Well, you're right, but your own examples prove the point that debating what's "good" and "not good" isn't worth the effort. They also clearly identify the demographic you're in.
Very few people are really qualified to know what "good" music is. No particular reason why we should have those skills, either. Life is full of things to do, and studying music is way down the list for most folks.
We all have opinions about what's good and bad, but, in the end, we all tend to equate "good music" with "music I like". It's an ego thing, too, for a lot of people -- makes 'em feel superior because they listen to music no one else has heard of...even if they really don't enjoy it.
>>....we, as a society, have confused well marketed with "good."
I doubt that. You're assuming that, given free choice, people will always buy "good" music. That's not true. People will buy music they like, whether or someone- even the buyer -- thinks it is good.
That's why the books at the top of the bestseller lists are usually not at the top of anyone's "Good Books" list. When people want to be entertained, they buy something that entertains them. When they want to read a "good" book, or listen to "good" music, they'll do that, too. We're all capable of making that distinction. Businesses are smart enough to know that most of us want to be entertained more than we want to spend time pretending to like "good" music.
Life's Too Short for Packaging Schemes
on
Slackware 9.1 Released
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
There'e enough to learn and use in Linux without getting bogged down in learning about a particular distributions proprietary packaging scheme.
I've tried and used several releases of all the major RPM-based distributions (RedHat, SuSe, Mandrake), installed Debian more than a few times, spent a l-o-t of time on Gentoo installs.
What has caused me the biggest headaches in each of these distributions? Problems with their packaging systems. Every blasted one of them has managed to put my machines in a broken state.
Yes, sometimes chasing down and compiling some obscure piece of code can be frustrating if I'm using Slackware and installing from source. But, I know how to do that, the concept is simple, and if it goes wrong, I know I can trace the problem and fix it.
If RPM or apt or emerge or whatever goes belly-up, fixing the problem means I have to take time to learn about that packaging system. Why should I?
>> Hope you like that program, cause you're never going to get it fully uninstalled.
If I don't like it, why would I remove it? I'm more likely to just not use it. After all, every Linux dsitribution is full of applications that a given user never touches.
With all this jabber about installation routines, sometimes I think people spend all their Linux time installing and removing software, rather than actually using the thing.
Rather than sit around whining about the evils of it all, why don't you characters on the other side of the fence get some people into the schools campaigning about the other point of view?
Expecting your point of view to carry the day simply because you're convinced it's ethically preferrable is childish and naive.
On a few occasions I've had to consult lawyers about copyright issues re: the web. I found them surprisingly precise and consistent in the advice they offered. In particular, they all confirmed that the fact that the Internet is used as the medium to copy or distribute a copyrighted object is irrelevant in the eyes of the law. What counts is the actual copying and distribution, not the techology used to do it.
There's a natural tendency to think that the Internet will "change everything", that it is a great revolutionary engine to which existing law does not apply.
Personally, I don't believe that. The Internet certainly has changed many things, but not nearly to the degree I might have imagined several years ago. It's vaunted provision of almost-free publishing capability to anyone who wants it has given us blogs (the jury is out, and I still trust an established news site's reporting before I do some blogger with nothing to lose and no professional training) and p2p filesharing (whether legal or not, there's nothing revolutionary about copying music).
The web has upset the equilibrium in part of the content industry. Because they were already organized, are well-financed, already have access, and focus on the task at hand, the music industry has the upper hand so far in this copyright circus. It is not an issue that will sway votes in the general electorate, but eventually interests and organizations that share some common ground with the p2p folks will organize and push back. Eventually, a new equilibrium will be reached.
As for filesharing...I expect some new form of commercial music distribution to finally emerge that will do an end run around filesharers as well as most existing music companies.
I don't agree with that. And I make an important distinction between information and the technology used to represent it. If your basing your argument on those premises, we're poles apart.
As for my profile, beats me. Never looked at it. Why would I care?
>> If the intent is merely to enable creators to profit from their work, giving them incentive to create, why the requirement of limited terms? Wouldn't it be an even greater incentive if creators knew that their heirs would profit in perpetuity?
Of course, there's a balance to be struck between incentivizing people to create and ensuring that new knowledge and technology is widely disseminated. That's the basis of having limited terms for copyrights and patents. People can argue that those terms are too long, or too short, without arguing that the concepts of copyright and IP are invalid.
