Against Intellectual Property

danny writes "Australian academic and activist Brian Martin has written a detailed paper Against intellectual property. This is an accessible presentation that covers the area quite broadly." Excellent paper - more than the typical slogans in this subject area, and well worth reading in depth.

Comments

To make things clear

[Kaufmann]

• First of all, this is not a paper: it's a chapter of Martin's book, "Information Liberation".
  
• It's hosted in Danny Yee's site site; he proofread it. The rest of the Free Software Advocacy section has other interesting things. He also has a review of the book.
  
• I've been repeatedly trying to submit this to Slashdot, and it got rejected again and again! What was that all about? Jesus.
  
• Finally, considering the above, am I the only one who thinks it's ironic that only one chapter of the book is actually "liberated"?
  

Why Intellectual Property *sometimes* works...

[WombatControl]

I know it's easy to bash Intellectual Property, in fact, the people responsible for perpetuating it are mostly to blame for this. However, the basis behind intellectual property is still sound. The whole point is that people should be able to receive compensation for their ideas, should their ideas be deemed worthy of compensation. In theory this is true, artists and thinkers deserve to be rewarded with their work and these rewards help ensure that their work continues.

Now, this also leads to the problems we're facing now - IP being taken to a far extreme of what it rightly should be. I think that patenting the human genome is explicitly wrong, I believe that software should be build at least to open standards and preferably to Open Source, and I think that people should have free access to governmental information. On the other hand, if we just ditch the whole idea of IP, then it is going to hurt artists and thinkers. Yes, the current system of IP is horrendously broken, but throwing it out is a bad way of fixing it. The simple fact is that artists need some kind of support for their work. Granted, a true artist or thinker produces their work becuase they love to do it, but the whole purpose of the IP system is that they can have the level of support they need to concentrate solely on their craft.

Already, IP is changing. Napster was just the first step, the old channels of IP distribution are falling down, and rightly so. However, we have to remember that we need to somehow support the arts. I think that a nice micropayment system would be a great first step. Already Steven King's begun his own experiment in decentralized IP. The fact is that the old gatekeepers of IP, the RIAA, the MPAA, the big publishers Microsoft, all of them are rapidly becoming less and less relevant. What worries me as a producer of art (I'm a musician, and I have released several 3D models into the public domain) is will this shortchange the artist? I think Napster can work for new talent, I've personally supported artists via MP3.com, but I still don't see anyone able to make a living off these services yet.

So, what's the compromise going to be? I forsee a new patronage system coming out of all this. Back in the early days of the first artistic revolution, just after the Renaissance, artists would be supported by wealthy patrons. These patrons would support the artist and many of them allowed them a great latitude in what they could produce. Look at VA Linux and Slashdot... VA Linux is a patron to Slashdot, they foot the bill in the interest of the community, and they give them editorial freedom.

But there lies the catch... even when Napster wins and music is cheap and/or free, are we really better off? Look at the people who see a conspiracy between VA Linux and Slashdot, imagine what they would say if all art is sponsored that way. Also, would that guarantee sufficient funding for the arts and sciences? Public TV works this way, and look at how they're doing financially. We certainly won't see any less pandering to popular interests, even if the RIAA and the MPAA and their ilk disappeared tomorrow, it wouldn't mean that we'd lose crap like the Backstreet Boys. It would just come from a different source.

So, we're stuck between a rock and a hard place on this one. The current IP system is screwing the consumer over through poor legislation and litigation, along with the content producers who are being held back in much the same way. Get rid of IP altogether and we're just as screwed, if nobody can make a living off their work, a lot of people aren't going to go through the trouble and effort to distribute it. Some will do it for the love of art or science, but they won't be able to popularize it effectively and will have to juggle a lot more issues, all of which will distract them from that creative process.

In the end, we'll have a compromise between the two. Art is always going to be around, but there needs to be a level of support. I think that artists like Chuck D and Steven King have the right idea, get rid of the middle man, go direct and leverage technology. That way you get the best of both worlds, consumers get freedom to choose, and the artist gets support. Of course, all this counts on that support emerging from the consumer. We'll probably see the status quo remain, albeit changed, for quite some time.

In other words, support your artists. If you hear a song you like, buy it. Go to concerts, attend plays, get off your ass and support people who actually care about their art. Nine tenths of the problems with IP could be cured if people just stopped giving into those who are corrupting the system. Support *good* Intellectual Property. IP itself isn't really the problem, it's the way in which it's been mishandled and corrupted. Through these steps, we can preserve both the freedom and choice we want as consumers without losing the ability of the artist to support their work.

Re:Hmmm...

[X]

Ironically, while Stephen King might own the copyright to his work, but the majority of creators of copyrighted have no such luxury.

You miss the point though. Amazingly, you can be reimbursed as a writer without stringent enforcement copyright laws. Here's a thought: it'd be trivial to post Stephen King's book on Gnapster or Freenet, and thereby avoid paying for it. Instead, people ARE paying for it for two reasons:

1. They feel he has given them $2 worth of value and would give it to him regardless of the fact that they could get around it.
2. They want to see more of the same work, and by supporting him they encourage him to continue (and if he was poor they'd be providing him with the ability to continue his work without seeking other employment).

Similar principles apply to most forms of art work. One way to look at it is this: writers, musicians, researchers, sculptors, painters, etc. all existed prior to the existence of copyrights. So somehow it's possible. On the flip side, publishing companies, recording companies, etc. didn't. Copyright makes it possible for those kinds of businesses to exist.

Now, publishing and recording companies actually have, in the past, served a very useful purpose for society, namely they broadened the exposure of various works of writing or music. They were the most efficient way to get the job done. However, with the growth of the Internet, there is now an even MORE efficient means of pushing around intellectual information. Unfortunately, publishing companies and recording companies are slowing this process around. Ironically, where they were once an accelerant they now are an impedement.

I'm not saying that these kinds of companies need to go away, as there's a lot more to either business than just printing and shipping books and cd's. However, owning the material they print one of the ways they make their money, and that aspect of things has to change because it no longer is beneficial to society.