Should Intellectual Property Exist?

The original idea of copywriting, I think, was to protect art. It just doesn't work right with "intellectual property". There are just too many smart people in the world that can come up with the same idea independently.

Not anything wealth related... just wealth gained by taking advantage of the ignorance or misfortune of others.

.
And who might be the almighty purveyor of determining who is taking advantage of others and/or being taken advantage of, who is or is not ignorant, and who is or is not misfortunate? Perhaps you'd like to be the Grand Pubah of deciding such things for all other people. Or did you have someone else in mind?

.
The first U.S. Copyright Act was to protect books, maps and other similar and original materials.

"....the author and authors of any map, chart, book or books already printed within these United States, being a citizen or citizens thereof....shall have the sole right and liberty of printing, reprinting, publishing and vending such map, chart, book or books...."

It was signed by George Washington on May 31, 1790

Hi,
What about Pepsi and all the other colas?

Hi,
If I remember correctly, Microsoft won its case against Linux in Europe, not because Linux was infringing their copyright on Windows (or that Linux was producing a Widows like program ) but on trademark infringement.

I support you comment 100% and would just like to go on the record for what I see as an intrinsic value of morality.

Do you really have a moral problem about being honest?

If a client approaches me to attend to their site and the software is illegal. I decline the offer.

If you aren?t prepared to legitimately pay for someone else?s hard work or for that matter go into a shop and remove the security tag and steal the item; then I personally do not want to know or deal with you.

The same here applies to software licenses ? while they are here, if you want to conduct yourself with honesty, like it or lump it, we all work on a user pay system since time began

I get paid every day for what I know, so do most of us. Most of us paid an institute to teach us the knowledge we now charge others for.

If you create anything it is your right to decide if you want to give it a way for free or you want to charge for it, after all you have to eat and pay the rent so nobody can tell you that you should give it away for free.

But in one sense I think there should be more information for free more a sense of comunity on the net.

... and if it exists it must never have precedence
over freedom of expression.

But not in the way it's trying to be done.

If we take the SCO Law suit as an example, my understanding is, they are claiming (without much success thank goodness) that certain lines of code have been transposed into Linux.

That's similar to saying, that if I wrote a book and happened to use a sentence that was identical to someone else's sentence in one of the millions of books available, I am infringing their copywrite. It is nonsense. You should be able to protect the *whole* of your work, but not individual lines, and certainly not individual words!

To move this analogy to code, if you have worked on an application that is ready as a whole for publication, it is reasonable to want to protect your work, but the fact that within that work, are lines of code that are the same or similar to others, should not be penalised and equally, should not prevent others from using that code.

cause I certainly wouldn't say my inspirations were paid by employeer. On the contrary, herd of scumballs or screwballs had been for quite a while. And many likes are intended to as I could read in some russian forums.

Coca Cola remains a company secret. The
formula has never been patented because
that would require disclosure. Disclosure
would mean that someone could start
tweaking with the formula enough to get
around the patent and sell their competing
"taste alike" product.

Of course, only internal corporate policies,
signed by employees and legally enforceable,
can try to protect the company's secret(s).

Then you rely on employee ethics and their
desire to stay employed, especially if the
company's revenue is dependent on the trade
secret.

Should all knowledge be free? Drucker says (roughly) that the only resource of value is information. "Sharing everything" was something Mommy told us, and it wasn't long (with the help of a brother or sister) before we learned how bogus that was.
Now the more interesting part of that post is whether a new idea becomes the intellectual property of the company or the individual in its employ. Usually, company lawyers cover that bet in the employment contract.
But if intellectual property belonged to the genereator, irrespective of whether self-employed or otherwise employed, that could be interesting. Entrepreneurs could create startups, non-entrepreneurs could request a buyout from the company. What would happen then?
My guess - if it were law that innovations and ideas belong to the innovator or inventor, the company involved would have to develop a process of acquisition so that its development wouldn't be arrested by a rogue innovation. And valuing the innovation would be contentious.
No simple answers to this one in my view. Love to have yours.

that you write a program to fulfill some need that people have. If you burn a CD that has all the source code, documentation and a compiled copy of the code on it, you have started a "poor mans" version of a copyright. The next thing you do is place the CD in a mailer and mail it to yourself registered mail. As long as you don't open the envelope a court will accept it as evidence to prove who had the idea first.

You are entitled to compensation for the energy you expend while working, whether that energy be expended mentally or physically. The amount of that compensation is between you and whoever is paying you, but it can only be collected once. Asking for compensation twice for the same work is unethical.

I was referring to misrepresentation and fraud that goes undetected because of the buyer's ignorance. If that is ethical, then so is ANY fraud.

The ability to patent an idea has been part if this nation since the beginning. Without copyrights and patents, anyone can rip off someone else's ideas.

What a ludicrous statement apotheon. Maybe that's why you are unemployed - I mean 'IT Consultant' and 'writer.' Hmmm IT Consultant - unemployed. . . same thing.

Ever heard of a gas chromatograph. It let's one know the composition of chemical substances - there can be no trade secret when it comes to medication.

At this point, non-profits and governments can buy vaccine at market price. If they can make a case that the price is exorberant AND the "public good" harmed thereby, in the US at least, the government can invoke "emninent domain" and take it at a price the government deems fair. Eminent domain is commonly used on real estate. Using it on a valuable product would be an interesting legal situation, but not impossible.

Another part of the AIDS example: the world will be a different place when Americans and Europeans have as much interest in Africans as in Europeans. The last century saw a LOT of progress in this direction, but we have a long way to go.

