Freedomain Radio

I'm not at all satisfied with the argument for intellectual property, in some way wildly against it. I'll explain my reasoning:

Intellectual property is the ownership of information, whether in art or in the field of technology. A book, for example is just a collection of information, real or made up. This can be extended to any creative or non creative field.

Some information is never copyrighted because it counts as a discovery. Discoveries are considered to non creative and belong to nature, for example, electricity counts as a discovery because it is making use of a natural phenomena; it is considered unfair for one person to claim ownership of it for that reason. If electricity was copyrighted then no one could even discover it independently making a ridiculous situation when one person can stop the development of science by not allowing anyone to use or copy his research. I don't believe there is any argument here.

All other types of information come under inventions. It is considered that a device such as the telephone is an invention because it is not a natural occurrence and took creativity to come up with. A piece of music, for example, is also an invention because it was composed, or invented, through the construction of ideas. These are generally considered to be applicable for copyright because they are products of work from individuals rather than something that occurs in nature.

However, this does have problems. Consider the line "It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen." What is this? If you recognise it you would say it is the opening of 1984 so belongs to George Orwell, however, it is still purely a group of words forming a sentence, and unless you call the concept of a sentence a possession of someone, this cannot be copyrighted. Someone who never read or heard 1984 could easily come up with the same sentence or something very similar because it is purely a sentence in the end.

To put it another way, the problem lies in that a creative invention can turn into a form of discovery if you look at it in a certain way. Even though it takes effort and creativity to come with these inventions they are in fact discoveries when broken down. Orwell, if you like, discovered the effectiveness of the sentence quoted above, rather than invented it.

It is therefore unfair and wrong to copyright anything. It is immoral to claim possession over an idea.

 

btw I'm in fact quite a keen composer, I'm not just arguing this as an excuse to get something for nothing. I apologise if this argument has been used, I'm not a brilliant searcher. I also think this is a very, very complex topic, so I'm not quite 100% of my reasoning, but I've found all sorts of faults in over people's reasoning like stef's in the podcast trio on the subject.
 

The distinction between discovery and invention is very important as you pointed out. Newton did not invent gravity.

You seem to be conflating the two though.. something like a book that is written is most certainly invented, not discovered. 1984 does not exist in nature, it does not exist independant of Orwell's work. Gravity does exist independant of Newton and Einstein. For something to be discovered, it must already exist. For something to be invented, it must not already exist. By saying that all inventions are in fact discoveries is like saying that this computer I am typing on existed before it was 'invented' which is not true.

This is a topic I am not quite sure where to stand on.

However, that being said, I do have a question about your argument:

If a new and innovative product created by an individual designer, upon being released to the marketplace, were to be immediately copied in every way by some huge company ( Microsoft, for instance ) , would the consumers not almost certainly purchase this product from Microsoft instead? and how would this be just to the designer or the consumers? if I copy and paste your entire post, and put it here and said "I also made this", would that not be a lie? What if I just retyped your argument?

As I said, I am not sure where to stand on this; The current situation (copyrights, restrictions, putting people in jail for watching a free movie, etc.), however, is certainly not the right way.

ash:

The distinction between discovery and invention is very important as you pointed out. Newton did not invent gravity.

You seem to be conflating the two though.. something like a book that is written is most certainly invented, not discovered. 1984 does not exist in nature, it does not exist independant of Orwell's work. Gravity does exist independant of Newton and Einstein. For something to be discovered, it must already exist. For something to be invented, it must not already exist. By saying that all inventions are in fact discoveries is like saying that this computer I am typing on existed before it was 'invented' which is not true.

What I meant was the potential for it to be written existed without Orwell. The words he uses were already around etc. He is not creating something unique because anyone else could have done it.

To make it clearer, if you build a house the house is certainly your own, but you're not stopping anyone else build one in the same way. if you build a sentence, calling it your own, you would stop anyone else building one the same way. This is unfair because they are just a series of words, an idea, an idea anyone could have.

Camron:

If a new and innovative product created by an individual designer, upon being released to the marketplace, were to be immediately copied in every way by some huge company ( Microsoft, for instance ) , would the consumers not almost certainly purchase this product from Microsoft instead? and how would this be just to the designer or the consumers?

