source link

StealthyRoid writes "I'm an anarcho-capitalist, and a huge supporter of property rights, both physical and intellectual. At the same time, I find the current trend of increasing penalties for minor violations, criminalizing civil IP matters, anti-consumer technologies like DRM, and abuse of the legal system by the *AA's of the world really disturbing. You'd think that by now, there'd be a reasonable solution to the problem of protecting intellectual property while at the same time maintaining the rights of consumers and protecting individuals from absurd litigation, but I have yet to find one. So, I pose these questions to the Slashdot community: 1 � Do you acknowledge the legitimacy of intellectual property to begin with? That is, do you believe that intellectual property is a valid construct equivalent to physical property, or do you think it's illusory? If not, why? 2 � If so, how would you go about protecting the rights of intellectual property holders in a way that doesn't require unfair usage limitations or resort to predatory abuse of the tort system?"

1. No

Why? - Thoughts and ideas are not physical, the notion is absurd. The concepts (physical vs. thought) have nothing in common, and thought is less controllable than air. The attempt to own and control thought can only end in an Orwellian nightmare scenario if carried to it's logical conclusion.

However, a person that a) has an original useful idea, and b) can see it to some sort of fruition deserves compensation. If it benefits society then society should compensate (through taxes or similar). If it benefits a group, then the group should compensate. But only a reasonable amount, and not forever.

my 2 cents

The only way to retain control of "intellectual property" is to keep it secret.

a person that a) has an original useful idea, and b) can see it to some sort of fruition deserves compensation.

Only if the compensation was agreed upon before the useful idea is brought to fruition.

If after the fact, the creator can sell the rights to recreate the end product or do it themselves in an effort to capitalize on the original idea. But there is no guarantee in either case. No compensation was offered, none is "deserved," although the possibility exists to earn some anyway.

Those who continue to make plastic discs do not deserve to get paid if the public no longer finds them useful.

Those who continue to make music will continue to be paid to do it, whether in a recording studio or in front of a live audience, until the public no longer finds them entertaining.

You can change the law if you want, but you can't change the natural evolution of society. We're pretty much done with plastic discs.

a person that a) has an original useful idea, and b) can see it to some sort of fruition deserves compensation.



why?

Why?

This is so interesting. I often frequent other sites and I have spoken at length with people who have made a decent living as professional musicians/producers etc. I am a musician myself (with no illusions of "making it"). My other life involves mechanical design and programming, so I am affected by both copyright and patent law.

Anyway the people that depend on copyright and patents for a living are absolutely rabid about protecting what is theirs, and on this side of the fence sit leflaw and the rest of the boycott gang (including me).

So don't you feel that producing useful ideas/products has value? Or should it be strictly determined by market rules? Since I had the idea first, I can get it to market first, and that is my advantage. Once the idea/product is out however it is a free for all and if someone can do it cheaper/faster/ whatever, my advantage is gone and it's game over. Pretty harsh world.

I guess my problem is I can see both sides of the argument (empathy sucks).

Brent

"So don't you feel that producing useful ideas/products has value?"

No one ever pays me for mine if I haven't negotiated payment before I started. My efforts to produce useful ideas/products without such an agreement in place have proven decidedly worthless in terms of compensation.

They still have value to me. While the prospect of being paid for these works is a pleasant one, I have no illusion that I deserve it. I am not entitled to receive X number of dollars just because I wrote or recorded a song.

"(P)eople who have made a decent living as professional musicians/producers etc."

...are all paid to show up and do a job.

FIRST they give Bruce Springsteen $100 million. THEN he records some songs.

First off, there has not been any "intellectual property" since slaves were emancipated. It is a stupid and idiotic term for a stupid and idiotic idea.

Say I draw a funny cartoon. Does that cartoon have an intellect? Does it think or is it sentient? Hell no.

It may be virtual property, intangible property, abstract property , or property consisting of ideas, plans, or images, but is there such a thing as "Intellectual Property"? Well, my cats are pretty f'ing smart, but I think I belong to them instead of the other way around.

So, if "intellectual" means " of or pertaining to the intellect, or intellectual in nature", how in God's name are the gruntings of some band of idiots who sold their soul to the RIAA for a few sheckels, considered "intellectual".

How is "Fiddy Cent" 's rap songs, "high brow" or "appealing to the intellect"?

(Adjusting my powdered wig, and rising to address the Court like any good barrister...)
Your honor, I rest my case (and can I give a shout out to my homeys on the East Side?"


Props to All Intellectuals, but NADA for anyone thinking "intellectual property" is a decent term of art.

Of course, I agree with George the Z and Leflaw..but I always look back in history.

Did DaVinci lose his recognition for painting the Mona Lisa, did Sir Isaac Newton (a strange cat by the way) get ripped off and have someone steal his book on OPTIKS because there was no copyright registered?