What does that have to do with it? I can run a program on my computer and see what it does, too. I can also look over the parts of a car and figure out how they fit together. None of that makes me a pharmaceutical maker, a programmer, or Toyota.

Interesting responses all. But note. Would you like Intellectual Property Rights or Copyrights to attach to your work if possible? If you are an independent consultant, like me, the answer is most likely yes. Surely you would not want to develop one project for one customer, and have the customer resell it as your competitor to your next prospect (and at half the price!).

People who do not produce IP/CR materials have a strange idea that IP/CR should not or does not "really" exist. Maybe the ease with which we can now make illegal copies of music, movies, and electronic books, and the difficulty and unlikliness of prosecution, have clouded our judgement.

So, if you could push-over a little old lady unseen, and steal her money and possessions undetected, does that make it legal? No! Why? Because you have money and possessions also, and you do not want anybody taking them from you. Just because many other people do push-over and rob little old ladies does not make it right or legal.

Do not congratulate yourself for saying IP/CR theft is ok, but you don't do it. You are corrupt.

And if you like certain software, music, or movies, be a man, buy it. If you wouldn't steal it from the shelves of a store, don't steal it by making an illegal copy. Stealth and sneakiness doesn't make theft legal.

PS: For those opposing IP/CR protections, I would steal your ideas and take them away from you, leaving you with none, but your ideas are worthless.

The creator of an idea or concept should be able to make a living off it to an appropriate degree. While there is plenty to be said for doing things for the good of humanity, we all need to eat and put a roof over our heads. If there is no compensation whatsoever for intellectual property, all our Ben Franklins will be so busy working in middle management in order to get by, they will never have the time to sit down and write/draw/code/etc. their potential ideas. Which is ultimately bad for everyone in that we don't get the benefit of a potentially brilliant idea at all. On the other hand, there is still no justification for any corporation or person to abuse their 'ownership' of intellectual property, to withhold it from use, get bloody rich, or charge exorbitant fees.

I don't know if I am patently against patents, but it is absurd that:
1). Amazon was awarded a patent for 'one-click shopping' on the web, and microsoft got 'double-clicking to open a program on a PDA'.
2). The Code for OS/2 - which is a dead product collecting dust in an archive somewhere - is still unuseable, because it is patented.
3). A think tank of European businessmen, with no technical skills are being awarded patents for 'possible uses of OLED technology', even though they don't have the knowledge to develop said products. Someone else will do the work, and they will reap the unearned rewards.

The system needs, at the very least, a serious overhaul.

That's the inevitable result of putting something like patent law into practice. It's not a legal concept that can have clear lines drawn around it to limit its use. Unlike concepts such as murder and robbery, there's no simple dividing line between "legal" and "illegal" there, so ultimately it will become a complex mess of loopholes and leverages, and that is what has happened with patents in the United States.

I don't personally see that as a problem, of course.

Greed versus the common good, it is NOT that simple. If we were all 'real' people it might be.
When we created the legal fiction of 'corporation/company' as individual, we opened the biggest bucket of worms ever.
When you talk about 'Trademark, Servicemark, Logo, Icon, Brand, etc.' I have no problem with comapanies protecting their identities and the symbols thereof. (i.e 'Coca-Cola and Coke' are registered trademarks and do NOT expire as long as the company or its inheritors are viable.
Copyrights, patents are intended to bring profit to the inventor/creator of the new idea. Patents used to only apply to 'physical' implementation of an original idea. [Remember the Sci-Fi writer who was refused a patent on communicaton (geosynchronous) satellites because it couldn't be done (1940s) and when it was possible was refused because the idea was 'public domain'. Even though he did have copyright to the idea!]
Now patents are used as exclusionary weapons to restrict ideas. Copyrights have been abused by corporate needs by extending ad infinitum the rights of company over people. If Disney was honorable then the 'Mouse' would be a trade/service mark and protected by standard law. BUT to keep copyright of the 'Mouse' they have pushed legislation to extend the term to 75 years after the death of the copyright holder. Anybody notice that as corporations are NOT real persons, normal lifespans need not apply.
{Sidenote: In the 'Bill of Rights' there is an exclusion of "Ex Post Facto" laws. They can NOT create a law which penalizes you tomorrow for your actions today. But perpetual grandfathering of existing copyrights into extended laws, DENIES benefits to the majority.)
One of the many impacts, is the tendency for sequels/spinoffs in TV & movies. It is easier to get funding for a project with clear ownership (however derived) than a new concept, knowing that somebody will crawl out of the woodwork and sue for theft of their idea. [Recommended reading is the list of 37 dramatic plots. Almost a hundred years ago they had analysed plays and books to determine that there are no 'new' ideas, ONLY new implementations of those old ones!)

Here's a hint: If you're working for a pharmaceutical company, the idea belongs to your corporate masters.

The person who's labor created it, should be compensated for it. Just because we CAN swipe someone else's work in this electronic day and age, doesn't mean we should. That a book can be sent to PDF and then e-mailed around the planet overnight doesn't negate the amount of time and labor that went into creating it, and the author should be compensated just as they would have been when the only means of sending it out there was printing it to paper. When you buy a book, you're not just buying a bunch of bound paper, you're buying the author's efforts. Those efforts were no less great on their part simply because it's now on digital media.

Personally, I think those who have a problem with the concept of "intellectual property" are those who are too intellectually lazy to be willing to put the work in themselves and so they just want carte blanche to steal other people's efforts.