It seems to be a common practice of many to attack people who defend copyright and IP law by claiming that ideas can't be owned, and that, therefore, copyright and patents are evil capitalists notions that merit elimination. I think that's a red herring. The point of copyright and IP law is not to protect ownership of ideas (which, obviously, can't be owned) but to protect, on the one hand, a creator's right to his work (which, by definition, he owns) and society's interests in ensuring that new knowledge and new works are widely available.
You still don;'t get it. I'm not talking about ideas, or "inanimate" concepts, or any such mumbo jumbo.
I'm talking about the words I put on paper or in a digital file when I create a work. That's a very real thing, very real property, not the kind of mysterious wispy information you seem to believe is floating around the universe waiting to be discovered.
If I create that property, I own it. If it is a book, the words in it are composed of symbol characters we call letters. Those words represent whatever thoughts and ideas I chose. I'm not asserting that I own the thoughts and the ideas; I am stating that I own the words and the medium on which they are written.
Ideas are one thing; words on paper or in a file are an entirely different kind of thing.
Nothing in that clause states that someone who creates a work ever loses ownership of it if he or she chooses not to distribute copies. The original work remains the only work, and if the creator of that work does not give it to someone else, ownership does not transfe. IP and copyright law provide the legal basis by which a creator can transfer certain rights to copies of the original to others.
Here's a simple example: If I write a book, print out a copy, and store that copy in my closet, I retain ownership of that copy -- the only copy -- in perpetuity. The clause you quote only comes into play if I want to make and distribute copies of the novel.
Besides, you're wrong in asserting that the purpose of this clause is to promote the "public domain". As the clause states, it is intended to "promote the progress of science and useful arts". The intent of the founding fathers was to ensure that American inventors and authors had an incentive to create; their intent was not to manaufacture a "healty public domain". The clause does that by protecting the natural rights of creators to benefit from their creations, thereby ensuring that they have an incentive to invent and create.
In other words, the purpose of the clause is to guarantee that creators continue to have an incentive to create. The impact on the so-called "public domain" is a secondary by-product.
Like so many here, you are arguing to support what you believe ought to be, not from a position rooted in reality.
First, people do not follow idealists. They follow leaders, who, in my experience, are seldom idealistic.
Two, the patent system works today the same as it always has. But, I don't need a patent system or any government to establish the fact that I own what I make. If I make something that did not previously exist, how can there be any claim that I do not own it?
Third, as I've said, I'm not really interested in claiming onership of ideas. I'm interested in my ownership of the collection of words, etc., that I create when, for example, I write a book. Even if I accept your assertion that a books "captures ideas", it is obvious that the book itself is not a collection of ideas, but a collection of symbolic characters contained on some medium, e.g., paper or a digitial file. That is what I own. And, it is property that is just as real as any other property. Copyright law simply recognizes that fact of ownership and provides protection of the rights due me as the book's creator and owner. Typically, a professional author contracts with a publisher to market the book. Fundamentally, this is a process whereby the author legally transfer some of his rights to the publisher in return for the services provided by the publisher. But, copyright law does not compel that transfer, and does not exist to enable it.
Sorry, but I wasn't talking about "ideas". I was talking about property, like a book.
If I make a chair, I own that chair.
If I write a book, I own that particular collection of words.
Both the chair and the book are my property. One is as real as the other.
As the person who made the chair or the bovel, I'm not especially interested in keeping you from conjuring up the "idea" of my chair or my book, but I am very much interested in keeping you from making and selling unauthorized copies of my property.
The argument that ideas can't be owned is a red herring often tossed out by ideologues who don't understand that copyright and IP aren't about ideas, but about property. Somehow, they've got the notion that any piece of property that contains symbolic language or representations is an "idea" that can't be owned. That's wrong.
What's government got to do with it? Do I even use the word "government"?
You seem to think that copyright, intellectual property and the common-sense notion that the person who creates something owns it are inventions of government.
>> Utopian ideals are what guide society and control progress;
Nonsense. People act in their own self-interest.
I'll try once more:
If I make a chair, would you deny that I own that chair? If so, what possible justification can you provide for the curious notion that someone else can own something that did not exist until I brought it into being?
Likewise, if I write a book, I own that book. How can you make the assertion that someone else owns a book that did not exist until it wrote it? And, if you can't make that argument, how can you argue that I, as the original owner of the original book, can't control how copies are made and to whom their are distributed?
Please try to remember that your "feelings" are of no interest.
>>... It begs the question why goverments around the world are encouraging everyone to use the internet...
I didn't know anyone was asking that question, which is based on a doubtful premise.
