| Who we are | Organizations | Get Involved! | Helpdesk |
| Weblog | About FLORA | Server project | F.A.Q. |
|
|
|||||||
| ||||||||
Election 2006 (and beyond): Digital Copyright Canada
From: russell_-at-_linux.ca (Russell McOrmond)
Date: 18 Dec 1999 21:43:42 -0500
References: <385A8149.B646812F@quotationlocation.com>
A new thread started from within the subject: Re: [oclug] Amazon, RMS and
software patents)
Guess I'll start with the most controversial idea first, and go from
there. To me this is first principles, but the language used in this
conversation indicates that I'm not in the majority with my reading of
these first principles.
"Intellectual Property" does not exist!
The phrase "Intellectual Property" is a metaphor used to explain a very
specialized interpretation of what Copyright, Patents and Trademarks are.
These three things do exist (Copyright, Patents, Trademarks) and have
defined meaning in our various Nation-State legal systems, and differ from
Nation-State to Nation-State, but the phrase "Intellectual Property" does
not have any real meaning.
As soon as you use that phrase, you are assuming a specific
interpretation of the 3 legal constructs. Those of us who reject that
particular interpretation are automatically locked out of the discussion,
which I suspect is the purpose of the phrase.
What Copyright, Patents, and Trademarks do is impose a 'temporary
monopoly' onto something intellectual that otherwise would not have
limits. The nature of the monopoly may be different (Is it for an exact
'copyable' work of art such as an audio/visual work, or writing....is is a
process where the words/diagrams used to describe the process are not
critical, but the process is ... or is it part of a virtual identity), and
the time limits may be different, but the phrase "temporary monopoly" is
the essence of these legal structures.
If we can't start from that basis, then there is no way to have the
discussion without quickly breaking down. The metaphor of property just
does not make sense outside of physical objects as ideas are infinitely
copyable, and can be spontaneously created ("thought of") in different
places and time in isolation from each other. With physical objects there
is a natural monopoly: the land, animal, person, object or whatever
physical object can only exist in one place at any given time, and in the
world outside of science fiction and magic do not just "appear out of thin
air".
Creating an arbitrary legal limit on how something can be copied is
clearly government intervention in the natural world to create a monopoly.
Who benefits from that monopoly, and what the costs are, and how these
things have changed over time can be brought up to interpretation and
debate, but the basic concept behind the government granted temporary
monopoly cannot be debated.
On Fri, 17 Dec 1999, Shad Young wrote:
> The "monopoly" you describe is not so much about encouraging innovation
> as it is about protecting your work from unscrupulous individuals who
> will do everything and anything to steal both the idea and the credit.
> Today's patent laws are a response to that reality.
How do you believe it does this? Are you aware of concepts such as
bio-piracy, or of indigineous knowledge being stolen using Copyrights and
Patents?
And if it is not about encouraging innovation, and it does not in any
way protect against those unscrupulous individuals (as Copyright/Patent
are the tools that make much of the theft possible), then what is the
purpose?
> > This current game of monopoly does not even have to require that the
> > third-party obtain their knowledge from the published work. Today this
> > even includes indigenous knowledge and obvious techniques where the first
> > idiot to patent is granted a monopoly.
>
> An unfortunate side effect of the rush to protect your work, but one
> that the careful inventor can minimize.
Not everyone considers themselves an 'inventor', nor feel the need to
'protect' their work. They are just trying to get their job done and use
ideas from a variety of places to get that done. That a monopoly should
be granted at all for all but the most expensively researched concepts is
totally debatable.
For myself, I do not see restricting access to my ideas to make money to
be a valid concept. The only protection I need is FROM the
copyright/patent/trademark system itself as these are the constructs that
most threaten me.
I like the idea of getting credit, but publishing accomplishes that,
possibly enhanced by a totally reformed copyright system with 'credit' as
the focus. The only reason I would ever Copyright something in todays
world is to put a CopyLeft on it (To restrict someone else's ability to
restrict the flow of the information, including any derivative work), or
to Patent something to put into a 'Free Patent' system to disallow someone
else from patenting the technique.
> He made the claim that the need was there and that it would have been
> invented by somebody within the same period of time.
And I would totally agree with him on that point. It is very American
to believe that single individuals hold the key to everything, but it is
not an idea that is universally believed. I personally believe, as an
example, that if Hitler did not exist that it would be some other name
that we would use to refer to some other person who took on the same roll.
