Intellectual Property

[Theli]

What can we own?
Is there any philosophical rationale to draw a line between what we can and cannot own?
And what constitutes theft?
What I am reffering to is copyright laws and the artist's or the inventor's alleged sole right to their creation.

If any Moderator consider this thread to be misplaced or find my username being on the indexpage of his/her forum appaling, I apologize.

[Jet Grind]

I think this most likely belongs in either politics or MF&P, but I'll respond none the less.

If you come from a libertarian stand point, then you will be hard pressed to defend intellectual properties from a moral standpoint. It is generally accepted that you transfer property rights to something once you sell them to someone else. Anything else is a violation of libertarian principles.

Comming from a pragmatic standpoint, you have to bring up the point that they often lead to systematic abuses by those who carry them.

I have not yet drawn a conclusion on intellectual properties, it's a complex issue that can't be deduced by simple moral axioms.

[variant 13]

Definitely a toughie this coz on the one-hand you could get no control where ideas are not protected and bullies get everything.

On the other-hand too much protection and someone gets to keep something all to themselves at the detriment of society (Say drug research).

no idea how to handle it though.

[Theli]

It's sort of a dilemma, I know. I mean, we can agree on that we cannot own or copyright sentences... like this one for instance.
Can anything abstract be owned?

Sure, I could clame authorship of my own ideas to a degree, but can I own them?

[variant 13]

What about things like "Shock and awe" and "fair and balanced" (think that what it is).

But parts of a sentence and both have been copyrighted.

I have always found it amazing that they have got away with it.

[Ms. Siv]

Considering that knowledge is probably the only possible non-zero-sum thing going around, intellectual property does seem like a misnomer.

However, with the formalization of capitalism and the profit motive (which was not alien to human nature but very much an integral part of it) ... even knowledge is not freely accesible.

Anyone who has invested any considerable time and money in perfecting an algorithm (formula for an invention, be it a machine or a piece of code or a process) owns it .... and others cannot use it unless it benefits this person in some way. You're not actually paying for the piece of knowledge but for the investment which went into it ... which you did not put it (maybe because of a lack of inclination or opportunity or sufficient funds or whatever). Therefore, to use the product of someone else's investment, you pay something.

[contracycle]

Originally posted by Ms. Siv
Anyone who has invested any considerable time and money in perfecting an algorithm (formula for an invention, be it a machine or a piece of code or a process) owns it .... and others cannot use it unless it benefits this person in some way. You're not actually paying for the piece of knowledge but for the investment which went into it ... which you did not put it (maybe because of a lack of inclination or opportunity or sufficient funds or whatever). Therefore, to [b]use the product of someone else's investment, you pay something.

Too much presumption for my taste - you fail to address the most contentious issue. WHY should it be that OWNERSHIP is the appropriate method for rewarding the initial investment? This is NOT a challenge to the need to remunerate that investment, but why the mechanism for that reward has to be property rights has not been discussed, and the claim remains unproven.

[variant 13]

Originally posted by Ms. Siv
Anyone who has invested any considerable time and money in perfecting an algorithm (formula for an invention, be it a machine or a piece of code or a process) owns it .... and others cannot use it unless it benefits this person in some way. You're not actually paying for the piece of knowledge but for the investment which went into it ... which you did not put it (maybe because of a lack of inclination or opportunity or sufficient funds or whatever). Therefore, to use the product of someone else's investment, you pay something.

But if two people are developing the same thing of different sides of the world (or across the road from each other) and one finishes the product a month or two before the other then they are deemed to the intellectual property rights.

The other person who has put in just as much time gets bugger all. Or am I wrong????

[Theli]

Yes, I think there's a big problem in claiming ownership of something abstract. Weither this is an invention, music on the internet or just an idea it is most probably composed by a range of other inventions/songs/ideas already existing, so what do you own?
If I were to develop a wrist-watch with an internal GPS navigation system (assuming it hasn't been invented yet, though I bet it has), how much of that idea or design do I actually own? It's just a continuation of already existing ideas, just like most other abstract 'things' people tend to claim ownership of.