If someone WANTS to give their efforts away for free, there's nothing stopping them from doing so. Anyone can put up a website and allow people to download their work if they so choose -- but it should be THEIR CHOICE, and should not be over-ridden by someone who wants their work without compensating them for it and so just takes it.

If I go out in my backyard and build a sculpture, spend months on it, and then complete it -- is it okay for someone to go take it just because they want it? Taking my time, effort and labor with it? Of course not. It doesn't count more simply because it's a physical item, instead of electronic bits and bytes -- the effort and labor are still what's primarily being stolen.

.
I'm simply amazed at the number of people who justify their dishonesty. And then they openly admit it to all their peers.

Where are we going, and what are we doing in this handbasket?

The only thing I'm doing with words is removing pejorative bias from whence it doesn't belong.

No, the medium doesn't matter. I don't see how that has anything at all to do with the idea of whether or not copying is stealing, though. You make some kind of vague statement about whether or not copying from one medium to another, or copying within the same medium, is theft, then you go on to say that copying from unknown medium to unknown medium is theft, and nowhere in there do you build a logical argument.

Why is it theft? Do you have any support for your statements at all other than "because it's illegal"?

You still haven't addressed a single thing I've said other than the conclusion itself, which means you haven't addressed any of my arguments and support. You haven't addressed, for instance, the fact that by copying something I'm not taking anything from you: I am neither depriving you of the ideas nor stealing the physical recording medium. Let's start with just one argument. Let's start with that one. Can you refute that one statement? Can you give an argument that logically supports the idea that it's theft despite the fact that you still possess anything you haven't sold if I copy what I've purchased?

As adunlap said, it's like a cold: even if you give it to someone, you still have it yourself, as well. In other words, it's not property because it can't be transferred in full.

Why would capitalists lose interest? They'd just change their profit models. Considering how harmful the profit models are that currently make use of intellectual property law (look at Microsoft and SCO for examples), that's a good thing.

I operate under a different profit model. I intentionally exempt what I write from standard copyright protections, but I still make money.

Copyright was originally intended to give the author of an idea compensation for his/her trouble. Then came the succession rights--how come the heirs have any rights to the compensation for an idea? It's really absurd.

It gets even more absurd when the coporation, the original "virtual" person with eternal life, claims the right to the idea instead of the person who dreamed it up.

Absurdity upon absurdity.

Disney's "masterpieces" are only "copying off" old ideas, and then the Disney corporation makes them eternal. What insanity!!

The problem everyone seems to be avoiding is that of basic survival. Software comes from research and development. Companies have to invest in that research to pay the developers and researchers. The researchers have bills to pay.

In return for the investment into research and development, the company has to have some way to see a return on that investment, otherwise it won't get made at all.

I appreciate the time open-source developers put into making products, but as an IT provider and businessperson, I have to have the ability to protect my investment for a reasonable period of time in order to justify making the initial investment. I am very much against the removal of copyright, patent and other laws protecting intellectual property for the sheer expedient that - without that protection - software development will virtually disappear as noone will want to fun it.

.
...but you just don't want to recognize it.

Why is it theft, you ask, other than "because it's illegal"? Well, that's exactly why it's theft -- because IT IS illegal. Moreover, I believe it's also unethical by denying someone else the right to something to which he's entitled. You are literally denying someone his or her right to earn a living.

Consider this: Bob writes a ___________ . And it doesn't matter what it is. It could be a piece of music, a book, or some software. Let's say it's a book.

He spends a year of his time and effort, applying the education that he's invested in, and has spent the last year of his life in seclusion to write the next great American novel. The book sells for about 25 bucks, and for argument's sake, let's just take the publishers out of the picture. It ends up being a great book, so he starts to sell it.

If we take your argument and adunlap@...'s argument to a logical (but extreme) conclusion, Bob would sell his book -- for $25 -- to Brian. But the next guy, George, won't buy the book because he can just get a copy that Brian made. And Paul won't buy the book because George will make him a copy. And John won't buy the book because Paul will make him a copy. And then Paul makes a copy for Mick. Mick makes a copy for Richard. Richard makes a copy for Mary. Mary makes a copy for Linda. Linda makes a copy for.........and on it goes. And in the end, Bob, who wrote the book in the first place, sold only one copy for $25 bucks. What a lousy return for spending years of his life to write it.

And in the case of a musician who created a music CD, he doesn't just create that CD out of the blue. He spends years of his life earning absolutely nothing, learning how to play and sing, touring and playing for free in front of people, honing his skills, all to finally achieve a certain level of greatness so that people will actually pay to hear his music on a CD.

He didn't invest all those years of his life to sell just one CD so people could just make a copy and pass it on in some sort of pyramid scheme where 1 illegal copy turns into 2, which turns into 4, which turns into 8, which turns into 16, which turns into 32, which turns into 64, which turns into 128, which turns into 256, which turns into 512, which turns into 1024, which turns into 2048, which turns into 4096, which turns into 8192, which turns into 16384, which turns into 32768, which turns into 65536, which turns into 131072, which turns into 262144, which turns into 524288, which turns into -- after only twenty cycles of "everybody doing it" -- over one million CDs that the musician could not sell because people like you took it upon yourself to justify giving it away.

So by making a copy of that CD (music and/or software), both YOU and adunlap@... are literally stealing from the person who created that work in the first place, and who is entitled to sell the efforts of his work to others.

Write a book....

Record some music.....

Create some software.....

