Time to come out against most "Intellectual Property"
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| phsolide Oct 20, 2009 7:37 PM EDT |
It seems to me that now is the time to come out against the monopolies that go by the name "Intellectual Property". Coming out in favor of FLOSS/FOSS whatever seems like a side issue to the innovation tax that long-term, poorly-researched and vague patents impose, and the stifling effect of the draconian copyrights the USA now has. If we want to pull out of an economic slump, and we want to increase general economic activity by innovation, we need to remove hindrances. Long, rigidly enforced, and liberally interpreted copyrights and patents only hinder anything new. And I mean anything. Try not to copy something copyrighted tomorrow. You won't be able to do it, unless you don't turn on your computer. |
| caitlyn Oct 20, 2009 8:59 PM EDT |
I don't believe for half a second that IP == monopoly. I support the concept of intellectual property and I believe copyright laws are essential. I do not want to throw out the baby with the bathwater. I'll leave it there to avoid a TOS violation. |
| flufferbeer Oct 20, 2009 10:20 PM EDT |
@phsolide
You're right on.
Remember too, that Obama has a legal background and may even be ABLE to discern (if he wanted to) the legal and monopolistic shenanigans carried out by U.S. Corporate interests.
I strongly doubt he'd realistically do anything to either recognize FOSS or remove the innovation tax THIS TERM, though, since he's already too distracted with other more important matters. Even with all this said, I wonder what'd it be like if Obama could ever meet RMS in person to discuss some of this stuff. Think this could ever happen?? (Me neither!) 2c |
| hkwint Oct 21, 2009 2:09 AM EDT |
Money flows from the IP-industry to the political parties, but I'm afraid discussing that issue would quickly lead to a political discussion, instead one that discusses IP in relation to Free Software. |
| henke54 Oct 21, 2009 6:15 AM EDT |
>Money flows from the IP-industry to the political parties, but I'm afraid discussing that issue would quickly lead to a political discussion, instead one that discusses IP in relation to Free Software. Hans,take a look at my post on the dutch/flemish ubuntu forum : http://forum.ubuntu-nl.org/offtopic/'apenland'-belgie/ |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 21, 2009 1:02 PM EDT |
> I don't believe for half a second that IP == monopoly. Then what do you call a legal grant of sole use? The rest of the world calls it a "monopoly". Here's an excellent text on the matter, "Against Intellectual Monopoly" http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/against.htm |
| bigg Oct 21, 2009 1:21 PM EDT |
> Then what do you call a legal grant of sole use? That's what I was thinking. The whole point of IP laws is to grant monopolies. |
| hkwint Oct 21, 2009 1:47 PM EDT |
Oh no, not again please. We've had this whole discussion before several times, and while it really was interesting, educating (at least to me) and entertaining before the thread was deleted, I think there's not much to add. Maybe it would just suffice to tell people to read on at Mises if they want to know your point of view, just to be sure this thread will not suffer the same fate. |
| number6x Oct 21, 2009 2:02 PM EDT |
Monopoly is a very fun game. They even have specialized versions now like a star trek version, wizard of oz version. It is kind of like some distros in Linux. Maybe we should have a Linux themed version of Monopoly. The sarcasm would be very spot on. |
| bigg Oct 21, 2009 2:03 PM EDT |
@Hans This one's a little different. phsolide (as I read it) said IP leads to monopoly. Caitlyn made a (not entirely clear) comment that IP is different from monopoly. I think it's quite relevant to the article. Also, I agreed with Bob, and you'd have to look for a long time at mises.org to find my point of view on anything. Whether IP is bad as a general matter would be off-topic. |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 21, 2009 2:40 PM EDT |
Please, HK, where did I link to Mises.org? Maybe you're jumping the gun a bit. |
| phsolide Oct 21, 2009 3:03 PM EDT |
I said that some monopolies go by the name of "Intellectual Property". This is a matter of fact. I did not say that "IP leads to monopoly". That's contrary to fact. The IP is the monopoly. And I do think that legal issues with free/libre/open source have a lot to do with what goes by the name of "Intellectual Property" these days. Consider the interaction with any media format that has "DRM" on it. Does anybody else remember the "CPRM" IDE kerfuffle? http://www.theregister.co.uk/2000/12/20/stealth_plan_puts_co... http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/04/02/son_of_cprm_fails_at... That sort of thing would have put an end to all open source operating systems. |
