Your thoughts are very clear and I agree with you! There's definately a problem today and the benefits of today's system often go to the wrong people.
If I had it my way (which I probably won't -- ever), I'd have it quite simple:
An abstract idea/concept could not be protected by law. (I.e.: you shouldn't be able to patent the idea of putting a shopping cart on a website...also all scientific discoveries would fall into this category).
Tangible "things" can be protected. (I.e.: you can't protect the idea of an online shopping cart, but if you've spend lots of time building one people aren't allowed to simply take your code and run with it).
The author(s)/creator(s) of actual text/code/music/movie/whatever should be able to decide whether or not he/she/they make their work public...if they make their work(s) public (by selling it, publishing it, or in any other way), they shouldn't be able to disallow the general public to spread their work(s) further on a non-profit basis as long as the original creator of the work is always credited. (I.e.: if I write an excellent shopping cart and use it on my site, nobody can force me to publish the code, but IF I choose to do so, anyone's allowed to spread the code I published on, as long as they credit me properly. But, only I, the creator, am allowed to SELL the work I created. You couldn't just take my code and sell it).
Creator(s) of ideas/code/texts/art/etc can get financial compensation for their hard work from people who like their works enough to purchase the "real" thing or who choose to donate an amount of money. (I.e.: If I want to, I get to ask money for a download of the code of my shopping cart, or for a CD-ROM).
The creator always has a final say over whether or not others can modify his/her actual work. This doesn't go for the abstract idea class. (I.e.: As a creator, I could still choose whether or not I would allow others to modify the code of my shopping cart or not, but I couldn't disallow anyone to build on the idea of an online shopping cart and add one-click-ordering to that idea. If they want to implement it using my code, they'd need my permission as I would run the risk of getting a bad rep or even law suits if they mess up my code and cause damage).
The creator would ultimately have complete moral control over his/her works. This would override anything a publisher or laywer could come up with. (I.e.: if I find a minor flaw in my code and happen to be a perfectionist, I can hold my code back until a patch is ready, even if the software distributor that handles it would prefer to keep the flawed version available for commercial reasons. Also, if I would choose to develop a free (as in beer) version of the shopping cart, no "contractual obligations" can hold me back from making it available -- this also goes for publishing the source code of the cart in the first place; if I made it, I decide what happens with it).
I suppose these are some of the things I would like to see. My reasoning behind the whole thing is that most creators (coders, writers, musicians, artists, etc.) are decent people who would like to see their works spread to all appropriate audiences. I also have enough faith in "normal" people (as in: people who haven't gone to law school where they were taught how to expertly deplete their brains of oxygen by wearing neckties for too long) to pay for the stuff they like. I feel (software) publishers (and record companies, movie studios, etc) and especially their legal departments should not get in between the creator(s) and the public. They can facilitate greatly and do a great many things, but they are NOT the be-all, end-all some of them think they are. (Not all; there are also some great publishers/companies out there).
And if you're too poor to pay for the stuff, anyone can provide you with a free *copy*.
I realize a few people would take everything for free, even though they're loaded and could easily pay for the code/text/music/movie. Oh w
I agree with your basic point, but I'm afraid your history got a little tangled.
The idea of owning an idea (there's meta for you) comes from after feudalism; in fact it's almost directly opposed to the mindset of feudal society where ideas were just about the only thing you could take without fearing severe physical punishment.
The renaissance (which originated through the financial support of feudal lords) drove out the so-called "dark ages", but renaissance thinking first introduced the idea of individual ownership of ideas, art and concepts to us!
Skip a few decades, even centuries and all of a sudden you get the so called "enlightenment" following the industrial revilution and only after the advances of this period in time were the post-"dark ages" concepts of owning ideas strong enough to be turned into laws -- leaving us where we are today.
To sum it up: sharing intelectual property was typical in feudal society; the new ideas of the renaissance introduced "individual ownership" of ideas; and only with the industrial revolution and the enlightenment did ideas become "protected" by law.
Ironically, while I agree the greatest advances in both technology, art and mindset can only be made through sharing ideas freely, advances that have been made in the past went hand-in-hand with increasingly stronger "protection" of "ownership" of ideas, rather than v.v.
Slashdot Mirror
Your thoughts are very clear and I agree with you! There's definately a problem today and the benefits of today's system often go to the wrong people.
If I had it my way (which I probably won't -- ever), I'd have it quite simple:
I suppose these are some of the things I would like to see. My reasoning behind the whole thing is that most creators (coders, writers, musicians, artists, etc.) are decent people who would like to see their works spread to all appropriate audiences. I also have enough faith in "normal" people (as in: people who haven't gone to law school where they were taught how to expertly deplete their brains of oxygen by wearing neckties for too long) to pay for the stuff they like. I feel (software) publishers (and record companies, movie studios, etc) and especially their legal departments should not get in between the creator(s) and the public. They can facilitate greatly and do a great many things, but they are NOT the be-all, end-all some of them think they are. (Not all; there are also some great publishers/companies out there).
And if you're too poor to pay for the stuff, anyone can provide you with a free *copy*. I realize a few people would take everything for free, even though they're loaded and could easily pay for the code/text/music/movie. Oh w
I agree with your basic point, but I'm afraid your history got a little tangled.
The idea of owning an idea (there's meta for you) comes from after feudalism; in fact it's almost directly opposed to the mindset of feudal society where ideas were just about the only thing you could take without fearing severe physical punishment.
The renaissance (which originated through the financial support of feudal lords) drove out the so-called "dark ages", but renaissance thinking first introduced the idea of individual ownership of ideas, art and concepts to us!
Skip a few decades, even centuries and all of a sudden you get the so called "enlightenment" following the industrial revilution and only after the advances of this period in time were the post-"dark ages" concepts of owning ideas strong enough to be turned into laws -- leaving us where we are today.
To sum it up: sharing intelectual property was typical in feudal society; the new ideas of the renaissance introduced "individual ownership" of ideas; and only with the industrial revolution and the enlightenment did ideas become "protected" by law.
Ironically, while I agree the greatest advances in both technology, art and mindset can only be made through sharing ideas freely, advances that have been made in the past went hand-in-hand with increasingly stronger "protection" of "ownership" of ideas, rather than v.v.
This is a paradox worth pondering.