[ex-xian]

<posts regarding OBJECTIVE: Landover Baptist Shutdown (http://objective.jesussave.us/shutdown.html) website have been moved to here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=71863).>

[jpbrooks]

I have recently been exploring the possibility of moving from a ("mainstream") Libertarian stance to a "GeoLibertarian" (http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/tma68/geo-faq.htm) one on political issues. So, I am becoming more open-minded regarding criticisms of arguments put forth by Libertarians concerning private property. But I'm still not ready to embrace Socialism as a political view.

The "roots" of the idea of intellectual property are at least as old as the printing press (http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:l80Bw9tpA54J:home.utm.utoronto.ca/~nkourtis/Good%2520copy%25202.doc+importance+of+intellectual+property+rights&hl=en&ie=UTF-8). The idea arose because (as it has already been alluded to) authors wanted to be compensated for their labor. A system of "rights" to govern activities that involve such property seems unavoidable.
But in the absence of an economic system that supports the concept of intellectual property, what comparable alternative system could authors rely on to guarantee compensation for their work related activities? Without intellectual property, there could be no intellectual property owners, and consequently, no intellectual property theft. But there would also be no reliable way of providing economic incentives for the production of information, ideas, knowledge, etc..

[vodkatini]

Originally posted by contracycle
WHY should it be that OWNERSHIP is the appropriate method for rewarding the initial investment? This is NOT a challenge to the need to remunerate that investment, but why the mechanism for that reward has to be property rights has not been discussed, and the claim remains unproven.

ownership here implies law protection. can you suggest a better method than that ???

[MysteryProf]

vodkatini is right: ownership does imply protection under the law. Also, by leaving ownership in the hands of an invention's (or whatever else's) creator, that creator's reward remains under his or her direct control.

It's standard capitalism -- unless someone is able to milk his/her inventions (possessions) for all they're worth, no one is going to make the investment required to innovate. If the "reward" is not ownership, and thus profit from ownership, what else could it reasonably be and who would choose? If, say, the government was to decide upon adequate payment, an inventor might be severely shortchanged.

As for theft, I'd say that in the case of a song, for example, theft would consist of taking credit for and/or profiting from said music without the consent of its creator.

As for building on previous inventions, patents/copyrights are based on specific models and designs of products. That's why you can choose between Pepsi, Coca-Cola and the generic brand when you go to the grocery store. The drinks follow the same concept, but are not the exact same thing. A good example of concurrent discovery would be Newton's and Leibniz' near-simultaneous, independent discoveries of Calculus. Their notations, etc. show differences that, beyond reasonable doubt, reveal their developments were entirely their own, proving both mathematicians deserving of credit.

That's what I think, anyway. :)

~MysteryProf

[fishbulb]

Originally posted by MysteryProf
It's standard capitalism -- unless someone is able to milk his/her inventions (possessions) for all they're worth, no one is going to make the investment required to innovate. If the "reward" is not ownership, and thus profit from ownership, what else could it reasonably be and who would choose? If, say, the government was to decide upon adequate payment, an inventor might be severely shortchanged.

Copyrights and patents are grants of monopoly powers by the state to an individual. State-granted monopolies are actually rather contrary to the basic tenets of free market capitalism. Intellectual property is about control moreso than financial reward; if the intent were to provide an artist or inventor with a reward for his or her efforts, it could just as easily be done by having the state disburse invention fees or prizes or by a scheme of compulsory licensing (where anyone could make and sell copies of a work or invention and would pay a set fee to the creator for each unit sold). Artists and inventors could also work directly for states, organizations, or individuals on a salaried or contract basis, just like Shakespeare, Mozart and Bach all did and just as the vast majority of artists and inventors still do today. In all of these cases, the creator would still receive financial compensation for her work, but the fruits of that labour could be free for everyone to use and build upon. With a copyright or patent, the creator of a work has the right not just to collect payment in exchange for permitting the creation of a copy copyright or the implementation of a patented process, but to deny anyone, for any reason, the right to use or reproduce a work or process.

