6 ms·

One of the most tragic ideas to evolve in this century is the idea of "intellectual property"--that you can own an idea for years, sometimes tens or hundreds of

by acabal 12y ago

One of the most tragic ideas to evolve in this century is the idea of "intellectual property"--that you can own an idea for years, sometimes tens or hundreds of years. That term covers things outside of copyright, like patents, but the damage the idea as a whole in its present incarnation does to our long-term culture is the same. Ideas are intangible, not property, and someone can think the same thing as you without ever having met you or heard of you. A more accurate term than "intellectual property" would be a "short, government-protected monopoly on an idea". But we call it property, and after many years of calling that, it insidiously starts seeming to us like real property, and not the temporary monopoly it really is. There's room for short, temporary monopolies. As the framers realized, copyright and patents are critical to fostering innovation and culture. Unfortunately, "short" went from being a very reasonable few years, to a slightly less reasonable 20ish years, to now, where if you publish a work today the chances of it being available to the public within 150 years are slim. Do a grandchild's grandchildren deserve to lord over something created by a dusty ancestor centuries ago? In a strange and sad way, our IP regime today means that individual authors are unlikely to be remembered by history 100 years from now. Look at Project Gutenberg or Wikiart: hundreds of people from all over the world volunteer to lovingly scan, transcribe, format, categorize, and distribute works from the last few centuries. They do this because that work belongs to the public now, and their efforts keep the memories and impact of those works and authors alive. Do you think anyone will do the same for your work 100 years from now on the pain of legal threats and huge fines, or is it more likely it'll fade into oblivion?

icebraining 12y ago
As the framers realized, copyright and patents are critical to fostering innovation and culture. Well, at least Jefferson was initially opposed to the idea, which he (rightly) viewed as a monopoly: Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society. It would be curious then, if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property. If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it… . That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Later he acquiesced, but with a much stricter proposal than what eventually was written in the Bill of Rights: Art. 9. Monopolies may be allowed to persons for their own productions in literature and their own inventions in the arts for a term not exceeding — years but for no longer term and no other purpose.
- galaxyLogic 12y ago
  I don't quite get the point of discussing or arguing about what the framers "meant". They're not God or something. It may of course be useful in trying to understand how the current supreme court comes up with its decisions. I personally don't buy that law should be interpreted based on the "original intent" of a few dead persons, who had opinions about it. Courts interpret the laws any way they want, that is the law, right? If they seem to get lost with it, then congress should change the laws so there is less room for mis-interpretation. What should matter is democracy now.
  - Tloewald 12y ago
    Well, there are two points. First, we live in a constitutional democracy. The constitution is supposed to be the set of meta-rules which dictate how and what the government can do. Like it or not this turns out to come down to literary interpretation. There are two major schools of thought about how one should interpret literature, and I prefer the one that suggests the context in which something was written should be taken into consideration (the other school, which happens to dominate departments of English Literature, is kind of nutty). You may think that constitutional democracy is a Bad Idea, in which case feel free to argue that point. But within that framework, we live by rules, and what those rules mean -- or more importantly, what people think they mean -- matters. This kind of thinking is unappealing to programmers and engineers -- it's a concept generally known as "social construction". Our government is a social construct. So is money. So is bitcoin. So are mathematical proofs (!) -- at bottom, a mathematical proof is an argument that convinces mathematicians. If you don't want the FBI to shoot you, you might want to consider that having a shared understanding of the laws they believe they are enforcing is a Good Idea. Second, it's interesting to realize that most of the stupid stuff happening today was anticipated, and the fine points argued over, by a group of smart guys over two hundred years ago. It's sad that the level of debate today comes down to arguing over what these guys meant by something, especially when most of those doing the arguing lack basic comprehension skills.
    - galaxyLogic 12y ago
      > the context in which something was written should be taken into consideration Yes surely if we want to understand what they meant when they wrote their opinions. But those were just their opinions. They were not the law that was passed. A law is not an opinion. What is it? It is a text. Who interprets it? The Judges. For a judge to say: "I rule this way because I think this is what Jefferson wanted" is a cop-out. It would be more honest for them to say: "I rule the law this way because I'm the one who interprets the law here".
kanzure 12y ago
> As the constitution's framers realized, copyright and patents are critical to fostering innovation and culture. Well.... I don't think anyone around that time was seriously thinking about patent law and innovation in that capacity. "Well we have a new country, and handing out patents is just one of those things you're expected to do." Even the Soviet Union had a patent system, and they're the last group you'd expect to sign up for the idea of patents. And yet here you go: http://patentdb.su/ http://patentdb.su/ The modern patent system goes back to the 1600s when some boring king made some annoying promises that he had to compromise on: By the 16th century, the English Crown would habitually grant letters patent for monopolies to favoured persons (or people who were prepared to pay for them).[13] This power was used to raise money for the Crown, and was widely abused, as the Crown granted patents in respect of all sorts of common goods (salt, for example). Consequently, the Court began to limit the circumstances in which they could be granted. After public outcry, James I of England was forced to revoke all existing monopolies and declare that they were only to be used for "projects of new invention". This was incorporated into the Statute of Monopolies in which Parliament restricted the Crown's power explicitly so that the King could only issue letters patent to the inventors or introducers of original inventions for a fixed number of years. It also voided all existing monopolies and dispensations with [some] exception[s].... above quote's background: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_patent_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_patent_law fun paper: http://diyhpl.us/~bryan/papers2/Generally%20inconvenient:%20the%201624%20Statute%20of%20Monopolies%20as%20political%20compromise.pdf http://diyhpl.us/~bryan/papers2/Generally%20inconvenient:%20... This paper is mostly about how a law came about regarding "projects of new invention" as a political compromise, rather than any particular thought or study about the problem of incentives and innovation.
- icebraining 12y ago
  Well.... I don't think anyone around that time was seriously thinking about patent law and innovation in that capacity. Read my sibling comment. Jefferson, at least, clearly didn't take patents for granted.
galaxyLogic 12y ago
I don't think copyright law implies that "ideas" can not be copied. I think it says something about the "expression of an idea". It is always up to the court to decide whether copying was "substantial" and not "fair use". I agree that both laws and their application have gone too far. I think they should be reformed, not thrown out all together. There's a third law less often opinioned about: Trade Secrets. Is that a just law or not? Well think about the laws on privacy. Should we have the right to "privacy", which is really a rather intangible thing?
morninj 12y ago
> One of the most tragic ideas to evolve in this century is the idea of "intellectual property"--that you can own an idea for years, sometimes tens or hundreds of years. (1) Intellectual property protections didn't originate in the twentieth century. In the U.S., they exist in the original text of the Constitution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause), and they existed in other countries well before then. (2) Copyright doesn't protect ideas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idea%E2%80%93expression_divide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idea%E2%80%93expression_divide). The ideas underlying copyrighted works can be freely copied. Of course, the duration of copyright protection has gotten completely out of control. But I think that should be attributed to the ability of copyright lobbyists to influence lawmakers, rather than to the idea of intellectual property itself.
- jessaustin 12y ago
  ...rather than to the idea of intellectual property itself. Whereas ISTM the current regime is inevitable, given the existence of "IP" and the legislative means to modify it. It is a money-printing machine for lawyers and executives. If we can be certain of anything, it is that future generations will be plagued by yet more oppressive incarnations of this folly. EDIT: If "A -> B" and "B is Bad", then "A is Bad".
  - morninj 12y ago
    I can't tell if you agree or disagree. If current IP regimes are bad, that doesn't prove that IP itself is bad.
cookiecaper 12y ago
You're right that the problem is more with the length of terms and abuse of the concept rather than the concept itself. Most people break copyright all the time and would be rather upset if they knew the full extent of the copyright law. Since selective enforcement occurs, only a few people come to know the true tyranny of the copyright regime, and the public is easily persuaded to allow extensions of the monopoly by fear-mongerers who say "You don't want to see your favorite Disney characters in filthy, compromising positions, do you?! Call your representative now and tell him to protect your childhood!" [1]. "The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly". [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Disneyland_Memorial_Orgy&oldid=306441486 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Disneyland_Me...

