I'm arguing this from a theoretical perspective, but I like to get my facts right, too.
The Constitution provides for the creation of the Patent Office, which is the primary protector of intellectual property rights. So the Founders clearly recognized a right to intellectual property. I'm not sure on what grounds you claim that is not a "natural" right. I think the root of property rights and intellectual property rights is the same: that the things one brings into the world, whether by physical or mental labor, should be one's own to dispose of.
I'll be interested to read the references you've mentioned, especially Jefferson's letters. I think the Supreme Court massacres the Constitution all over the place.
Chris,
I appreciate your thoughtful comments.
First, I assume you mean *in*alienable, and I would argue that intellectual property protection *is* an inalienable right guaranteed by the Constitution, and rightfully so. It is simply a part of the right to property and the right to your own life. There has been a Patent Office since the Founding. Just as the fruits of your physical labor belong to you, the fruits of your mental labor do, too.
Your argument that as distribution costs fall, IP value falls to nothing is not true. In a free market, the value of something is the price at which the market clears. Since production and distribution costs fall so drastically in the digital age, the producers may be willing to sell at cheaper prices in order to increase unit sales to make more total profits, but they will always charge something. And it does still cost them time and effort to create the IP. If there is no compensation available for IP, much less of it will be created.
The difference between a record club and Napster is that the record club owns the rights to the songs they're publishing and Napster does not. If the record companies think that's a good way to promote, it's their right to allow that. If they don't think Napster is a good way to promote, it's their right to deny it. They own the music, which they bought by voluntary agreement with the artists, and it is theirs to do as they see fit with.
I have that old-fashioned notion that if somebody else has the skills to create something that I would like to have, I should ask nicely and negotiate terms with him. I shouldn't sneak into his house at night and steal it (or even just dub a copy from his home recordings).This is also true if I'm dealing with someone he contracted to distribute his invention or production.
I'm not sure what you think is so crazy in the world of IP. Certainly there are weird things going on: patents of business processes and patents on gene discoveries are a couple that strike me as questionable, but this is more a question of whether someone actually *invented* the thing they're asking for protection for. Obvious ideas should not be patentable.
What I advocate is protecting absolutely the rights of those who have actually created something of value to profit from what they have created. "Social good" and "public domain" can have the scraps after the copyrights or patents have expired.
This is nothing but a list of rationalizations as to why you *steal* intellectual property from both the music and software industries.
You have basically listed the things you do that you know to be dishonest (and you seem pretty astute at sensing that) and then tried to come up with reasons to justify what you've done.
If you want music, buy the CD. The artist, publisher, and record company created that CD with their own sweat and toil. They own it. If you want them to allow you to use it (what buying a CD is), you should respect the terms of the transaction you undertake with them. If you think CDs are too expensive, don't buy them. And don't steal them over the Internet.
When you buy software, you agree to the terms of the license. If you violate those terms, not only are you culpable under the law, but your word is worth nothing. You have no personal honor. Someone worked hard to create something, allowed you to use what they created under certain terms, and then you spit in their face by doing whatever you wanted with it.
Nobody ever said poor people or college students are entitled to everything. That's probably part of why you're in college- so that you'll someday be able to buy the things you want. Realize that in order to consume what you want in the economy, you need to produce something to trade first.
Stop rationalizing and start respecting intellectual property. It is becoming increasingly important as more and more people's labor results in nothing but intellectual property. Not treating intellectual property with respect similar to that accorded physical property undermines the future. The more we respect intellectual property, the more of it will be available for us to enjoy and use at reasonable prices.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm arguing this from a theoretical perspective, but I like to get my facts right, too.
The Constitution provides for the creation of the Patent Office, which is the primary protector of intellectual property rights. So the Founders clearly recognized a right to intellectual property. I'm not sure on what grounds you claim that is not a "natural" right. I think the root of property rights and intellectual property rights is the same: that the things one brings into the world, whether by physical or mental labor, should be one's own to dispose of.
I'll be interested to read the references you've mentioned, especially Jefferson's letters. I think the Supreme Court massacres the Constitution all over the place.
Chris,
I appreciate your thoughtful comments.
First, I assume you mean *in*alienable, and I would argue that intellectual property protection *is* an inalienable right guaranteed by the Constitution, and rightfully so. It is simply a part of the right to property and the right to your own life. There has been a Patent Office since the Founding. Just as the fruits of your physical labor belong to you, the fruits of your mental labor do, too.
Your argument that as distribution costs fall, IP value falls to nothing is not true. In a free market, the value of something is the price at which the market clears. Since production and distribution costs fall so drastically in the digital age, the producers may be willing to sell at cheaper prices in order to increase unit sales to make more total profits, but they will always charge something. And it does still cost them time and effort to create the IP. If there is no compensation available for IP, much less of it will be created.
The difference between a record club and Napster is that the record club owns the rights to the songs they're publishing and Napster does not. If the record companies think that's a good way to promote, it's their right to allow that. If they don't think Napster is a good way to promote, it's their right to deny it. They own the music, which they bought by voluntary agreement with the artists, and it is theirs to do as they see fit with.
I have that old-fashioned notion that if somebody else has the skills to create something that I would like to have, I should ask nicely and negotiate terms with him. I shouldn't sneak into his house at night and steal it (or even just dub a copy from his home recordings).This is also true if I'm dealing with someone he contracted to distribute his invention or production.
I'm not sure what you think is so crazy in the world of IP. Certainly there are weird things going on: patents of business processes and patents on gene discoveries are a couple that strike me as questionable, but this is more a question of whether someone actually *invented* the thing they're asking for protection for. Obvious ideas should not be patentable.
What I advocate is protecting absolutely the rights of those who have actually created something of value to profit from what they have created. "Social good" and "public domain" can have the scraps after the copyrights or patents have expired.
This is nothing but a list of rationalizations as to why you *steal* intellectual property from both the music and software industries.
You have basically listed the things you do that you know to be dishonest (and you seem pretty astute at sensing that) and then tried to come up with reasons to justify what you've done.
If you want music, buy the CD. The artist, publisher, and record company created that CD with their own sweat and toil. They own it. If you want them to allow you to use it (what buying a CD is), you should respect the terms of the transaction you undertake with them. If you think CDs are too expensive, don't buy them. And don't steal them over the Internet.
When you buy software, you agree to the terms of the license. If you violate those terms, not only are you culpable under the law, but your word is worth nothing. You have no personal honor. Someone worked hard to create something, allowed you to use what they created under certain terms, and then you spit in their face by doing whatever you wanted with it.
Nobody ever said poor people or college students are entitled to everything. That's probably part of why you're in college- so that you'll someday be able to buy the things you want. Realize that in order to consume what you want in the economy, you need to produce something to trade first.
Stop rationalizing and start respecting intellectual property. It is becoming increasingly important as more and more people's labor results in nothing but intellectual property. Not treating intellectual property with respect similar to that accorded physical property undermines the future. The more we respect intellectual property, the more of it will be available for us to enjoy and use at reasonable prices.