| bigg Oct 21, 2009 3:11 PM EDT |
> I did not say that "IP leads to monopoly". That's contrary to fact. The IP is the monopoly. I don't understand the distinction, but fine. |
| caitlyn Oct 21, 2009 3:29 PM EDT |
Intellectual Property is a much wider concept than what applies to FOSS. For example, the copyright a musician holds to their compositions is a form of IP, one I wholeheartedly support. For that matter, I am not opposed to IP as it relates to software either. I started my career as a proprietary software developer. I knew my company was going to own and sell my work. They paid for the development process and they should own it. How to license and distribute it is a choice they made. They chose proprietary for an obvious reason: it was highly specialized software of interest only to a very small market, specifically companies in the same line of business. There never would have been a large user base if it had been Open Source. My problem with banning IP is that it removes the ownership of the creation from the creator. To go open or closed it a choice that should be left to the creator of the work, not mandated by law. |
| jdixon Oct 21, 2009 3:36 PM EDT |
> Maybe it would just suffice to tell people to read on at Mises... Actually, linking to mises is what got one of the threads killed. Some folks objected to it, arguing that it was a politically linked site. |
| bigg Oct 21, 2009 3:37 PM EDT |
@caitlyn I don't think anyone is arguing with you (whether or not they agree with you). That doesn't change the fact that if you the copyright on your software, you have been awarded a monopoly on the distribution of your software. |
| hkwint Oct 21, 2009 3:51 PM EDT |
The problem is that people like us talk about IP in first place. The ones who invented that term want us to feel the same about the current patent system and how it works out, and copyright and trademarks. But they're just different. You can favour one while rejecting the other. That's why Caitlyn (and others) can't tell if she's pro- or anti-IP. The people who invented the IP would like to see 'You're with IP or you're against IP". Bob: Suffice to say I'm sorry, but I just had visions. And those visions didn't come 'by coincidence' out of /dev/random. Bigg; actually I was referring to the discussion I almost started with Bob when referring to Mises. To be honest, I did enjoy reading that site, but sadly I can't point out how their theory is flawed because they have no forums. So I understand it's tempting to use LXer forums instead, and that also goes for myself. |
| caitlyn Oct 21, 2009 4:23 PM EDT |
Hans, I am pro-IP. I am very clear on that and not confused at all. I am against certain abuses of IP or flaws in the system as it exists today. The way software patents are issued in the U.S. for concepts rather than specific code is a perfect example of a flaw in the system that needs to be changed. That doesn't mean that I am in any way opposed to the overall concept of IP.Quoting:The people who invented the IP would like to see 'You're with IP or you're against IP". I actually read and hear more of that from those who oppose IP strenuously. Most folks who like the status quo, or at least some variant of it, aren't so black and white. |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 21, 2009 4:24 PM EDT |
Hk, > because they (mises.org) have no forums. Every article has a corresponding blog.mises.org entry where anyone can comment. There is also a free blog forum if you want to bring things up. Caitlyn, > My problem with banning IP... The problem with this position is that it doesn't follow from how IP works. Intellectual Property is established by law. Copyrights and patents are established as property by force of law. There is nothing to "prohibit", the same way that removing a match does not "prohibit" the fuse from igniting. Or removing the saw somehow "prohibits" the tree from falling, or removing the chair somehow "prohibits" the person standing upon it from remaining 2 feet above the floor. I know we disagree about the balance of good and bad effects of these legal establishments, but let's make sure to keep the terms correct. Repealing the legal constructs that create "IP" would not eliminate creativity, any more than repealing the legal constructs that create "incorporation" would eliminate people coming together to create products or solve problems. What the repeal would do is eliminate the legal status of those, like SCO and the record labels, who use that legal leverage to profit at the expense of others. |