But, the Internet is just a big network. By itself, it is empty. The real question is this:
Is the content made available by the Internet worth it?
My answer:
Content created by "old" media and made available via the net is worth it. E.g., having on-demand access to the best news reports around the globe is very much worth it.
But, content created by "new" born-after-the-Net media is largely useless, consisting of silly and hopeless attempts to mimic other media and with polished spins on old-fashioned bulletin boards.
I'm asserting that the creator of a work owns that work and retains all rights to that work until he or she transfers some or all of those rights or some or all of that wonership to others.
Example: I write a novel. That novel exists as a collection of words represented by sympbols on paper or as a digital file. That's what I own. If I don't transfer that original copy to anyone else, then by definition, they can only possess it by theft. Copyright law protects my right to determine how copies of my original work are made and distributed. If I sign a contract with a publisher, I have transferred some of my rights and some of my ownership share to that publisher. In return, the publisher has contracted with me to make and market copies of my novel. The publisher keeps some of the reveneue and I keep some of the revenue. If someone other than my publisher makes and markets copies of my novel with authorization, I am asserting that they are thieves and violators of the law.
I'm not talking about ideas, or stating my position on current copyright and patent law. I'm simply stating that anyone who makes something owns that "thing" and has all rights to it until some or all of those rights and ownership are transferred elsewhere.
If I write a book or record a song, I own the collection of words or recorded sounds that comprise the book or song. If I decide to do nothing else with that original work, it stays where it is. If I sign a contrct with a publisher to that gives it the right to make and sell copies of that book or that recording, then I have transferred some of my rights to another in return for, presumably, payment. Copyright and IP law protect my rights regarding that collection of words or that original recording. Ideas have nothing to do with it. I'm not claiming ownership of ideas; I'm protecting my rights to something I created.
>> You personally have no "rights" to your creation.
If not me, then who? How did they get those rights? How can someone else own something I make unless I transfer ownership to them?
>> Lets say you come up with a song that's a hit. I listen to your song and start humming it.
* do I have that right? Or do you control my right to hum your song?
Yes.
>> My friend has a secret tape recorder and so he tapes me singing it. He plays it for other people.
* Did he need your permission to do that? * Did he need my permisssion to do that?
Yes, your friend has a right to tape you singing my song. Yes, your friend has a right to play that recording.
No, you do not have a right to make a copy of my version of that song, or of the sheet music, without my permission. Copyright law is how we transfer those rights.
>> The truth is, once an idea is expressed to the wider world, nobody "owns" it. Its impossible to own an ideas.
Wrong. This is the same bogus strawman argument that is always trotted out. Intellectual property and copyright are not about ideas. They are about protecting things like books, music, images, software code, etc. None of those things are "ideas". If I write a book, I expect copyright law to protect my right to benefits from the sale of my creation. "Ideas" have nothing to do with it, because I'm not selling "ideas".
You seem to asserting that something is "real" only if you can touch it. That's obviously absurd.
If I make something, I own it. That's the basis of property rights. No one else has any rights in what I've made, or any ownership share, until and unless I transfer rights or ownership.
That applies to all property, whether or not a create something from a block of wood or from words and thoughts. If I make a chair, it is real, it exists, and I own it. If I write a book or piece of code, it is real, it exists, and I own it.
To make your assertion that IP doesn't exist anything more than a utopian pipedream, you'll need to refute that and prove that I don't own what I make.
I don't think it is a "business view" (whatever that is) to assert that I own something that I make. That's the basis of all property rights, real or intellectual. Paying sophomoric word games won't change that.
Please explain how someone other than myself has any rights to my creation until and unless I decide to give them some of those rights. I don't believe you can without lapsing into utopian silliness.
Without IP rights, open source would devolve into an unusable and anarchic mess of code of unknown quality written by unknown persons. There would be no way for a user to know if their copy of, say, emacs, was legitimate emacs or a botched rewrite by some 16-year-old kid.
Nor would it be possible to enforce a requirement that source be distributed. It is the reality of IP -- that source code is intellectual property that needs to be made widely available -- that underpins open source.
>>...why is it that a company can pass the charges on to the end user...
Because the company can set its own prices. Taxes are a cost of doing business. If they go up, the company needs to recoup that cost one way or the other.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, you're right, but your own examples prove the point that debating what's "good" and "not good" isn't worth the effort. They also clearly identify the demographic you're in.
Very few people are really qualified to know what "good" music is. No particular reason why we should have those skills, either. Life is full of things to do, and studying music is way down the list for most folks.
