animals.
- Gormo 13y ago
  "Semantics" refers to the way we assign substantive meanings to the words we use. So, to answer your question, anyone who wants to have an honest and productive conversation, using precise words to describe coherent ideas, is someone who must necessarily care about semantics.
speeder 13y ago
Stallman (I know, I know...) wrote that using "Intellectual Property" term is very very very wrong, specially because it makes people think some stuff is property (it is not) and also make people conflate 4 different laws (Trademark, Patents, Copyright and I forgot the other one) as it was a single thing, and results in totally messed up ideas. Trademark is not your property, trademark is a registration of who is who, so the government can punish people that are being funny and mislead costumers. Happily the trademark regulating bodies are still more or less sane, and for example kicked Tim Langdell in the nuts for what he did. Patents, are not your property either, your property is whatever you built (patents were not supposed to apply to software algorithms as the original laws were written :/), if you want to keep others from doing a copy of your product, actually you can do it like Coca-Cola did: Make it hard to copy, and hide its formula/blueprint/project in a safe. Patents is a license to manufacture (and thus presumably sell and distribute) the product exclusively for some years, in exchange for you placing into public domain the details of how to create your product, so all humanity can create that product in the future (maybe if you get hit by a bus and cannot do it anymore, or your factory get hit by a meteor, and so on...) Copyright is as the name says, the right of making copies, it is not supposed to be your property either, copyright when created it was not in the intention of the law authors that people would sell it around like if it was merchandise, back then copyright was created muddled and mixed with the concept of moral rights (that some countries later turned into law too). The idea of copyright, at least in theory (the real reason for creation of copyright seemly was covert censorship), is that by ensuring the author can choose who can sell copies of his work for some years, he could be safe expending some years to create such work, and then as he sells this work though others, he has money ensured to create his next work and so on. Mind you, copyright was NOT invented to stop common people from making copies of your work, in fact when it was made, many people were absolutely fine with that, copyright was made for example to stop the asshole behavior of a friend of Baldassare Castiglione, that took his borrowed manuscript, and not only made a copy for himself, but started to make so much copies, that Baldassare when he made a trip from Italy to Spain (when he started the trip that he left the book with his friend) upon arrival he was greeted by people saying that his book was awesome... (yes, he left the book in Italy and travelled to Spain, when he arrived on Spain, people on Spain had lots of copies of his still unfinished book made by a asshole friend in Italy)
snowwrestler 13y ago
People refer to it as "intellectual property" because it has the legal attributes of property--it belongs to a person, who has the legal power to restrict or exclude use by others. Is this power unlimited in time and scope? No. But that is also true of physical and real property--which, depending on various factors, come with all sorts of restrictions, limitations, and regulations.
tzs 13y ago
> Property implies the idea or a certain implementation of creative work is yours for life No it doesn't. There's more to property than fee simple absolute.
yerlaw 13y ago
Patents are not an incnetive to create something. They are a protection for people who (for whatever reason) create and want to profit from their creations. United States patents do not give anyone a license to create anything. They grant a "license" to sue others, for alleged infringement. If the patent registrant fails to pay the government fees, the "license" can be "revoked". If in doubt, ask your IP lawyer for confirmation of this fact. It would perhaps be better for the discussion if all HN commenters knew how to define a US patent. It is a right to sue. Nothing more, nothing less. Whatever else the registrant gets up to besides paying his patent maintenance fees (e.g. manufacturing, licensing, etc.), that's his business. He may choose to do nothing. Maybe he's just blocking someone else through the threat of litigation. Do you all think the "incentives" for innovation come from having a right to sue? As if prior to the 1600's and "Letters Patent" there existed no incentive for anyone to innovate. Does a government incentivize innovation through giving the right to sue, for a recurring fee? Do people stop innovating when they cannot sue each other? Is it that simple? Is there more to the story? Maybe innovation exists without patents, but giving a right to sue is a way to "protect" the natural innovation instinct? Maybe it's just a way to tax it? What do you think?

xradionut 13y ago

Follow the money. The folks with the money pay the folks that make the law. Check out where some of the "virtuous defenders" of IP live and tell me IP's not a cash cow. http://www.candysdirt.com/2013/05/06/monday-morning-millionaire-another-record-setting-19-5-million-dallas-real-estate-listing-to-lust-for-dans-bois-crete-features-movie-theater-and-concession-stand/ http://www.candysdirt.com/2013/05/06/monday-morning-milliona...

rayiner 13y ago
The entire US music and movie industry is smaller than Apple. Money is not the issue here, except to the extent that the tech industry wants to make money off the content created by the media industry.
- bediger4000 13y ago
  I think you're correct. Governments, I think, go along with the idea of "intellectual property" because property rights are stronger than free speech rights (usually). Calling ideas "property" gives governments a hope of stuffing the internet's free speech genie back into the lamp.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    I don't really see how intellectual property impinges on free speech rights. Governments support IP rights because: 1) the idea that creators have a right to control their works is more popular than the idea that the public has certain rights to access "culture"; 2) industries dependent on IP create jobs. A senator supports the MPAA companies versus downloaders because he can easily see that the MPAA companies are a source of a large number of jobs. It's as simple as that.
    - dublinben 13y ago
      Intellectual property 'rights' are diametrically opposed to free speech rights. Free speech allows you to reproduce copyrighted materials, except the IP rights overrule your speech rights. Free speech allows you to transact under a trademarked brand, but IP rights overrule your speech rights.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

np422 13y ago

Why do we have IP-laws? What are their purpose? Do they serve that purpose well? Are there any unintended consequences? Any and all comparisons to physical property and ownership laws is meaningless, copying and theft is not comparable in any way. Whoever says so needs to think it over a few more times or is willingly spreading propaganda. Is it fair to call copyright "a monopoly on an idea"? If so, is that something that is reasonable? Monopolies are usually not considered to be something that promotes the general welfare of society ... Is the patent system of today doing what is supposed to do? Should we use IP-laws to maximize the usefulness of creativity and ingenuity of humans for the good of the common man or for the profits of corporations? Do these two goals sometimes conflict with each other? If so, do one take precedence over the other or how may the be balanced? My opinion is that a complete overhaul of the entire system of IP-laws is in dear need. What do you think?