The truth is this notion of having your ideas stolen can be traced to the common era. One of my favorites was Nikola Tesla. Tesla was the guy responsible for alternating current, the Tesla coil, and had patents on most of the stuff in the radio Marconi used to transmit the transatlantic signal, and yet, Tesla is never given credit by the popular media, only that idiot Marconi.

Tesla also invented the induction motor, used in just about every commercial engine.

So, even though Tesla HAD patents, other people got the credit.

Check it...
http://www.mall-usa.com/BPCS/tesla.html

http://www.mall-usa.com/BPCS/grant_tesla.html

Patents Arranged in Patent Grant Date Order:

# Patent Year Month Day Title
1 334,823 1886 January 26 Commutator for Dynamo Electric Machines
2 335,786 1886 February 9 Electric Arc Lamp
3 335,787 1886 February 9 Electric Arc Lamp
4 336,961 1886 March 2 Regulator for Dynamo Electric Machines
5 336,962 1886 March 2 Regulator for Dynamo Electric Machines
6 350,954 1886 October 19 Regulator for Dynamo Elecric Machines
7 359,748 1887 March 22 Dynamo Electric Machine
8 381,968 1888 May 1 Electro Magnetic Motor
9 381,969 1888 May 1 Electro Magnetic Motor
10 381,970 1888 May 1 System of Electrical Distribution
11 382,279 1888 May 1 Electro Magnetic Motor
12 382,280 1888 May 1 Electrical Transmission of Power
13 382,281 1888 May 1 Electrical Transmission of Power
14 382,282 1888 May 1 Method of Converting and Distributing Electric Currents
15 382,845 1888 May 15 Commutator for Dynamo Electric Machines
16 390,413 1888 October 2 System of Electrical Distribution
17 390,414 1888 October 2 Dynamo Electric Machine
18 390,415 1888 October 2 Dynamo Electric Machine or Motor
19 390,721 1888 October 9 Dynamo Electric Machine
20 390,820 1888 October 9 Regulator for Alternate Current Motors
21 396,121 1889 January 15 Thermo Magnetic Motor
22 401,520 1889 April 16 Method of Operating Electro Magnetic Motors
23 405,858 1889 June 25 Electro Magnetic Motor
24 405,859 1889 June 25 Method of Electrical Power Transmission
25 406,968 1889 July 16 Dynamo Electric Machine
26 413,353 1889 October 22 Method of Obtaining Direct from Alternating Currents
27 416,191 1889 December 3 Electro Magnetic Motor
28 416,192 1889 December 3 Method of Operating Electro Magnetic Motors
29 416,193 1889 December 3 Electro Magnetic Motor
30 416,194 1889 December 3 Electric Motor
31 416,195 1889 December 3 Electro Magnetic Motor
32 417,794 1889 December 24 Armature for Electric Machines (A. Schmid & N. Tesla)
33 418,248 1889 December 31 Electro Magnetic Motor
34 424,036 1890 March 25 Electro Magnetic Motor
35 428,057 1890 May 13 Pyromagneto Electric Generator
36 433,700 1890 August 5 Alternating Current Electro Magnetic Motor
37 433,701 1890 August 5 Alternating Current Motor
38 433,702 1890 August 5 Electrical Transformer or Induction Device
39 433,703 1890 August 5 Electro Magnetic Motor
40 445,207 1891 January 27 Electro Magnetic Motor
41 447,920 1891 March 10 Method of Operating Arc Lamps
42 447,921 1891 March 10 Alternating Electric Current Generator
43 454,622 1891 June 23 System of Electric Lighting
44 455,067 1891 June 30 Electro Magnetic Motor
45 455,068 1891 June 30 Electrical Meter
46 455,069 1891 June 30 Electric Incandescent Lamp
47 459,772 1891 September 22 Electro Magnetic Motor
48 462,418 1891 November 3 Method of and Apparatus for Electrical Conversion and Distribution
49 464,666 1891 December 8 Electro Magnetic Motor
50 464,667 1891 December 8 Electrical Condenser
51 487,796 1892 December 13 System of Electrical Transmission of Power
52 511,559 1893 December 26 Electrical Transmission of Power
53 511,560 1893 December 26 System of Electrical Power Transmission
54 511,915 1894 January 2 Electrical Transmission of Power
55 511,916 1894 January 2 Electric Generator
56 512,340 1894 January 9 Coil for Electro Magnets
57 514,167 1894 February 6 Electrical Conductor
58 514,168 1894 February 6 Means for Generating Electric Currents
59 514,169 1894 February 6 Reciprocating Engine
60 514,170 1894 February 6 Incandescent Electric Light
61 514,972 1894 February 20 Electric Railway System
62 514,973 1894 February 20 Electrical Meter
63 517,900 1894 April 10 Steam Engine
64 524,426 1894 August 14 Electromagnetic Motor
65 555,190 1896 February 25 Alternating Motor
66 567,818 1896 September 15 Electrical Condenser
67 568,176 1896 September 22 Apparatus for Producing Electric Currents of High Frequency and Potential