We all have opinions about what's good and bad, but, in the end, we all tend to equate "good music" with "music I like". It's an ego thing, too, for a lot of people -- makes 'em feel superior because they listen to music no one else has heard of...even if they really don't enjoy it.
>> ....we, as a society, have confused well marketed with "good."
I doubt that. You're assuming that, given free choice, people will always buy "good" music. That's not true. People will buy music they like, whether or someone- even the buyer -- thinks it is good.
That's why the books at the top of the bestseller lists are usually not at the top of anyone's "Good Books" list. When people want to be entertained, they buy something that entertains them. When they want to read a "good" book, or listen to "good" music, they'll do that, too. We're all capable of making that distinction. Businesses are smart enough to know that most of us want to be entertained more than we want to spend time pretending to like "good" music.
There'e enough to learn and use in Linux without getting bogged down in learning about a particular distributions proprietary packaging scheme.
I've tried and used several releases of all the major RPM-based distributions (RedHat, SuSe, Mandrake), installed Debian more than a few times, spent a l-o-t of time on Gentoo installs.
What has caused me the biggest headaches in each of these distributions? Problems with their packaging systems. Every blasted one of them has managed to put my machines in a broken state.
Yes, sometimes chasing down and compiling some obscure piece of code can be frustrating if I'm using Slackware and installing from source. But, I know how to do that, the concept is simple, and if it goes wrong, I know I can trace the problem and fix it.
If RPM or apt or emerge or whatever goes belly-up, fixing the problem means I have to take time to learn about that packaging system. Why should I?
>> Hope you like that program, cause you're never going to get it fully uninstalled.
If I don't like it, why would I remove it? I'm more likely to just not use it. After all, every Linux dsitribution is full of applications that a given user never touches.
With all this jabber about installation routines, sometimes I think people spend all their Linux time installing and removing software, rather than actually using the thing.
Rather than sit around whining about the evils of it all, why don't you characters on the other side of the fence get some people into the schools campaigning about the other point of view?
Expecting your point of view to carry the day simply because you're convinced it's ethically preferrable is childish and naive.
On a few occasions I've had to consult lawyers about copyright issues re: the web. I found them surprisingly precise and consistent in the advice they offered. In particular, they all confirmed that the fact that the Internet is used as the medium to copy or distribute a copyrighted object is irrelevant in the eyes of the law. What counts is the actual copying and distribution, not the techology used to do it.
There's a natural tendency to think that the Internet will "change everything", that it is a great revolutionary engine to which existing law does not apply.
Personally, I don't believe that. The Internet certainly has changed many things, but not nearly to the degree I might have imagined several years ago. It's vaunted provision of almost-free publishing capability to anyone who wants it has given us blogs (the jury is out, and I still trust an established news site's reporting before I do some blogger with nothing to lose and no professional training) and p2p filesharing (whether legal or not, there's nothing revolutionary about copying music).
The web has upset the equilibrium in part of the content industry. Because they were already organized, are well-financed, already have access, and focus on the task at hand, the music industry has the upper hand so far in this copyright circus. It is not an issue that will sway votes in the general electorate, but eventually interests and organizations that share some common ground with the p2p folks will organize and push back. Eventually, a new equilibrium will be reached.
As for filesharing...I expect some new form of commercial music distribution to finally emerge that will do an end run around filesharers as well as most existing music companies.
>> Society grants you a temporary right ...
I don't agree with that. And I make an important distinction between information and the technology used to represent it. If your basing your argument on those premises, we're poles apart.
As for my profile, beats me. Never looked at it. Why would I care?
>> If the intent is merely to enable creators to profit from their work, giving them incentive to create, why the requirement of limited terms? Wouldn't it be an even greater incentive if creators knew that their heirs would profit in perpetuity?
Of course, there's a balance to be struck between incentivizing people to create and ensuring that new knowledge and technology is widely disseminated. That's the basis of having limited terms for copyrights and patents. People can argue that those terms are too long, or too short, without arguing that the concepts of copyright and IP are invalid.
It seems to be a common practice of many to attack people who defend copyright and IP law by claiming that ideas can't be owned, and that, therefore, copyright and patents are evil capitalists notions that merit elimination. I think that's a red herring. The point of copyright and IP law is not to protect ownership of ideas (which, obviously, can't be owned) but to protect, on the one hand, a creator's right to his work (which, by definition, he owns) and society's interests in ensuring that new knowledge and new works are widely available.
You still don;'t get it. I'm not talking about ideas, or "inanimate" concepts, or any such mumbo jumbo.