by acabal 12y ago

icebraining 12y ago

As the framers realized, copyright and patents are critical to fostering innovation and culture. Well, at least Jefferson was initially opposed to the idea, which he (rightly) viewed as a monopoly: Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society. It would be curious then, if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property. If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it… . That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Later he acquiesced, but with a much stricter proposal than what eventually was written in the Bill of Rights: Art. 9. Monopolies may be allowed to persons for their own productions in literature and their own inventions in the arts for a term not exceeding — years but for no longer term and no other purpose.

galaxyLogic 12y ago
I don't quite get the point of discussing or arguing about what the framers "meant". They're not God or something. It may of course be useful in trying to understand how the current supreme court comes up with its decisions. I personally don't buy that law should be interpreted based on the "original intent" of a few dead persons, who had opinions about it. Courts interpret the laws any way they want, that is the law, right? If they seem to get lost with it, then congress should change the laws so there is less room for mis-interpretation. What should matter is democracy now.
- Tloewald 12y ago
  Well, there are two points. First, we live in a constitutional democracy. The constitution is supposed to be the set of meta-rules which dictate how and what the government can do. Like it or not this turns out to come down to literary interpretation. There are two major schools of thought about how one should interpret literature, and I prefer the one that suggests the context in which something was written should be taken into consideration (the other school, which happens to dominate departments of English Literature, is kind of nutty). You may think that constitutional democracy is a Bad Idea, in which case feel free to argue that point. But within that framework, we live by rules, and what those rules mean -- or more importantly, what people think they mean -- matters. This kind of thinking is unappealing to programmers and engineers -- it's a concept generally known as "social construction". Our government is a social construct. So is money. So is bitcoin. So are mathematical proofs (!) -- at bottom, a mathematical proof is an argument that convinces mathematicians. If you don't want the FBI to shoot you, you might want to consider that having a shared understanding of the laws they believe they are enforcing is a Good Idea. Second, it's interesting to realize that most of the stupid stuff happening today was anticipated, and the fine points argued over, by a group of smart guys over two hundred years ago. It's sad that the level of debate today comes down to arguing over what these guys meant by something, especially when most of those doing the arguing lack basic comprehension skills.
  - galaxyLogic 12y ago
    > the context in which something was written should be taken into consideration Yes surely if we want to understand what they meant when they wrote their opinions. But those were just their opinions. They were not the law that was passed. A law is not an opinion. What is it? It is a text. Who interprets it? The Judges. For a judge to say: "I rule this way because I think this is what Jefferson wanted" is a cop-out. It would be more honest for them to say: "I rule the law this way because I'm the one who interprets the law here".