It's all the same. And it's all much more than just one disk onto which some code is written. It's the cumulative effort of years of hard work and investment to get to that point. And if you make a copy to give to someone else, you are stealing from those people who made the investment of time and effort to create it in the first place.

The only reason you won't understand this is because you won't want to. Instead, you seemingly want to justify stealing from "Bob" by giving his work to "George". And that, in my estimation, is theft, pure and simply. And you try to justify it, and perhaps teach it to others. No, my friend, you are anything but a capitalist. You're a thief.

Your point is one difference between purchasing a book and purchasing computer software. When you purchase a book and read it you have had the use of it while you had it in your posession. If you then give that book away you no longer have the use of the book. On the other hand if you purchase computer software, install it, and then sell or give the installation kit away, you still have use of the software as long as it is installed on your computer. So, two people use the software concurrently for the price of one.

Now, if we put EULA restrictions aside, I don't see any problem with purchasing and using computer software. When I decide that I will no longer use the software and I remove the software from my computer, then I probably should be able to resell the software installation kit.

When we consider the EULA then the following situation exists. When we purchase and use the software we are agreeing by implication to the terms of the software license. So we are bound to follow the restrictions of that license. If the EULA restricts the transfer of the license by the original purchaser to a second end user then we are bound to abide by that restriction simply because it is a condition of our original use of the software.

In summary we can purchase and read a book. When we are finished reading the book we can sell or give the book away. This is ethical because only one person has use of the book at any time. If we purchase and use software and then erase the sofware on our computer then the only ethical restriction on giving the software kit away is the vendor's terms of use which we agreed to follow when we installed the software.

This is really a side issue though. I think this discussion is really based on whether an inventor and a manufacturer have any right at all to be compensated for their products and whether they have any right at all to restrict the use of their products. I can hardly believe that there is any room for discussion but apparently there is.

... is yours. Feel free to engage in it. I don't. As the creator of a product, I can determine how and where it's used. You cannot simply resell my work or give it away. I say so in my license, copyright, whatever.

You do have the right to create your own work. You never have to purchase or use my product; there is no "gun to your head". My hit record doesn't prevent you from writing and singing your own songs, my killer application doesn't prevent you from creating and giving away your own.

Patenting ideas is not good, but protecting the resulting product is fine. I created it, I have the right to distribute it and be compensated for it as I choose. You have the right not to use it.

All of those guys broke the existing paradigm. The rest of us use the new one they created.

First, I agree that the copyright system is a little out of control. But beyond that, why should my hard work and ideas suddenly be made available to everyone else in the world to capitalize on? You may think you are making the playing field more level, but you forget that the next guy may have more money to take your idea and run with it quicker than you, and you will not profit from your idea anymore. Sound fair? I don't think so. However I am sure you are a typical hypocritical liberal or socialist and don't recognize fair play, unless suddenly you have the great idea and someone takes it and makes money off of it before you can. At that point I bet we all hear you crying foul from the depths of your cardboard box in the alley. Is it still fair if the person who comes up with the idea is poor and destitute, and this is his one chance to better his quaility of life, yet someone steps in and takes his idea before he can profit from it himself? Socialism does not work, unless we all become ignorant zombies. Your Star Trek utopia will never happen. For a better taste of reality, complete with the dark underbelly, Babylon 5 is a better look at our potential future.

Knowledge can be free till you are not earning profit from it.Once you get into a profit making business it becomes necessary for it to be held up to a ransom.

The line between should and should not is very necessary. If it is not there, people can work their asses off and not get anything from it. Still this line should be a tad more flexible.

In short, the US Constitution in section VIII empowers Congress "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." Congress passed bills for Patents, Trademarks, etc., but they decided the duration of the protection and what promotion actually entailed.

Copyright for writers is 75 years, which basically means most authors can pass along their asset to the next generation. Patents (were 17 years) are 20 years from filing, which seems pretty short, since it takes 2-4 years to issue.

Granting exclusive rights does play a pivotal role in spurring innovation. No promotion policy exists, however, and getting manufacturers to adopt patented technology is extremely difficult. The purpose of promoting progress is to benefit the people (not necessarily the whole of humanity) and to benefit solely the authors and inventors, but the real inventors are normally not even at issue here.

How many comments in this thread refer to companies inventing things? They don't. Engineers, scientists and ordinary people do. Rarely do the real inventors of medicines and machines or processes actually benefit beyond a token handshake and a small bonus. I do not believe the framers of the Constitution intended this. German law requires the actual author/ inventor to be compensated. The constitution may override the assignment clauses in work-for-hire and employment contracts that automatically strip inventors of their inventions.

When an engineer invents something for humongo corporation, he has already signed away his ability to control whether it benefits the people or not. Humongo decides everything about it. If they want to sell cheaply, they can. They can just sit on it, not allowing anyone to benefit. They determine what price, what market and when.

Congress could fix this by citing the promotion phrase and require implementation within a reasonable period or forced licensing at a small cost to others afterwards.

Good news/bad news comes with the enforcement part. Sony and the big video guys have the FBI on their side. Who investigates claims of patent infringement? Nobody. How big is the criminal fine for intentionally copying a patent? Zero.

Yes, there are some problems with the way IP law has been constructed (by lawyers). Lack of benefits for the actual inventors, lack of promotional aspects, and lack of meaningful enforcement are all deficiencies. But the original constitutional concept is a truly noble one and could be made to work.

Point 1: I can't speak for jdmercha, but it seems to me that he only assumes that private industry is a key source of drug research, not that it is the only source. If drugs are not getting invented because private industry won't do it, then there is a case for protecting private interests.