I'm talking about the words I put on paper or in a digital file when I create a work. That's a very real thing, very real property, not the kind of mysterious wispy information you seem to believe is floating around the universe waiting to be discovered.
If I create that property, I own it. If it is a book, the words in it are composed of symbol characters we call letters. Those words represent whatever thoughts and ideas I chose. I'm not asserting that I own the thoughts and the ideas; I am stating that I own the words and the medium on which they are written.
Ideas are one thing; words on paper or in a file are an entirely different kind of thing.
Nothing in that clause states that someone who creates a work ever loses ownership of it if he or she chooses not to distribute copies. The original work remains the only work, and if the creator of that work does not give it to someone else, ownership does not transfe. IP and copyright law provide the legal basis by which a creator can transfer certain rights to copies of the original to others.
Here's a simple example: If I write a book, print out a copy, and store that copy in my closet, I retain ownership of that copy -- the only copy -- in perpetuity. The clause you quote only comes into play if I want to make and distribute copies of the novel.
Besides, you're wrong in asserting that the purpose of this clause is to promote the "public domain". As the clause states, it is intended to "promote the progress of science and useful arts". The intent of the founding fathers was to ensure that American inventors and authors had an incentive to create; their intent was not to manaufacture a "healty public domain". The clause does that by protecting the natural rights of creators to benefit from their creations, thereby ensuring that they have an incentive to invent and create.
In other words, the purpose of the clause is to guarantee that creators continue to have an incentive to create. The impact on the so-called "public domain" is a secondary by-product.
Like so many here, you are arguing to support what you believe ought to be, not from a position rooted in reality.
First, people do not follow idealists. They follow leaders, who, in my experience, are seldom idealistic.
Two, the patent system works today the same as it always has. But, I don't need a patent system or any government to establish the fact that I own what I make. If I make something that did not previously exist, how can there be any claim that I do not own it?
Third, as I've said, I'm not really interested in claiming onership of ideas. I'm interested in my ownership of the collection of words, etc., that I create when, for example, I write a book. Even if I accept your assertion that a books "captures ideas", it is obvious that the book itself is not a collection of ideas, but a collection of symbolic characters contained on some medium, e.g., paper or a digitial file. That is what I own. And, it is property that is just as real as any other property. Copyright law simply recognizes that fact of ownership and provides protection of the rights due me as the book's creator and owner. Typically, a professional author contracts with a publisher to market the book. Fundamentally, this is a process whereby the author legally transfer some of his rights to the publisher in return for the services provided by the publisher. But, copyright law does not compel that transfer, and does not exist to enable it.
Ah, gratuitous insult and attack. The last resort of someone without an argument.
Go back to listening to your garage-band mp3's and let the adults handle this.
Slashdot = "old-fashioned bulletin board".
Nothing here that didn't happen years ago, before the Net.
Sorry, but I wasn't talking about "ideas". I was talking about property, like a book.
If I make a chair, I own that chair.
If I write a book, I own that particular collection of words.
Both the chair and the book are my property. One is as real as the other.
As the person who made the chair or the bovel, I'm not especially interested in keeping you from conjuring up the "idea" of my chair or my book, but I am very much interested in keeping you from making and selling unauthorized copies of my property.
The argument that ideas can't be owned is a red herring often tossed out by ideologues who don't understand that copyright and IP aren't about ideas, but about property. Somehow, they've got the notion that any piece of property that contains symbolic language or representations is an "idea" that can't be owned. That's wrong.
What's government got to do with it? Do I even use the word "government"?
You seem to think that copyright, intellectual property and the common-sense notion that the person who creates something owns it are inventions of government.
Dream on...
>> Utopian ideals are what guide society and control progress;
Nonsense. People act in their own self-interest.
I'll try once more:
If I make a chair, would you deny that I own that chair? If so, what possible justification can you provide for the curious notion that someone else can own something that did not exist until I brought it into being?
Likewise, if I write a book, I own that book. How can you make the assertion that someone else owns a book that did not exist until it wrote it? And, if you can't make that argument, how can you argue that I, as the original owner of the original book, can't control how copies are made and to whom their are distributed?
Please try to remember that your "feelings" are of no interest.
>> ... It begs the question why goverments around the world are encouraging everyone to use the internet...
I didn't know anyone was asking that question, which is based on a doubtful premise.
But, the Internet is just a big network. By itself, it is empty. The real question is this:
Is the content made available by the Internet worth it?