rayiner 13y ago
You're punning on the word "monopoly." The monopoly on a specific manifestation on an idea (e.g. a book) is used in the same sense as a property right being a "monopoly" on a specific piece of land, not in the sense of say the AT&T monopoly. It's exclusive control over a specific thing versus exclusive control over a market. The latter is bad for economies. The former is necessary for them to exist. In a way, a copyright monopoly is far more morally justifiable than monopoly over land. Land in the US is stuff we stole from the American Indians. It was here before you were born and it will be here after you die. Why should you get a monopoly over a piece of the earth? With regards to a book or a song, you created that work. It did not exist before you. Your moral right to control it is much stronger.
- smokeyj 13y ago
  I fail to see why we should treat tangibile and intangible entities equally. In your opinion, how do you deduce what type of intangible property should qualify as intillectual property? Should chefs own his recipe? Should fragrance designers own their smell? Should phillosophers own their phillosophy?
  - 13y ago

wes-exp 13y ago

I am a little bit perplexed by the recent pushback against the DMCA as embodied by this article and http://fixthedmca.org/ http://fixthedmca.org/. Don't get me wrong, I think software patents need to be abolished. But on the copyright side, explain to me why game console jailbreaking tools should be readily available?

betterunix 13y ago
Instead of using marketing terms like "game console," try rephrasing your sentence like this and see how it sounds: "But on the copyright side, explain to me why personal computer jailbreaking tools should be readily available?" This is about control over the computers we buy, which is becoming more and more important. The purpose of the DMCA anti-circumvention clause is to remove control from the users or owners of computers, and put it in the hands of the manufacturers and their well-connected "partners." It says that you must have permission from someone else to run software or read files, or even to use printer cartridges. The politicians who passed the DMCA were not merely naive; they were blinded by their own conservative worldview. They had no understanding of individual computer users writing their own programs, of software being distributed freely on the Internet, of sharing computing resources, etc. In their minds, people use their computers to access information stored on servers, or to consume entertainment sold to them by others, and everything must happen with the permission of someone else. It is the same mindset that leads people to say things of the form, "Well that XBox was not intended for you to run GNU/Linux on it, so stop complaining!"
- wes-exp 13y ago
  They had no understanding of individual computer users writing their own programs Individual computer users creating their own programs is a very specific group of people. Consider for a moment that devices aren't really made for nerd programmers. They are made for average people. As a technology nerd, of course I want the freedom to modify and develop stuff, without restrictions, on my devices. As a family member though, I'm not convinced that my non-technical parents, grandparents, siblings and so on really need root-level access to their hardware. Software can easily get screwed up. For the same reason, IT departments frequently take away admin rights from employees. This is rarely tyrannical, but just meant to keep things running smoothly without having to reinstall the OS every six weeks. Already we are seeing with the Android "freedom" model a lot more malware than the "closed" Apple model. Sure, there is a trade-off there of ceding some device control to Apple, but at the end of the day, the benefits are quite significant. So at least for me, I am willing to give up some control, if it means that I don't have to be plagued by technical support calls from my non-technical family members.

emp_zealoth 13y ago

I am a big fan of making copyright sane again. But i had a thought. If most of humanity's contemporary culture is put into public domain, won't it saturate the paid market? Why buy CD's if you have hundreds of thousands of quality music/movies/books and so on? It actually might be detrimental to higher forms of art, as i would wager that only mass pop would sell thanks to trends and such. Just a thought i had.

yew 13y ago
There are already hundreds of thousands (millions, really) of quality works in the public domain. From a pop-cultural perspective the difference between twenty-year-old music and fifty- or hundred-year-old music isn't large. Too, many 'abandoned works' that are effectively available for free with the author's permission are even newer. People read old books (which is a very good thing!) but most haven't stopped buying new media because of it.
- emp_zealoth 13y ago
  Well, the problem is discoverability, from personal experience. I listen to rock mostly and I really doubt there is much public domain quality rock music out there. Imagine almost entirety of rock being forced into public domain. Why would I buy anything in that situation? Most of my music collection would be in public domain by now. Imagine all the quality study materials being in public domain. I would love it, but after a while it might crash the market completely. At least for non-cutting edge fields like advanced but still reasonable math or physics or mechanics. I haven't really looked through all the available stuff, but most of it seems of little 'worth' to me. Old and hardly relevant to my interests. It might be cool to read 1912 book on aircraft propulsion, but it's just a odd thing to kill time with. 1999 (date chosen with regard to studies mentioned in some other comment thread) air propulsion book is mostly up to date, at least for studying. I'd late here and my rambling might be a bit inconsistent. I'm not really arguing for either side, but I do find overbearing IP a nuisance. Just trying to cast a different light on the issue.
KC8ZKF 13y ago
Higher art has trends and such. Consider the trend for period instruments and alternative tunings in music. For example, the new Decca studio recording of Bellini's Norma. http://ceciliabartolionline.com/norma/ http://ceciliabartolionline.com/norma/

SideburnsOfDoom 13y ago

Title is misleading ;) Intellectual property laws are firmly under control. Just not ours.