Point 2: Intellectual property is the recognition that real work and real cost goes into developing ideas, and justice should ensure compensation to inventors for their sacrifice. In this, intellectual property is no different from other kinds of property. Where intellectual property is different is in that it is far easier to appropriate without compensation than are physical goods. So when you refer to profit, competition, monopoly, and work, it sounds like you are just saying that the compensation conceded should be focused and commeasurate with the goal of justice, not surpassing it. The idea put forth at the beginning was that ownership of ideas should not exist in any way at all, so I wonder if you support intellectual property rights in some form.

Point 3: This is a criticism of property rights in general, not just intellectual property. It doesn't seem more appropriate to allow someone to die from lack of food than lack of medicine. So it seems that if there should be no intellectual property rights for this reason, then there should be no property rights at all. Conversely, if the answer is to mitigate property rights, not abolish them, then it seems the same should apply to intellectual property.

Point 4: This is an implicit statement that some form of intellectual property rights may be appropriate, in a reduced degree. This theme runs through your post. I wonder if you and jdmercha really disagree in principle.

Bringing a drug to market is extremely expensive in the US.

Company A conducts experiments, testing many different chemical compounds before they find one that they think works. They have to pay many researchers for many months or

They have to pay for an FDA review of the drug before they can begin clicial trials.

They then have to pay for the clinical trials as well as the reports of their findings from these trials.

Then they have to pay the FDA for final approval to produce and sell the drug.

Now that they have already spen millions of dollars, it probaly only costs them 5 cents to manufacture each dose. But to recover the cost of bring the drug to market they have to sel the product for $20 per dose.

Given all this testing and public attention, the makeup of the drug can't possibly be a trade secret. It is public knowledge.

So without the protection of a patent, company B can now manufacture the drug at a cost of 5 cents per dose and sell it for 20 cents per dose.

Company A would never be able to recover the millions they have spent developing the drug. Thus without patent protection, this drug would never be developed.

This is a vastly differnt situation from the programmer who works in his spare time to develop an application.

1. I speak of drug companies based on my familiarity with them. I realize drugs are also developed by non-profits such as universities and hospitals. My corporate example is supposed to demonstrate that innovation would be hamperd without patents, not eliminated.

2. , 3. nothing to add here

4. I believe you are correct here. I don't think we are far off in principle, only in practice. I don't think patents and copywrites should be needed, but in reality they are.

There are probably many examples of unreasonable patents. No system is prefect, so we must work with what we have or work to change it. Patents can still be, and often are challenged in court.

How many of you sing happy birthday? How often do you hear it on TV or in a movie? Not very often, because the song is copywrite protected.

That doesn't even begin to address my point.

1. The salient point here is that private industry isn't the only source, and that private industry can continue to be a (key) source by way of a different profit model if the rules are changed, as long as profit isn't actually prohibited. The entrepreneurial spirit that helps make capitalism work is bound up in the ability to earn money through the development of new revenue streams.

2. Intellectual property isn't the recognition of work and cost and the just assignment of value and profit. Intellectual property is, instead, the assumption that when someone works on something, he or she should be given compensation for that work even at the cost of force applied to those who benefit from the work. It uses governmental force to provide a revenue stream where one wouldn't otherwise exist without being innovative in the manner of turning a profit. Music can make profits through admission to performances, but record labels would rather have the artist perform once and collect money for the next thirty years, so intellectual property law comes into play. In short, just compensation is not assigned, it's earned. The only time you earn money is when you have an agreement from all parties involved. If you have to enforce the exchange of funds through threat of violence, you're no longer earning the profits; you're now profiting through coersion instead.

3. Look at it this way: The argument about watching people die for lack of medicine is roughly equivalent to the argument to which it replied. The argument about watching people die is indeed an argument against property laws of all types. Thus, the argument to which the "watching people die" argument responded is equivalent to an indictment of property law in general, and thus contradicts itself.

4. That in no way applies to me, so I'll leave it alone. You may be right.

Apply to government.

. . . assuming you accept the legitimacy of intellectual property law.

Whoops. This was supposed to be in response to a post by maxwell in a slightly different branching of the discussion. I'm not sure how it got misplaced.

"that's exactly why it's theft -- because IT IS illegal." Gee, that doesn't address the issue of whether it should be illegal or not [b]at all[/b]. "It's illegal because it's wrong, and it's wrong because it's illegal!" doesn't make for a very compelling argument.

"I believe it's also unethical by denying someone else the right to something to which he's entitled. You are literally denying someone his or her right to earn a living."

Are we going to talk about property or slavery? Denying someone the right to earn a living is a matter of slavery, not of denying property. One doesn't justify one's right to own a chair by saying "He won't let me earn money!" Besides, there's no prohibition against earning money involved. You can make money from what you create all you like. You might just have to do more work to get the money. C'est la vie. Come up with a new profit model, if need be.

Regarding the "Bob writes a book" example, you seem to have missed the fact that there are other ways to make money than simply selling copies of a manuscript. How about Bob undersells his competitors in price, or offers a better-quality printing? How about he starts out with wider distribution so that many people will run across it before anyone starts reproducing it and selling it independently, thus buying it from him first? How about he sells [b]autographed copies[/b]? How about he sells it along with a membership to something for which he can continue to charge money? If Bob only made $25, he didn't do a very good job of marketing and developing revenue streams.

"Write a book...."

