Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Structures of Intellectual Property

Posted by michael on from the ties-that-bind dept.

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.

3 of 169 comments (clear)

  1. The U.S. Founders Take on IP Structure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
    It's useful to look at what the most basic governing structure of the U.S., the Constitution, says about IP. Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the power to:
    To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries
    Now, a couple of things are implicit and explicit in this: 1. By giving the Congress this power, they gave Congress the option to centralize it. That keeps states from enacting a patchwork of IP laws, or, if they do, Congress can override them. That's why the WIPO is getting involved. If every country has different laws, it's difficult to do business and easy to get arrested, as Sklyarov found out. But, it means it's crucial to get involved in lobbying WIPO so the global agreements reflect more than the transnational corporations' interests. 2. Protecting IP is only a means to an end. That end is progress. The basis for the people and states giving this power to Congress is to promote progress in the arts and sciences. The people agree to pay creators for their IP and pay, through their government, to protect it, but only for a limited time. After that, the people get to keep and use as they wish what they've paid for. Patents expire because of this provision, releasing things like RSA and Prozac (8/2003) into the public domain. But, RSA and Eli Lily were and are well-compensated for their discoveries. One big problem with copyright, besides DCMA, has been that the duration keeps getting longer. (http://www.photosource.com/legal/lg_jul01.html) How many centuries will Disney be rewarded for drawing a cute mouse with big ears?
  2. Re:Double standards by schporto · · Score: 3, Informative

    Yes but that falls directly under his point in the intro. He says that he agrees with parts of both sides. As do I, as do (I think) most people. Not everything is black and white. And his point in the article is that it is virtually impossible for him (or me) to resolve our opinions of what we _beleive_ is right to the statements of "There are only two positions." Neither to me holds completely true. So that leaves us stuck. He has offered a new framework for us to try and resolve this issue. He's not proposing a solution, merely a framework to look at it differently. In terms of 'rights' you either do or do not there is no middle. In terms of 'structure' as he discusses then there are no double standards in his beliefs. He's looking at this in a different way then you. One that agrees with his morals. Which to me makes sense.
    -cpd

  3. Historical fantasy. by caduguid · · Score: 2, Informative

    One of the core reasons that IP law is breaking down so much is the level that it has been subverted by corporations, the very thing it was invented to stop! The orignal idea was that invetors and creative people would be protected from theft from corporations.

    I think this might more accurately be described as the core reasons you believe IP law should have been invented to stop. It wasn't.

    The moral desire to protect author's rights may date from Roman times, but the actual legal mechanisms for enforcing copyright aren't really seen until printers guilds in England demanded them, (back in the 16th century), as a means of keeping control and monopolizing profits.

    American copyright law is purportedly based on the incentive system for advancing society's good, not the authors.

    The French, though, and some others too, do place an emphasis on author's rights, and the original authors in some places (Canada and others?) have rights which cannot be transfered to corporations or subsequent owners.

    (ie: artists can place limits on how works are displayed, no matter who winds up owning the original. Something about some fellow and his geese statues at the shopping centre I vaguely remember).

    These original author's rights are the only thing approaching your anti-corporate proposal that are even remotely tenable in today's world, and even in their case there are two things you should remember.

    1) they're threatened under the increasing ubiquity of Berne and WIPO, and
    2) part of the reason they're threatened is because countries use them as shields to achieve national political objectives and not to protect authors.

    Of course, if you could get "them" to banish corporations, then you might get somewhere. But that's a whole new conspiracy/impossible dream, Quixote.