My answer:
Content created by "old" media and made available via the net is worth it. E.g., having on-demand access to the best news reports around the globe is very much worth it.
But, content created by "new" born-after-the-Net media is largely useless, consisting of silly and hopeless attempts to mimic other media and with polished spins on old-fashioned bulletin boards.
>> ...Creators of "intellectual property" exploit that property at the sufferance of the People, who are the actual owners of the work...
Strange, you must be reading a different copy of the Constitution. I don't see an assertion that "the people" own what someone makes in my copy.
Must be wishful thinking on your part.
I'm asserting that the creator of a work owns that work and retains all rights to that work until he or she transfers some or all of those rights or some or all of that wonership to others.
Example: I write a novel. That novel exists as a collection of words represented by sympbols on paper or as a digital file. That's what I own. If I don't transfer that original copy to anyone else, then by definition, they can only possess it by theft. Copyright law protects my right to determine how copies of my original work are made and distributed. If I sign a contract with a publisher, I have transferred some of my rights and some of my ownership share to that publisher. In return, the publisher has contracted with me to make and market copies of my novel. The publisher keeps some of the reveneue and I keep some of the revenue. If someone other than my publisher makes and markets copies of my novel with authorization, I am asserting that they are thieves and violators of the law.
Notice I'm not talking about "ideas".
I'm not talking about ideas, or stating my position on current copyright and patent law. I'm simply stating that anyone who makes something owns that "thing" and has all rights to it until some or all of those rights and ownership are transferred elsewhere.
If I write a book or record a song, I own the collection of words or recorded sounds that comprise the book or song. If I decide to do nothing else with that original work, it stays where it is. If I sign a contrct with a publisher to that gives it the right to make and sell copies of that book or that recording, then I have transferred some of my rights to another in return for, presumably, payment. Copyright and IP law protect my rights regarding that collection of words or that original recording. Ideas have nothing to do with it. I'm not claiming ownership of ideas; I'm protecting my rights to something I created.
>> You personally have no "rights" to your creation.
If not me, then who? How did they get those rights? How can someone else own something I make unless I transfer ownership to them?
>> Lets say you come up with a song that's a hit. I listen to your song and start humming it.
* do I have that right? Or do you control my right to hum your song?
Yes.
>> My friend has a secret tape recorder and so he tapes me singing it. He plays it for other people.
* Did he need your permission to do that?
* Did he need my permisssion to do that?
Yes, your friend has a right to tape you singing my song. Yes, your friend has a right to play that recording.
No, you do not have a right to make a copy of my version of that song, or of the sheet music, without my permission. Copyright law is how we transfer those rights.
>> The truth is, once an idea is expressed to the wider world, nobody "owns" it. Its impossible to own an ideas.
Wrong. This is the same bogus strawman argument that is always trotted out. Intellectual property and copyright are not about ideas. They are about protecting things like books, music, images, software code, etc. None of those things are "ideas". If I write a book, I expect copyright law to protect my right to benefits from the sale of my creation. "Ideas" have nothing to do with it, because I'm not selling "ideas".
You seem to asserting that something is "real" only if you can touch it. That's obviously absurd.
If I make something, I own it. That's the basis of property rights. No one else has any rights in what I've made, or any ownership share, until and unless I transfer rights or ownership.
That applies to all property, whether or not a create something from a block of wood or from words and thoughts. If I make a chair, it is real, it exists, and I own it. If I write a book or piece of code, it is real, it exists, and I own it.
To make your assertion that IP doesn't exist anything more than a utopian pipedream, you'll need to refute that and prove that I don't own what I make.
I don't think it is a "business view" (whatever that is) to assert that I own something that I make. That's the basis of all property rights, real or intellectual. Paying sophomoric word games won't change that.
Please explain how someone other than myself has any rights to my creation until and unless I decide to give them some of those rights. I don't believe you can without lapsing into utopian silliness.
Without IP rights, open source would devolve into an unusable and anarchic mess of code of unknown quality written by unknown persons. There would be no way for a user to know if their copy of, say, emacs, was legitimate emacs or a botched rewrite by some 16-year-old kid.
Nor would it be possible to enforce a requirement that source be distributed. It is the reality of IP -- that source code is intellectual property that needs to be made widely available -- that underpins open source.
>> ...why is it that a company can pass the charges on to the end user...
Because the company can set its own prices. Taxes are a cost of doing business. If they go up, the company needs to recoup that cost one way or the other.
If you don't like it, stop paying for it,
Sheesh.