Structures of Intellectual Property

PeterP writes: "ARSTechnica has an interesting editorial today. It advocates altering the discussion of intellectual property laws to be one of structures, as opposed to rights. Kind of a breath of fresh air from the dogmatic, kneejerk debates this topic usually brings up. An interesting read, too." I second that. Definitely one to read and think about.

Comments

seven

[s20451]

I don't usually respond to trolls, but I couldn't resist this one. Since the anti-IP movement is all about envy (I want my free MP3s! I want my free software!), I guess it's par for the course that IP should be all about greed.

Double standards

[caudron]

The author of that piece thinks it's right for people to be compensated for the fruits of their intellect (eg, he should be paid for that article he wrote) but when it runs contrary to his own moral position (getting AIDS medicine to Africa or genetically modifed grains to thrid world farmers) he says morality should win out.

Easy for him to say since his words will never be of humanitarian use, and therefore never subject to mandatory public release under his proposed 'structure'.

As much as he want to change the vocabulary used in the IP debates, in the end it is a boolean arguement: Either there is or there is not Intellectual Property. True or False.

Changing the vocabulary may make for nicer conversation, and may even help to achieve comprimise faster, but it is an obfustication of the reality of the issue.

Disclaimer: I am of the camp that says the answer is "False, there is no such thing as IP and any attempt to suggest otherwise is an illusion thrown up by corporate fatcats looking to stuff their wallets just a bit thicker at the expense of the public and of reality.

-Tom

greed

[ebbv]

that's really what the whole discussion of intelectual property comes down to.

does anyone else remember when david letterman left NBC for CBS and was told that he could not do stupid pet tricks, top ten, etc. because these were the intellectual property of NBC?

anyone recall the prevalent attitude of the time? 'what is intellectual property? isn't that like a copy of the entire works of jung?'

the notion that someone can own an idea is ridiculous. it only came about because greedy bastards who somehow stumbled upon something that at least passed for a good idea realized they'd probably never have another one, and they really really needed to protect their single solitary precious.

the music industry knows it's fucked because it hasn't innovated in twenty years. the CD was the last big step. if they were forced to innovate and provide a product worthy of the money, right now you'd have them pushing DVD Audio, and the DTS/Dolby 5.1 music experience.

but they're not. why? because they have the CD-presses, and the stereo recording studios all set up and they can make a much better profit stamping out those at $0.02 each and charging $15 than they could having to investigate new technologies and create new recording studios, new production facilities, etc.

corporate lethargy is everywhere, there's no competition, there's just gluttony.
...dave