| caitlyn Oct 21, 2009 4:28 PM EDT |
Bob, I know we're rehashing an old argument, one where we will never agree. I find the concept of repealing all copyright and patent laws akin to throwing out the baby with the bathwater, I believe in a society governed by laws and I want the law to stand behind my right to own what I create. SCO and RIAA are examples of abuses to be corrected. Correcting abuses doesn't require throwing out the whole system. When you say "record labels" you are painting with a very broad brush. Small, independent labels, many if not most of which are owned by artists, are not the problem. It's only the so-called major labels which fund the RIAA and its efforts. |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 21, 2009 4:50 PM EDT |
> It's only the so-called major labels which fund the RIAA and its efforts. My mistake, you are quite correct. I meant the RIAA and pals, and incorrectly used the term "record labels". I figure you should thank me, since it was a vigorous argument twixt the two of us that brought you to the full realization of your support for copyright. That's one of the benefits of arguing based upon principle rather than just utility. Everyone can learn something, even about their own position. > Correcting abuses doesn't require throwing out the whole system. Indeed, on this point we will never agree. It is the system itself which fosters the abuse, which will occur so long as the system exists. I will agree that having some Uncorruptable Philosopher Kings around to decide what is and is not "abuse" would be nice, for the benefits of IP without the moral hazards. I just don't see any Uncorruptable Philosopher Kings looking for work. |
| gus3 Oct 21, 2009 5:36 PM EDT |
Quoting:I will agree that having some Uncorruptable Philosopher Kings around to decide what is and is not "abuse" would be niceWell, as soon as they finish eating, I'm sure they'll jump right on it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dining_philosophers_problem |
| jdixon Oct 21, 2009 7:34 PM EDT |
> I just don't see any Uncorruptable Philosopher Kings looking for work. I'd ask how much it pays, but I don't really consider myself uncorruptable. :) Given that I'm now 51 and fairly well set in my ways, I'm not sure if there would be enough time for the system to corrupt me, but it's at least possible that it could do so. |
| gus3 Oct 21, 2009 8:13 PM EDT |
I'm Incorrigibly Uncorruptable. Ask anyone who knows me. (But that doesn't mean I don't screw up royally once in a while.) |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 21, 2009 8:27 PM EDT |
> but I don't really consider myself uncorruptable. :) Heck, I _know_ I could be bought. I think my price is pretty darned high, but knowing it is still possible is just another step towards realizing that no one can truly be "trusted" with power. |
| dinotrac Oct 22, 2009 7:08 AM EDT |
Bigg - No. Monopoly requires a larger focus: Microsoft did not have a monopoly on Windows, they had a monopoly on desk top computers because nobody could compete with Windows. Patents do grant a monopoly by prevent others from solving the same problem in the same way. Even that monopoly leaves some room because there tends to be more than one good solution to most problems. |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 22, 2009 12:42 PM EDT |
> they had a monopoly on desk top computers because nobody could compete with Windows. I would like to clarify: since MacOS, the Xwindow system, AmigaOS and other "desktop" GUI systems existed before and through the life of MS-Win, it has always been possible to compete with MS-Win. It has always been possible to buy hardware without Windows. What Microsoft did is grab mind-share, starting with MS-DOS, equating in the minds of the general population that personal computer equals MS-Win. So I would change your statement from "nobody could compete with Windows" to "No one was able to out-compete Microsoft." I consider that a very big difference from the legally enforced monopolies of copyright and patent. Selling a Linux PC would never have landed one in jail. |
| dinotrac Oct 22, 2009 2:13 PM EDT |
Bob - "Compete" means more than the ability to offer a product and eke out a few sales. In the antitrust sense, competition means that a good product has the potential to dethrone the current market leader. |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 22, 2009 3:24 PM EDT |
Then I guess it all depends upon one's opinion of "potential". |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!