The conditions in Europe existed that made what he did possible, and there
was nothing special about that single man.
> research assistants would have likely ever solved the problem with out
> my direction and previous work. Thus credit is not given, as in reality
> the problem was solved by me, only the grunt work was done by the
> assistants."
This person had their nose 10 feet in the air didn't they ;-)
Arrogance is no excuse for not giving credit to the team of people who
made something possible. Could he have done the work alone? Not at all
likely, so it is ignorant and arrogant of the person to suggest otherwise.
Glad I don't work for people like that. Glad I don't even have to talk
to those type of people ;-)
> One also must recognize that a company has much the same input.
Yawn - The almighty dollar - there are those who have power granted by
it, and the vast majority of people who slave beneath it - and slaves
should never be given any credit for anything they do, right?
The fact is that Companies are groups of people, and it is the people
that make the company what it is. You are justifying credit not being
given where it is due by pulling out our messed up economic system. The
executives of corporations owe their existence to the intelligent people
who do the real work of the company. I am not suggesting that management
is not necessary, just not worthy of the credit you are handing over to
them.
I bet the nature of high-tech companies would be very different if
non-people were not able to hold copyright/patents. The amount of
inappropriate 'downsizing' would not happen, knowing that the person that
came up with an idea would be free to take their expertise and ideas to
a competitor. The concepts of "Intellectual Property" would disappear
very quickly as corporations would be lobbying government against it,
rather than for it.
The imbalance of employer power over employees is the stuff that Marx
and others wrote about - why should out legal constructs around
Intellectual Monopoly be any different. It would be nice to think that as
a species we will grow out of that!
> Intellectual property is a reality of the human factor. People are
> greedy by nature. We all want the credit and fame.
We all want different things. Intellectual Property is an
interpretation of these legal systems that puts monetary concerns over all
others, including credit and fame. It is an interpretation that I reject
partly because I believe in giving credit where it is due, not credit to
the highest bidder!
> 1. Information dissemination is rapid and complete. An invention can be
> leaked and the whole world can know about it it minutes.
And you are suggesting that copyright/patents/trademarks take that into
consideration? These concepts are extremely outdated and take none of
todays modern realities into consideration. This can be shown easily in
the extremely long time limits on these monopolies, or the consideration
of local communities in the imposition of external 'identities' (IE: A
large translational corporation stomps on a smaller company of the same
name, making local trademark systems irrelevant).
> 2. Speculative stock markets force the protection of innovation, due to
A messed up economic system cannot be used as an excuse for a messed up
interpretation of a legal construct ;-)
The market speculation fluctuates largely on 'reputation', which would
make 'credit where credit is due' to be a much more appropriate overriding
principle than monopoly economics. Our legal constructs should be being
used to ensure that credit, not be used to remove that credit. There is
no need for the monopoly of 'copying', just a monopoly on 'credit'.
> What we need to do is consider that until we as a species begin to
> understand the new paradigm that the internet has created in the realm
> of information exchange, and learn to do buisiness in a way that is not
> only about "Potential earnings", extreme protectionism will be a
> reality. Perhaps rightly so, when you look at humanity for what it is.
It is interesting to remind people what "Intellectual Property
Protection" really protects one against: competition. Funny in a culture
that pays lip service to the concepts of Free Markets and Free Enterprise
that some of the most influential legal concepts of our time are designed
specifically to remove competition.
I believe that having these discussions in little "Linux Users Groups"
is one such way to help that growing understanding. We need to understand
where we came from in order to move forward. In the information age,
legal concepts such as copyright/patent/trademark and the various
'interpretations' (Verbal lobbying such as phrases like "Intellectual
Property") are the most important concepts to discuss.
---
Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://russell.flora.org/work/>
http://russell.flora.org/work/closed-wto.html [Current Paper in Progress]
http://www.flora.org/flora.mai-not/15816 Rebels in Search of Rules
http://www.flora.org/flora.announce/103 Linux users boycott AMAZON.COM
| Please read the FLORA.org Terms and Conditions before you submit information to FLORA.org | |
Join the Blue Ribbon Online Free Speech Campaign(USA) (Canada) |
 FLORA Community Web
(FLORA.ORG) is sponsored by FLORA
Community Consulting (FLORA.CA).
|