Actually, I'm working on two novels and a nonfiction work on the subject of ethical theory. I expect to publish them under CCD CopyWrite, which doesn't prohibit copying and reselling, or distribution online for free, or much of anything else. All it prohibits is claiming credit for what someone else did. If I don't make money at it, I'll have failed to sell it effectively. That's my fault. Too bad. Maybe you should ask Eric S. Raymond some time how his sales of [u]The Art of Unix Programming[/u] are going, since he's also offering it for free online. Last I checked, you can buy hardcopies (quite good quality) at all the major bookstores in this area. In fact, I'm considering buying a hardcopy myself, precisely because I've already read half of it online and like what I see.

"Create some software"

It's odd that you'd mention that in particular. I do some of that for a living. Let me know if there's a particular type of software you'd like for free, and I'll let you know if I've written anything like that. Mostly, I've written fairly small, specialized stuff, so it's unlikely that you in particular would need any of it, but the possibility exists.

So. You call me a thief, even though I'm not breaking any copyright laws, just because I believe copyright law is unethical. At least I'm just treating you as though you're misguided, rather than calling you a tyrant in need of putting down for arguing in favor of copyright law. I think you've lost perspective.

You must think that the creator of a chair has the right to say nobody's allowed to use it as a footstool, and that the creator of a skateboard has the right to restrict people from using it as a dolly, and that the creator of a coffee can has the right to prohibit people from using it to store nuts and bolts after the coffee is emptied out. They created these things, so (by your argument) they have the right to control how their used and what is done with them, even after they're "sold". Of course, under those circumstances I wouldn't say they've actually been "sold", because being able to control what a person does with an object implies ownership either of the person or the object by the controlling entity.

The gun to my head when I have a CD in my possession for which I paid is held by the government. Copyright law is the trigger, and your finger is on it. The bullet is jail time and/or fines.

I seem to have posted my response in the wrong place. I'm not sure how it happened. I think I was distracted by the fact that I was simultaneously working on a filename mass-editing script.

See the message titled "sheesh" below for details.

AT Eaton the worker on the shop floor can invent a product and with his signoff Engineer share a patent and royalty on the sale of such product. This has led to a hugh reduction in R&D costs and made EVERYONE happy! Eaton no longer needs hugh design and developement centers and the poor guy on the shop floor gets a good stipend for his trouble. Perhaps this should be the future model for all industry!

"While I don't see anything ethically wrong with trading MP3s over P2P networks, I don't do so myself."

I encounter this attitude more and more these days and it just staggers me. Would it be ethically wrong to walk into a music store and swipe a few CDs off the shelf? What's the difference?

I have discussed this on many different fora and I am yet to hear or read a convincing argument as to why it is not wrong to swap MP3s. Most arguments seem to be along the lines of "I want it and I don't want to pay for it, so therefore it is not wrong". Of course, the other classic is the argument that it is only big record companies who miss out and they are evil, anyway. People will go to any length to justify their own self-interest.

I am hot about software and "intellectual property rights." I fully agree, if you buy software, you have no right to loan it to your neighbor to download onto his computer. That's theft. But when you compare software rights to books,it seems to me that if the rules for software applied to books, I could go to the bookstore and buy a book to read while I'm in the living room. But "UH OH" the clerk finds out I might want to read it in my bedroom too. That means I have to buy another copy for that room. I know you can't really have software police to watch everyone and what they do, but one thing I want to make perfectly clear is--if I buy, I own it, and it's no one else's business if I put it on my computer, or every computer in my house. The software people want their cake and eat it too. They're full of hooey. I can't think of a way to protect the software writer's reasonable expectation that his product will be properly treated in the marketplace. Problem is, how do you do it?

What if someone invents something before signing to work with Humongo corporation, what then??

.

.
Without rambling on with more of my own writing, or reading your ramblings, it all boils down to what we might call a "lowest common denominator".

If you purchase your favorite Brittany Spears music CD, and you subsequently make a copy of that CD, either all or in part, to either give or sell or otherwise make available to someone who did not purchase it, then you are a thief, in essence stealing potential revenues from Brittany Spears that she desperately needs in order to feed steak to her dog.

If you do not do that, but you condone, pardon, or make justification for others who might do it, then no, you are not a thief yourself, but you condone and encourage thievery.

If you don't do it, and if you don't think others have the right to do it, then you and I are in agreement, and you are neither a thief or one who condones thievery.

Substitute music CD for: MP3, book, tape, video, or whatever medium you'd like; and substitute music for video, software, or whatever product you'd like, and if it's copyrighted material, the same argument applies.

Therefore, you fall into one of the three categories:

1. You are a thief.

2. You are not a thief, but you condone thievery.

3. You are neither a thief or one who condones thievery.

(I fall into the number 3 category.)

So, apotheon, without trying to justify your position for whatever reason you may have, where do you fall?

And if you try to argue that it isn't thievery, then there you go again, and I rest my case.

You all can say whatever but I know if I spent a lot of hard work trying to make a living coming up with an idea - I wouldn't want anyone stealing it! Some of use don't wan't to be employees and prattle on about socialistic ideas. For people who can't make a living working for others, taking their ideas without paying for it is just stealing in my opinion. PERIOD!

.
It was time to start over.

Surely there are reasonable and unreasonable intellectual property rights:

1. Copyright: you're smart, I'm dumb. You have a great idea, and make a product out of it. I see it, and being too stupid to have the idea myself, I copy your product. You sue for copyright infringement, I have to prove that I haven't seen your work, and didn't copy it. Seems reasonable.