In the American tradition, intellectual property laws were not created to ensure that creators were properly rewarded but rather as a compromise measure: essentially, limited term copyrights and patents were supposed to provide an incentive -- a bribe, effectively -- to encourage artists and inventors to create and publish. In return for granting creators a limited-term monopoly on their works and inventions, society would ultimately benefit from a rich public domain from which it could draw and build apon, once the term of copyright or patent expired. This notion has become perverted somewhat: while patents are still limited in scope, copyright is effectively an indefinite grant of right. The term of copyright in the U.S. has been extended -- often retroactively to pre-existing works created by people now dead -- from its original term of 14 years to what generally ends up being at least a century. Nothing has entered the public domain (apart from works freely placed there) since about 1926 or so. This is now the case in most G7 and EU countries as well, I believe.

As for theft, I'd say that in the case of a song, for example, theft would consist of taking credit for and/or profiting from said music without the consent of its creator.

Taking credit for someone else's work is generally called plagiarism. Profiting from someone else's work happens all the time and society cannot effectively function without it: everyone who makes money relies on leveraging the ideas, efforts, and work of others and in almost no cases are those responsible for the original work (or their heirs in the case of people long dead) compensated or consulted. There is no principle in any legal or economic system I know of that holds that someone should not be allowed to profit from work done by someone else.

There is the specific situation where someone invests a great deal of effort in, say, writing a book and then someone else, say a large printing house, simply prints cheap copies of that book and is able to undercut the author because they don't have to recoup the actual costs of writing the book. This is part of what copyright and patent grants were supposed to prevent, but the current state of affairs grant much broader rights and powers to copyright and patent holders and, more often than not, serve to slant the field in favour of big players instead of levelling it.

As for building on previous inventions, patents/copyrights are based on specific models and designs of products. That's why you can choose between Pepsi, Coca-Cola and the generic brand when you go to the grocery store. The drinks follow the same concept, but are not the exact same thing.

If Coca-cola had patented its formula, the patent would have run out about a century ago and colas with identical formulae would have been marketed since then. To get a patent, you have to publish your formula, and I don't believe that a recipe can be patented anyway. Coca-cola relies on a trade secret: it doesn't publish the formula for its product and nobody has been able to duplicate it. If someone were able to reverse-engineer the formula for Coca-cola, they would be able to sell the same formula as well. But they still wouldn't do as well because the real reason Coca-cola sells well is their relentless saturation advertising. In the 1980s, Coca-cola consistently lost to Pepsi in blind taste tests -- that's why they switched to New Coke for that fateful two weeks in 1986 or whenever that fiasco was -- and they also lose in blind taste tests to alternative brands too, but they still outsell Pepsi something like 2:1, and have virtually elminated any other competition. Coca-cola relies on the third form of intellectual property: trade marks. Coke is not so much a product but rather a brand. The most important thing that Coke has for it is not a secret formula or a lot of bottling plants but a globally-recognized name and logo associated with soft drinks, and an advertising and marketing department to exploit it.

[MysteryProf]

In the American tradition, intellectual property laws were not created to ensure that creators were properly rewarded but rather as a compromise measure: essentially, limited term copyrights and patents were supposed to provide an incentive -- a bribe, effectively -- to encourage artists and inventors to create and publish.

Exactly -- but without the reward, or, for you, the "bribe," you don't encourage prolific creation and publishing. And control can lead to more than a set "prize." Economic stimulus is the point of the reward, which is maximized in many cases through control. Those rewards aren't purposes in themselves.

There is the specific situation where someone invests a great deal of effort in, say, writing a book and then someone else, say a large printing house, simply prints cheap copies of that book and is able to undercut the author because they don't have to recoup the actual costs of writing the book.

Yes, but that's a result of consent. In order for the publishing house to print the book, the author had to have consented to it, so the author is therefore responsible for the consequences. It's the same thing as developing a product -- you get paid to develop the product for the company. You've already signed away your ownership of whatever you create by entering into a contract with them. In my post, I meant to deal with ownership outside of contractual obligations.


Taking credit for someone else's work is generally called plagiarism.

Yes, and plagiarism is theft. That's what citation is for, even though it can be a pain. :)

There is no principle in any legal or economic system I know of that holds that someone should not be allowed to profit from work done by someone else.