kanzure 12y ago

> As the constitution's framers realized, copyright and patents are critical to fostering innovation and culture. Well.... I don't think anyone around that time was seriously thinking about patent law and innovation in that capacity. "Well we have a new country, and handing out patents is just one of those things you're expected to do." Even the Soviet Union had a patent system, and they're the last group you'd expect to sign up for the idea of patents. And yet here you go: http://patentdb.su/ http://patentdb.su/ The modern patent system goes back to the 1600s when some boring king made some annoying promises that he had to compromise on: By the 16th century, the English Crown would habitually grant letters patent for monopolies to favoured persons (or people who were prepared to pay for them).[13] This power was used to raise money for the Crown, and was widely abused, as the Crown granted patents in respect of all sorts of common goods (salt, for example). Consequently, the Court began to limit the circumstances in which they could be granted. After public outcry, James I of England was forced to revoke all existing monopolies and declare that they were only to be used for "projects of new invention". This was incorporated into the Statute of Monopolies in which Parliament restricted the Crown's power explicitly so that the King could only issue letters patent to the inventors or introducers of original inventions for a fixed number of years. It also voided all existing monopolies and dispensations with [some] exception[s].... above quote's background: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_patent_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_patent_law fun paper: http://diyhpl.us/~bryan/papers2/Generally%20inconvenient:%20the%201624%20Statute%20of%20Monopolies%20as%20political%20compromise.pdf http://diyhpl.us/~bryan/papers2/Generally%20inconvenient:%20... This paper is mostly about how a law came about regarding "projects of new invention" as a political compromise, rather than any particular thought or study about the problem of incentives and innovation.

icebraining 12y ago
Well.... I don't think anyone around that time was seriously thinking about patent law and innovation in that capacity. Read my sibling comment. Jefferson, at least, clearly didn't take patents for granted.

galaxyLogic 12y ago

I don't think copyright law implies that "ideas" can not be copied. I think it says something about the "expression of an idea". It is always up to the court to decide whether copying was "substantial" and not "fair use". I agree that both laws and their application have gone too far. I think they should be reformed, not thrown out all together. There's a third law less often opinioned about: Trade Secrets. Is that a just law or not? Well think about the laws on privacy. Should we have the right to "privacy", which is really a rather intangible thing?

morninj 12y ago

> One of the most tragic ideas to evolve in this century is the idea of "intellectual property"--that you can own an idea for years, sometimes tens or hundreds of years. (1) Intellectual property protections didn't originate in the twentieth century. In the U.S., they exist in the original text of the Constitution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause), and they existed in other countries well before then. (2) Copyright doesn't protect ideas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idea%E2%80%93expression_divide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idea%E2%80%93expression_divide). The ideas underlying copyrighted works can be freely copied. Of course, the duration of copyright protection has gotten completely out of control. But I think that should be attributed to the ability of copyright lobbyists to influence lawmakers, rather than to the idea of intellectual property itself.

jessaustin 12y ago
...rather than to the idea of intellectual property itself. Whereas ISTM the current regime is inevitable, given the existence of "IP" and the legislative means to modify it. It is a money-printing machine for lawyers and executives. If we can be certain of anything, it is that future generations will be plagued by yet more oppressive incarnations of this folly. EDIT: If "A -> B" and "B is Bad", then "A is Bad".
- morninj 12y ago
  I can't tell if you agree or disagree. If current IP regimes are bad, that doesn't prove that IP itself is bad.

cookiecaper 12y ago

You're right that the problem is more with the length of terms and abuse of the concept rather than the concept itself. Most people break copyright all the time and would be rather upset if they knew the full extent of the copyright law. Since selective enforcement occurs, only a few people come to know the true tyranny of the copyright regime, and the public is easily persuaded to allow extensions of the monopoly by fear-mongerers who say "You don't want to see your favorite Disney characters in filthy, compromising positions, do you?! Call your representative now and tell him to protect your childhood!" [1]. "The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly". [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Disneyland_Memorial_Orgy&oldid=306441486 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Disneyland_Me...