2. Patent: you're smart, I'm smart. You have a great idea, make a product, get a patent. I independently have the same idea, make a different product, but don't patent. You sue for patent infringement, and I have to pay you money. Seems unreasonable.

(Patents are unreasonable. They are a government-granted monopoly right to an idea that anyone might have independently of you, to ensure that you have the time and exclusivity to turn your idea into reality, for the benefit of your country. They weren't too appallingly bad an idea when the country next door was automatically going to ignore you. Nor are they even now too bad an idea in physical industry. They are an abomination in the realm of non-physical products like software or business process, because no matter how innovative your software, you'll write it with the same code editor - you don't have to create an entire industrial process from scratch just to see your idea in action. In addition, where it is possible to knock up a working demo of a possible piece of software in a day, patents simply become a land-grab, where the race is to the biggest legal department. Individual developers like myself virtually never patent, and in theory we are exactly the type of 'inventor' that patents were set up to protect.)

3. Digital Rights: this isn't about copyright at all. Copyright is just the legal weapon. The issue here is criminal fraud. If I copy a Rolex watch, and sell the fake, I've committed a straight-forward crime, which is prosecutable in most jurisdictions. Because Rolex can't dictate what I do with a genuine Rolex watch, they just suck up the losses and pursue the offenders. Because media companies CAN dictate what I do with my digital version of a song/movie, they can offset losses from criminal copying by forcing me to buy two copies. So, that's what they do - criminalise the consumer because they can't stop the criminals. More than unreasonable.

The tangible property issue is why M$ does not sell copies of its software; they sell licenses to use their software. In theory the installation kit is given to you at little or no cost.

My previous post didn't confuse the two types of owners' rights. I was saying that two issues were being discussed under the umbrella of IP rights.

Obviously, over 200 years ago the smartest people of the time thought encouraging authors and inventors by promising to protect their authorship is in the public interest. I do not believe they conceived of complex corporations that employ the equivalent of the population of Philadelphia and have economic power larger than some nations.
They also probably did not envision authors losing their rights through assignment or operation of employment agreements.

Individuals who are smart enough to invent something usually have more altruism at heart than those who operate large multi-national corporations. If you doubt this, are you really all that smart to invent something worthwhile?

So, if inventors were really in charge of their IPR, able to license directly, and were faced with the Hobson choices discussed, they would likely err in favor of saving human life and being compensated some other way or on the back end of the deal. [Those who claim inventors are greedy obviously are not inventors themselves.] A grateful Uganda might make a chemist an honorary citizen or a knight, etc. for example, or might receive a stipend from the national lottery every month. Unfortunately, inventors have no such rights to pressure responsible citizenship.

Microsoft and IBM and Glaxo have been assigned IPR worth billions by their employees, some of whom were laid off. Much of this IPR is traded by the big boys to maintain market share, without so much as a nod to the real inventors. Somehow, I do not think the framers of the Constitution intended that.

And you can find out all the compositions in the human body with a gas chromatograph. Unfortunately, you can't build a human from that information solely.

The same problem applies to many chemical compositions and inventions. How they turned the proteins into aspartame is a complex process. How they got the 3.2% flourine form a Teflon coating on the steel frying pan is the whole (patentable) trick. So, knowing the percentage compositions does not help you except in rare circumstances.

Maybe you mean there shouldn't be any secrets, not there can be no secrets. Many people are discusssing the shoulds.

I've been reading your posts, apotheon, and trying to figure out exactly where I disagree with you. I think it lies in the question of whether intellectual property rights may be bad as such, as distinct from being bad when applied too broadly. There are clear cases where intellectual property can be extended to the point where someone is collecting a check for having made essentially no contribution at all. However, you can turn the case another way and see a definite contribution for which the hard-working originator cannot expect any proportional compensation. Under those circumstances, things may happen which we may reasonably call unjust.

I would be curious to know what you think of the following situation. Suppose that you have been contracted to create a report on a certain expert subject for a certain company. Someone breaks into your computer, copies the report, and then sells it to a different company. Is there no sense, in your view, in which that party is guilty of stealing? They are clearly guilty of trespassing, but you would not get compensated for the proportional value of the report because of that.

Let me mention some things that I already understand about what you might say. First, this is not a total loss for you. You are still under contract with the original buyer, so you will not lose any income that you expected from that contract. Second, you are not deprived of the report, so you may still do with it as you see fit. It is not "stolen" in the sense that it has been wrested from you. Third, you are not particularly concerned about any revenue you might have received from selling the report to anyone other than the original buyer, because you programmed all expected income into the contract price. You knew that once you handed it over to the buyer, you could not have any certain expectation of additional sales. Let us imagine, for the sake of argument, that this report is not a mere compilation of facts that could have been assembled by anyone, but an analysis of data that is truly original and unique.

Suppose that the intruder turns around and sells your report to ten other companies for the same as your contract price, realizing ten times the compensation you realized. Suppose further that only after doing so did it become known that the report was widely available, so that neither of you can expect to receive anything else in exchange for the report.

I anticipate that you would say that you have not suffered any real damage from the trespass. You have, after all, what you contracted for. But can we call the profit of the intruder licit gains? Shall we say that his selling of your report was no more than disposing of something he had every right to dispose of, since it was a work of ideas? Or shall we say that he unjustly appropriated your original work and that any compensation he received from any company justly belongs to you, whether or not you choose to claim it?

This may strike you as an academic point. But you mentioned that intellectual property rights, in themselves, are not about the recognition of work, and this case is illustrative of why I disagree.

probably where the software is, which is probably
where the developers are. i dont put much stock
in the wrong end of a patent.