No, there isn't. But this thread is about property, not work completed. For example, in China there is a huge problem with circulation of bootlegs like CDs. Cheap copies of music (protected from this kind of theft in other places) are manufactured without permission from the musician. Profits from that musician's work go to the bootleggers. Other nations hold that the bootleggers should not be allowed to profit by music created by someone else.

Confusion seems to have arisen over my use of patents and copyrights in an attempt to refer not to their specific terms, but to general government protection of property. My apologies for poor use of terminology.

~MysteryProf

[Adora]

Nothing. You cannot control creations. You can influence them, but to control them is like trying to control a child. It is detremental to yourself and it is detremental to the creation. Let it go into the world and grow and influence people in different ways I say. Intellectual property laws are designed for the capital issues, it has nothing to do with noble sentiments of creations and ownership. Simply money.

(In other words, JK Rowling is a douche bag. Number one rule of happy fandom relations: Don't piss off Slashers. It will hurt you badly.)

[variant 13]

Originally posted by Adora
(In other words, JK Rowling is a douche bag. Number one rule of happy fandom relations: Don't piss off Slashers. It will hurt you badly.)

While I agree with the sentiment I don't understand the reference. ???

[fishbulb]

Originally posted by MysteryProf
Exactly -- but without the reward, or, for you, the "bribe," you don't encourage prolific creation and publishing.

That is one hypothesis, but it is far from airtight. The notion that only copyright and patents can encourage people to publish doesn't seem to be able to account for the works of Bach, Shakespeare, Mozart, Brahms, Milton, etc., nor does it seem to satisfactorily account for the vast quantity of open source software being produced or the work deliberately placed in the public domain. While it is certain that the absolute quantity of work produced under copyright and patent protection is greater than it was without these laws, it is far from clear that it is because of patent and copyright law, and it is also far from clear that there is actually more original, high-quality work (particularly in the arts) than there once was. Then again, maybe Survivor 3, Bad Boys 2, and Police Academy 9 were just what the world was waiting for.


Yes, but that's a result of consent. In order for the publishing house to print the book, the author had to have consented to it, so the author is therefore responsible for the consequences. It's the same thing as developing a product -- you get paid to develop the product for the company. You've already signed away your ownership of whatever you create by entering into a contract with them. In my post, I meant to deal with ownership outside of contractual obligations.

This is what things look like under a regime of intellectual property laws. Without such laws, anyone would be free to print/press/produce works published by anyone. Restricting who can produce the work of others can potentially encourage people to produce works they otherwise would not, but it also creates monopoly situations which allows if not encourages a number of troubling practices such as abusive pricing and censorship.

Yes, and plagiarism is theft. That's what citation is for, even though it can be a pain.

I would be careful about making that assertion; the word "theft" is a loaded term that is often used in a misleading way when it comes to intellectual property. Record companies, for example, would have us believe that copying music (and they generally don't even distinguish among copying copyrighted music without the copyright holder's consent, copying copyrighted music with the copyright holder's consent, and copying public domain music -- they want to paint all of it with the same brush) is no different than stealing a CD from a music store. (Or, when they are really in the mood for exaggerating, they liken it to stealing cars from a dealer's lot.) "Theft is theft" is one of the mottoes being bandied about, except that copyright infringement isn't theft -- unlike stealing a CD, you don't actually take anything when you make a copy. If you steal a CD, that disc has to be replaced and there is a cost involved in that. There is no such loss borne by someone when you make a copy, at your own expense, of a copyrighted work. That's why you cannot be convicted of theft for making an infringing copy of something. You can be sued for copyright infringement and, under some circumstances, convicted of criminal copyright infringement.

Likewise, when you plagiarise a work, you do not actually take away anyone's property. You might, in some cases, deny the real creator due credit, recognition, and other benefits, but you don't actually commit theft in the ordinary sense of the word. You might be guilty of some offense related to fraud or impersonation -- but only under certain circumstances. If, for example, all you do is pass off someone else's thesis as your own in order to get a better grade on an undergraduate paper, you haven't really done any damage to the original author, and I doubt you would be guilty of any offence apart from academic dishonesty. If, on the other hand, you attempt to convince the world that you are some famous author who operates under an assumed pen name, you might be guilty of impersionation or fraud, but not theft.