If the product is just an idea, for example software, it would not need to be purchased because it was never owned. You could still pay for the download but it would be just for downloading survive, not the product, and if it were made into a torrent for example you wouldn't even need to do this. I know this would have a huge impact on software companies, but that is a practical issue, not a moral one.

if I copy and paste your entire post, and put it here and said "I also made this", would that not be a lie? What if I just retyped your argument?

buy pressing ^v you are making it, the same way you'd make it if you typed it out. Just because computer text is easy to copy doesn't stop it being you making it. Although you did not come up with the ideas yourself, there is no ownership so that doesn't matter.
 

If you make a statue out of my marble does it become your statue?

Invention doesn't necessitate ownership. 

I also believe stef's analogy to a motel wasn't valid. I can't cart a bed out of the hotel room without causing actual loss to the motel owners, but I can make 500 copies of one of his books on my hard drive without causing a pennies worth of tangible damage to stef's property.

 He might claim that he lost the potential value of those books if I distributed them, but one does not have the right to the value of their property. A mantucaturer of widget A is undercut by the manufacturer of widget B, causing Widget A's to be sold at a loss in order to clear the inventory. However Manufacturer A can not file a claim against Manufacturer B because of a lost value.

One has the right to the physical integrity of property, but not to the value or perceived value thereof.

What one cannot do is pass of the work as their own if it is not so. (plagiarism and fraud), or forge documents giving title to tangible assets. A person could not claim to be stef or and agent of stef it they were in fact not, and may even be morally required to have a prominent disclaimer if selling pirated works.

 However most people want to give credit where credit is due, and when choosing between a 12 dollar book and a 12.50 dollar version of a book, and the 12.50 book clearly proclaims, One dollar from every book sale is given as royalty to the author to help him write more books and eat three squares a day. And the other book cover states, this book is pirated material and is not associated with the author or the authors estate. Which book would you choose? Even if the pirated version was as low as $6, people might be willing to send their dollar or two to the author of their own accord.
 

Publishing companies are great ways for an author to get their works out the the general public, and without copyright there would be less incentive to do so and such companies would be less successful, however with the internet direct marketing is possible and other alternative arrangements that may benefit authors in the long run, foster new writing styles, and allow and author's reader better access to the writing process. Also there might be insta-book shops where a store would print any book you wanted from a digital database into book form and send royalties automatically to creators of a work.

DMH:

What I meant was the potential for it to be written existed without Orwell. The words he uses were already around etc. He is not creating something unique because anyone else could have done it.

To make it clearer, if you build a house the house is certainly your own, but you're not stopping anyone else build one in the same way. if you build a sentence, calling it your own, you would stop anyone else building one the same way. This is unfair because they are just a series of words, an idea, an idea anyone could have.

How do you know the potential for it to be written existed without Orwell?

That line of logic seems rediculous to me, which can be seen more clearly if applied to other things: If you build a house do you not own it because the potential for it to be built existed without you? 

The arguments for the validity of intellectual property have never resonated with me, either. This is partly because I see the distinction between "invention" and "discovery" to be rather arbitrary, as you do: both are just examples of the natural world at work, since nothing humans can invent does not deal with matter or energy in some way. Just imagine if the first person to "invent" the lever had decided that the idea was their property, and could enforce that claim as such. We would still be living in mud huts.

 Another part of the problem I have is the nature of ideas. What is being owned if an idea is said to be property? I can't touch an idea. I can't taste it. I can't smell it. I can't use an imaging device to translate its wavelengths to the visible spectrum. Ideas, as far as I know, exist only as interactions of matter over time, and they are transmitted only from matter to consciousness over time. Hence, intellectual property seems to me to be like trying to own the bouncing of a ball--not any ball in particular, nor any ground on which to bounce it in particular, but any bouncing of any ball anywhere. It sounds absurd when I put it like that, but it seems much different when we talk about things like books because we forget that words, sentences, etcetera, are not things in and of themselves but arrangements of things which, perceived over a period of time, mean something to our brains. I don't think anyone but Orwell could have written '1984', but to me that's just not the point.

I'm new around here so I'm not sure what's been discussed in the past as far as IP or exactly what Stefan's position is regarding IP. Here are my latest thoughts. I'd love some feedback.