Mathematics is not patentable, but a processor to implement a particular mathematical formula may be, e.g. elliptic curve. Principles are not patentable, but discoveries are.

35 U.S.C.100 Definitions.
When used in this title unless the context otherwise indicates -
(a)The term ?invention? means invention or discovery.
(b)The term ?process ? means process, art, or method, and includes a new use of a known process, machine, manufacture, composition of matter, or material.
35 U.S.C.101 Inventions patentable.
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.

Brains to see that penicillin is antibiotic is not about brains, but about discovery. Sharing the discovery via letters patent would have protected it. A method to manufacture penicillin would be and so on. Just because penicillin can exist in nature does not preclude its discovery from being patented. It is for the common good that that discovery be made public ("patent").

The purpose of patents is being served when there are more inventors and suffering is reduced and the common good served. But we are a long way from Utopia where we need no incentive to improve our lot. Inventors and authors should be encouraged more until there is no reason for further improvement.

Obviousness is covered in patent law to prevent granting monopolies on obvious extensions of known art. Some of the arguments in this forum are really about whether something is obvious. Oddly, what's obvious in retrospect is not so a priori. Else, if it had been obvious, why was it not adopted before?

Interesting point that by not protecting databases for example that we as society would benefit from the proliferation of variants all copied from the original.

Why would not the same benefits inure to society by allowing authors to rewrite Stephen King's books, one with a twist at the end, one with a twist in the middle, one with both, and so on? Wouldn't we "benefit" from such plagiarism? Why is it good for software and bad for text?

Copyrighting something does not get it adopted by users. Both patents and copyrights offer the exact same type of protection with differences in the protection periods, the method for filing and the means to enforce the license. Yes, the FBI investigates charges of copyright violation and no one does the same for patent infringement.

Copyrights last life of author plus 75 years. Patents last 20 years from filing. Filing for copyright is just sending the document to Washington. Filing for a patent requires an expert, costs 100 times as much, and takes years to be approved. Enforcement of a copyright is as simple as calling the FBI. Enforcement of a patent requires a lawyer and lots of bucks. Which of these processes sounds like it does what you want?

A hundred years ago storing binary information in Babbage-like machines would have been truly revolutionary and worthy of a patent. Today in retrospect by several generations, it seems 'obvious' based on what we know now. Each generation builds on the accomplishments of the previous ones - that's progress.

I expect to have to pay for a bag of chips in a shop. The shopowner expects me to pay for it prior to eating it and before I leave the shop.

King expects to be compensated when he offers his story for public consumption. So, if I leave the shop without paying the owner, I 'expect' to get arrested for theft. When King hands over his story to the publisher, he expects to be compensated for its publication. Yes, just as much as the shopowner has a right to be paid for his inventory, King has a right to be paid for his work.

Whether it is ridiculously priced or not is irrelevant, too. The shopowner can charge 100 bucks for the bag of chips, and I just walk out. King can set the price for his story at whatever price he wants for his work. If no one buys his work, that's fine. But stealing is still stealing, whether it is tangible or intangible property.

When ships docked in Shanghai 150 years ago, they paid for rope lying on the pier. When that ship left, the dockworkers sold the old rope again to another ship and another and so on. Selling something that's already paid for is commonplace.

Following your logic, once a story has been purchased a certain number of times, no more money should be charged for it and none earned by the author. So, who determines when the story is paid for? If you like King's stories, then do you want him to spend all his available time writing them? If so, then you can't draw a cap on his earnings, any more than you can draw a floor and say that we must pay him for a story we don't like.

Market competition allows us to choose between Clancy and King and a myriad other authors. Being able to steal their work for free will not provide the incentive to write books. Controlling market forces like demand and profit has been attempted numerous times by various socialist forms of government. The result - mediocrity.

Most authors don't have the reputation of Stephen King and wouldn't receive an advance. Promoting competition among authors could not work if authors were limited to an advance fee and new authors got nothing. That leads to no new authors. Maybe that's an intended result?

The simple answer is YES, it should exist and needs to exist.
Intellectual property is a way to protect an individuals or organizations / companies investment, whether this investment comes from a financial or time perspective.

No one wants to invest enormous amounts of money (usually applying to an organization or company) or stacks of time (usually applied against an individual) without enjoying a window of opportunity to reap the benefits.
Remember the old saying ?time is money?.

It is evident that over a period of time, the intellectual properties applied to concepts, music etc etc etc are eventually emulated or reversed engineered and then re-released under a different name or at times even improved upon for someone else to start the whole cycle off once again.

We're dead.

He is often quoted for his supply-side economics, though. In the long run it may be ok to swipe a few CDs from a shop owner or just borrow them, rip and burn them. Enough paying customers may be around to support the shop.

When there aren't enough paying customers, though, wouldn't you feel guilty knowing that the shop's demise could have been averted by your honesty? Imagine your best friend worked there and lost her job when the shop folded. Would her lack of income be your fault, at least in part?

Finally, your favorite band does not earn enough from their disc sales so they leave the country to perform live overseas. During their travels one of the band dies in a traffic accident. Now the band is destroyed. Is the demise of your favorite band, at least in part, your fault? Is there any blame due to the old napster mentality?

"If I can download it, it's free!" I suppose your friend can copy your homework free, too. You do the work, he copies it. Hey, it's just bits. Imagine he doesn't even tell you and after school's out you find out. Frustrating, especially if his grades were better overall and he got into some Ivy League school.