[Adora]

Originally posted by Jmebob
While I agree with the sentiment I don't understand the reference. ???

JK Rowling put her foot down when her books took off, because she was disturbed by the amount of Slash being written. And thanks to the paedophillia scare taking Western culture at present, the threat of the law got behind her. HP Sections at sites such as Fanfiction.net were affected, as well as some of the biggest HP sites online. And accordingly, there were anti-Rowling movements that popped up and she lost a substantial part of her hardcore readership. Some of them even had members who posted entire books online so that fans could still read them, but not give her money.

You don't piss off fans. It's stupid. Plain old stupid. And don't even get me started about WB relationships with movie-fansites. I mean, if there was a single person with a brain in the management of that franchise I would be surprised.

[vodkatini]

Originally posted by Adora
Intellectual property laws are designed for the capital issues, it has nothing to do with noble sentiments of creations and ownership. Simply money.

noble sentiments are not the only motive for creation. money does matter in this case. people like artiststs and writers also have family. they need house, food, cloth....ba ba ba. without protection, the incentive to creat must go down.

[Adora]

You mean like "Won't someone think of the children"? Ahh bite me. Is it and artists kids fault that art is devalued in modern Western society because of the abuse and exploitation of visual and audio manipulation for the capital gains of greedy wankers? No.

[vodkatini]

without money, noble sentiments is not enough to guaratee good works and people are even hard to be noble. that's what i mean.

[Theli]

Is it obvious that using the current system, artistic vision and genuity takes a backseat to profit and exploitation?
And can such a system be inforcable or even practical in the future?
Does capitalism and intellectual property harnest our artistic abilities or do they grow stale because of it?

Your thoughts...

BTW, thanks for sharing your thoughts on the matter, I'm sorry I couldn't attend the thread myself (computer problems).

[vodkatini]

such kind of protection certainly provide a strong incentive for them to show their genius. for example less time they need to spend on doing other things for earning their living.

like any system, it's not perfect. for example the advance in computer obviously has made the demand for cd go down. but without such protection, things may go even worse. the enforcement of laws often costs so much. think about why we need policemen, lawyers, and army. all of them are costly events.

"Does capitalism and intellectual property harnest our artistic abilities or do they grow stale because of it?"

yes that's possible so we must balance it well - we should not have no restriction and too much of it is also not a good idea.

[contracycle]

Originally posted by jpbrooks

The "roots" of the idea of intellectual property are at least as old as the printing press (http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:l80Bw9tpA54J:home.utm.utoronto.ca/~nkourtis/Good%2520copy%25202.doc+importance+of+intellectual+property+rights&hl=en&ie=UTF-8).

I consider this article to be almost wholly erroneous. Its opening "discussion" of the origin of "IP" is really just a set of assertions without any support. Lets take a closer look.

A writer does not have IP rights in most senses in which the term is used. The writer has COPYRIGHT, that is, they can detemrine how and where their original material is [/b]reproduced[b]. It is not, in fact, a reward for the creation of the original material - that is a risk the author took like any investor.

However: the publisher is looking to sell a real material product, a book. It is the book the customer pays for. The data in the book is the MOTIVE for the purchase, it is not the SUBJECT of the purchase. Copyright ensures that publishers must return a portion of the earnings to the author in exchange for the right to print copies of their material.

Now lets examine the Peer to Peer "problem" delineated by the article. Where is this problem? As the article states, the cost of DISTRIBUTION of the original material is virtually nil. And seeing as the distribution can occur directly from the artist to the buyer, the role of the record company as mechanism has been eliminated. The "debate" about IP and P2P is really an argument for price protection by an industry made redundant by technology. Its a bit like the English aristos who built mills and passed a law ordering all stone querns in private use to be destroyed so that flour could only be ground at their mills, from which they profitted.

Thus I re-pose my original question. We already have established and functional laws regarding COPYRIGHT. why should intellectual PROPERTY therfore be constructed as a new principle? Seeing as we already have a mechanism by which artists are rewarded for their art, and the producers of media are rewarded for their production of media, why do we need a new ideological layer proposing "intellectual property"?