1. IP is not real property. There's no scarcity. Making a copy of something like an idea, digital file, etc. does not cause anyone else to loose any property.

2. However, if I write a book and include a contract that states that the book is not to be copied, redistributed, etc. then that person is not legally allowed to and can be sued if the contract is violated.

The problem I kept running into was what happens if that person does violate the contract and, for instance, put a pdf of my book at a torrent website. Even if I can track it to the person and sue him what about those people downloading the pdf. They've never agreed to the contract so how can that be enforced.

3. Use the "Reputation Rating Service" to discourage pirating. Even though the people who are downloading the book cannot be prosecuted because they never signed a contact saying they wouldn't copy the book those people could be reported to the Reputation company and ostracized for knowingly going against the author's wishes. This is something I think people would want to be included in the rating because you do not want to do business with or associate with people who are of little moral character and do not comply with known contracts.

This would not stop IP offenses or anything, but they're not being stopped now either. It seems like a practical free market solution to me. What do you think? Be kind! lol

BTW I don't fault Stefan for using copyright. I used to until I thought it out more. His explanation in the one podcast where he talks about how there's really no viable alternative to using the state at this point makes sense. It really stinks that a person has to use the state, but that's just the way it is for now.

jitgos:

2. However, if I write a book and include a contract that states that the book is not to be copied, redistributed, etc. then that person is not legally allowed to and can be sued if the contract is violated.

The problem I kept running into was what happens if that person does violate the contract and, for instance, put a pdf of my book at a torrent website. Even if I can track it to the person and sue him what about those people downloading the pdf. They've never agreed to the contract so how can that be enforced.

I have thought of the same idea for IP in a stateless society. The bigger problem with this is how draconian the enforcement would be. Unless DRM technologies significantly improve, I don't think IP is very enforceable in a stateless society. I'm probably wrong and DRM will soon come that is "uncrackable". I think the only thing holding back the "uncrackable" DRM is the fact that many people still use CDs. Once disc media is phased out (I'm guessing a decade), DRM will be everywhere and IP can be enforced via contracts. 

afruff23:

I have thought of the same idea for IP in a stateless society. The bigger problem with this is how draconian the enforcement would be. Unless DRM technologies significantly improve, I don't think IP is very enforceable in a stateless society. I'm probably wrong and DRM will soon come that is "uncrackable". I think the only thing holding back the "uncrackable" DRM is the fact that many people still use CDs. Once disc media is phased out (I'm guessing a decade), DRM will be everywhere and IP can be enforced via contracts. 

That is a minor problem in terms of DRM. These days the tech is fairly good, the problem is the consumer doesn't want it. When I was a developer I worked with a few companies that were seeing huge decreases in revenue when they instituted DRM on their content simply because a consumer would much rather get unprotected content, even if they don't intend to share it with other people, because it is much easier and much less hastle. 

Yeah, I think you are correct on the consumer side of things. I almost changed my example to a company. For instance, one company ripping off another company's design for a cell phone let's say. If you include a contract with the purchase of the phone that says it's not to be copied or reverse engineered, etc.

A DRO and Reputation Service would probably work much better for that type of situation against a company that has copied the IP. I generally do not believe IP is a positive thing, but if producers of IP want it the contract idea is the best I can come up with. That's an idea I heard Stefan make. I do not know if he regards IP as real property or not. I certainly do not.
 

there is no such thing as intellectual property rights...

let's say person A sells person B a book which than becomes B's property in all absloute implications... no man who adopts the free market will tell you you cant do every thing you like with your book,which is your property,you can distroy it,give it as a gift or never show it to any one ever,plus no one will tell you that you can not copy the book you own, and than give those away for free,as they are your property,and so,there is no rationally viable explenation for intellectual property rights and are therefore invalid

tom sh:

there is no such thing as intellectual property rights...

let's say person A sells person B a book which than becomes B's property in all absloute implications... no man who adopts the free market will tell you you cant do every thing you like with your book,which is your property,you can distroy it,give it as a gift or never show it to any one ever,plus no one will tell you that you can not copy the book you own, and than give those away for free,as they are your property,and so,there is no rationally viable explenation for intellectual property rights and are therefore invalid

That completely ignores the posts right above you. The book can be sold with a contract to not copy it and such.