68 568,177 1896 September 22 Apparatus for Producing Ozone
69 568,178 1896 September 22 Method of Regulating Apparatus for Producing Currents of High Frequency
70 568,179 1896 September 22 Method of and Apparatus for Producing Currents of High Frequency
71 568,180 1896 September 22 Apparatus for Producing Electrical Currents of High Frequency
72 577,670 1897 February 23 Apparatus for Producing Electric Currents of High Frequency
73 577,671 1897 February 23 Manufacture of Electrical Condensers, Coils, &c
74 583,953 1897 June 8 Apparatus for Producing Currents of High Frequency
75 593,138 1897 November 2 Electrical Transformer
76 609,245 1898 August 16 Electrical Circuit Controller
77 609,246 1898 August 16 Electric Circuit Controller
78 609,247 1898 August 16 Electric Circuit Controller
79 609,248 1898 August 16 Electric Circuit Controller
80 609,249 1898 August 16 Electric Circuit Controller
81 609,250 1898 August 16 Electrical Igniter for Gas Engines
82 609,251 1898 August 16 Electric Circuit Controller
83 611,719 1898 October 4 Electrical Circuit Controller
84 613,735 1898 November 8 Electric Circuit Controller
85 613,809 1898 November 8 Method of and Apparatus for Controlling Mechansim of Moving Vessels or Vehicles
86 645,576 1900 March 20 System of Transmission of Electrical Energy
87 649,621 1900 May 15 Apparatus for Transmission of Electrical Energy
88 655,838 1900 August 14 Method of Insulating Electric Conductors
89 11,865 1900 October 23 Method of Insulating Electric Conductors
90 685,012 1901 October 22 Means for Increasing the Intensity of Electrical Oscillations
91 685,953 1901 November 5 Method of Intensifying and Utilizing Effects Transmitted Through Natural Media
92 685,954 1901 November 5 Method of Utilizing Effects Transmitted Through Natural Media
93 685,955 1901 November 5 Apparatus for Utilizing Effects Transmitted From a Distance to a Receiving Device Through Natural Media
94 685,956 1901 November 5 Apparatus for Utilizing Effects Transmitted Through Natural Media
95 685,957 1901 November 5 Apparatus for the Utilization of Radiant Energy
96 685,958 1901 November 5 Method of Utilizing Radiant Energy
97 723,188 1903 March 17 Method of Signaling
98 725,605 1903 April 14 System of Signaling
99 787,412 1905 April 18 Art of Transmitting Electrical Energy Through the Natural Mediums
100 1,061,142 1913 April 29 Fluid Propulsion
101 1,061,206 1913 May 6 Turbine
102 1,113,716 1914 October 13 Fountain
103 1,119,732 1914 December 1 Apparatus for Transmitting Electrical Energy
104 1,209,359 1916 December 19 Speed Indicator
105 1,266,175 1918 May 14 Lightning Protector
106 1,274,816 1918 August 6 Speed Indicator
107 1,314,718 1919 September 2 Ship's Log
108 1,329,559 1920 February 3 Valvular Conduit
109 1,365,547 1921 January 11 Flow Meter
110 1,402,025 1922 January 3 Frequency Meter
111 1,655,113 1928 January 3 Method of Aerial Transportation
112 1,655,114 1928 January 3 Apparatus for Aerial Transportation

So, the point is that Van Gogh, Rubens,
DaVinci, Michelangelo, and on and on, were not protected by patents, but their works are still associated with them.

As laws create criminals, it seems to this poor observer that the more we have pushed patent laws and copyright, the more people have got into violating them.

You cannot copyright an idea. That's the first way that people who have not studied copyright or other intellectual property law reveal their ignorance on the subject and so long as that ignorance remains in place they can't discuss the subject logically or rationally because they're already being illogical.

The key three words most people working in the industry do not understand and that are crucial to understanding how ideas can be protected are: fixed tangible expression.

The idea has to be realized as a fixed tangible expression. So long as people do not grok these three words a lot of ignorant ill-informed and conceived arguments and discussion will ensue.

The number of people who discuss copyright and other intellectual property law without actually having read an Act or studied the history and/or economics of intellectual property is simply astounding. It beggars belief and explains why so many words are wasted, their only use to confuse and obfuscate the subject even more than it already is.

In simple terms fixed tangible expression means: you copyright thought by writing it down, by placing it where others can see it.