[Theli]

Originally posted by vodkatini
yes that's possible so we must balance it well - we should not have no restriction and too much of it is also not a good idea.
My concern here is that I don't see that our current system, in the way it is forming, promotes the kind of ingenuity that would help our society and bring about new ideas, but rather promotes exploitation of it's faults.

Perhaps this thread belongs in the political forum.

[vodkatini]

But is there a system that guaratees ingenuity ?? generally speaking, people don't pay for sth that gives nothing helpful. but exception exists so a better soluation is possible. any suggestion ?? :)

[Theli]

Originally posted by vodkatini
But is there a system that guaratees ingenuity ?? generally speaking, people don't pay for sth that gives nothing helpful.
I will have to ask you prove that, as I've observed quite the opposite. People tend to buy anything they have been told will calm their fears or help them persue their ambitions. Weither it works or not seems to be irrelavent.
This system promotes exploitation but not enginuity.

[Jack Kamm]

Well, I'm not sure if patents are sometimes justified, but I think in the case of pharmaceutical drugs they are a bad idea and part of the reason why pharmaceutical drugs cost so much. I think it would be better for the state to subcontract researchers to develop drugs and put the patents in the public domain (we already give money to corporations to research drugs, it's just that they get to keep the patent and the monopoly).

Whether state-sponsored research and innovation in other fields is a good idea, I'm not sure. Or are there other systems by which innovation can be rewarded?

[jpbrooks]

Sorry about not checking the IIDB from time to time for replies to my comments.

Originally posted by contracycle
I consider this article to be almost wholly erroneous. Its opening "discussion" of the origin of "IP" is really just a set of assertions without any support. Lets take a closer look.



Ok.



A writer does not have IP rights in most senses in which the term is used. The writer has COPYRIGHT, ...



While I won't defend every idea presented in the article, I'm not certain that the writer of that article is arguing that an additional separate category of rights ought to be added to our existing copyright laws. In fact he states in the first paragraph that IP rights include copyright, patent rights, etc.. It is not clear how IP rights other than copyrights would apply to written works in particular.



... that is, they can detemrine how and where their original material is reproduced. It is not, in fact, a reward for the creation of the original material - that is a risk the author took like any investor.



But the right to determine how and where original material is reproduced, by placing a restriction on the distribution of the material, (while not itself a reward) is what enables the material to be "marketed" to "consumers".



However: the publisher is looking to sell a real material product, a book. It is the book the customer pays for. The data in the book is the MOTIVE for the purchase, it is not the SUBJECT of the purchase. Copyright ensures that publishers must return a portion of the earnings to the author in exchange for the right to print copies of their material.




I'm not sure why the data itself cannot be viewed as both the motive and the subject of the purchase.
It is the restricted access to the data that allows the publishers and author to earn money from the production of the data. Without some means of restricting access to the written material, how could the material ever acquire market value?



Now lets examine the Peer to Peer "problem" delineated by the article. Where is this problem? As the article states, the cost of DISTRIBUTION of the original material is virtually nil. And seeing as the distribution can occur directly from the artist to the buyer, the role of the record company as mechanism has been eliminated. The "debate" about IP and P2P is really an argument for price protection by an industry made redundant by technology. Its a bit like the English aristos who built mills and passed a law ordering all stone querns in private use to be destroyed so that flour could only be ground at their mills, from which they profitted.



I'm willing to grant that your stone mills analogy has some merit. The rightness of the act of destroying the mills in private use is questionable. But what about depriving writers of the means to receive earnings from their creations, by destroying the ability of their products to be marketed? Why should writers be made to suffer just because some other individuals believe that it is wrong for there to be a market for their products on a new medium of information exchange brought about by advances in technology?



Thus I re-pose my original question. We already have established and functional laws regarding COPYRIGHT. why should intellectual PROPERTY therfore be constructed as a new principle? Seeing as we already have a mechanism by which artists are rewarded for their art, and the producers of media are rewarded for their production of media, why do we need a new ideological layer proposing "intellectual property"?

Again, perhaps I am misreading the article, but I don't see the writer as arguing for a new "layer" of rights.