Slashdot Mirror
The Guardian On Intellectual Property
mykdavies writes "The Guardian has an excellent article giving lay readers an overview of some of the problems being caused by the concept of 'intellectual property', including references to stories familiar to Slashdot readers, such as DVD Jon, the Sony rootkit, Amazon and Google business patents." From the article: "Even facts about the world can, in some cases, become the property of commercial companies. It was the promise of gaining patents on the human genome that lured investors into the private consortium that attempted to sequence it in competition with the public effort. Laboratory animals have already been patented, starting with the OncoMouse, an animal whose genome has been manipulated to ensure that it develops cancer."
I've said it before, and I'll say it again ... if western society thinks it can stop other countries from using existing ideas to build new ideas, we're crazy.
China, as an example, has shown a complete lack of respect for the copyrights on software, and I see nothing to convince me that they are going to pay any attention to north american IP laws when push-comes-to-shove...
At some point the 'powers' are going to have to realise that ideas are not the same as physical property, and can not be treated the same.
All new knowedge is built on the work of those that came before. The rate of increase of new ideas is directly related to how quickly the new idea can be passed on to. So why is it that now when the dissemination of information is essentially instantaneous and free we are working hard at creating artificial barriers to impede progress?
If you think imaginary property and real property are the same, when does your house become public domain?
Yeah, I thought the same thing when I read it this morning. However, I did actually read it in the newspaper, and it's the Saturday one at that, which I think a lot of people get when they might not get it normally (because it has lots of extra stuff), so hopefully enough people will read it that a few of them will really take exception and Google about it, in which case they will doubtless stumble upon the people fighting this stuff. It may not be perfect, but it's good that the issue is working its way out there. This intellectual property bullshit has gone on long enough; just ask any man on the street if they think you should be able to patent a mouse, website or film plot and they will tell you it's madness.
/. is: If by purchasing a CD I am only buying the right to listen to that music, then why can't I snap my CD in half, take it back to the shop and ask for a new one for £0.50 or however much the materials and manufacturing actually costs?
I think the article makes a very good point when it talks about how the companies who are so vigourously in favour of IP would shy away immediately if it worked both ways. A typical example I often see posted here on