[wwwtyro]

I wouldn't be so quick to consider the anti-IP position as one of simple rationalization. I once held your position, and now consider it to have been a narrow-minded mistake (that was directed at my past self, not you).

Give me a moment to explain my philosophical transformation by way of example:

Suppose you walk out into some unclaimed forest and gather some wood. Per John Locke, you have mixed your labor (gathering) with a natural resource (wood) and now own the gathered wood.

And what is ownership? Ownership is the right to do with your property whatever you'd like, provided what you do does not affect or threaten the property of others (including the property they have in their own persons). This is understood intuitively in the scope of the example here that it would be wrong for someone to, by force and against your will, take the wood that you gathered.

To continue the example: your friend Bob approaches you and shows you an invention of his - a wooden seat, exquisitely crafted and very comfortable to sit upon. It's a fantastic idea, and you're really quite taken with it. Instead of purchasing the seat, however, you decide to produce some of your own, using the wood you own, for your own use and to sell to others. You do so.

Bob comes to you, quite upset. You've stolen his idea, he says, and profited with it against his will. And here the internal conflict introduced by the concept of "intellectual" property is highlighted. You used your own property as you pleased and in a way that did not harm or threaten to harm anyone else's property, and yet according to Bob, you've violated his "intellectual" property rights. In fact, the only way to not violate Bob's "intellectual" property is to not do with your property as you please, even though that use is entirely nonviolent. Bob's exercise of his "intellectual" property right is a violation of your property right!

I hope I have sufficiently demonstrated here that IP cannot be a right at all, because it destroys the internal consistency of property rights in general.

The response to this is usually utilitarian: "But how are artists going to get paid without IP?" I offer a riposte here not because I have to (the ends do not justify the means) but because some people need firm ground to stand upon before they can move into a brave new world sans copyright. The threshold pledge system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_pledge_system) is a means of providing compensation to artists for their work that does not depend upon IP law.

[MrScruff]

This doesn't really refute my statement at all. I was merely claiming that piracy is often framed as a political statement, when it really isn't at all. It's about people choosing to spend their money on something else, relying on others to pay for the actual production of entertainment.

As for your point about there being no inherent right to protection of IP, I would have said that was obvious. However the legal system doesn't exist to just enshrine and enforce basic rights. It's also used to shape societies in ways we (or our representatives) feel are beneficial.

Currently we as a society choose to enforce IP law. If that changes, then sure, I'll find another job. Good luck waiting for that Game of Thrones season 3 though.

[AnIrishDuck]

> It's about people choosing to spend their money on something else, relying on others to pay for the actual production of entertainment.

This is the free rider problem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_rider_problem. It is exacerbated by the fact that piracy is easier than obtaining content through legitimate channels.

> Currently we as a society choose to enforce IP law. If that changes, then sure, I'll find another job. Good luck waiting for that Game of Thrones season 3 though.

There are other solutions to the free rider problem. Take your pick from the examples on Wikipedia (i.e. assurance contracts, which are remarkably similar to the way Kickstarter works). The information revolution has changed the economics of your job, but I believe as a society we will ultimately find a better way to incentivize your work.

[ShawnBird]

Are you saying that selling plastic by the sword is better for society than a strong public domain? Or do you just think that a system where content can be produced without artificial scarcity is idealistic?

I guess what I am asking is this: Do you think that 'public ownership' of IP is impossible, impractical or immoral?

As a content creator do you have an objection to public content on principle? Or do you dislike it because you don't see it being possible?

I am asking this out of pure curiosity. I am just kind of surprised to see someone on hacker news of all places saying that information should not be free. I can understand saying that now is not the time or that models are not yet ready but it seems ridiculous to think that we should ignore the power of the internet for content distribution forever because it doesn't pay the bills now.

[rada]

I am surprised to see someone on hacker news saying that information should not be free.

Using the word "information" in this context is rather disingenuous. We don't play music on our information players, we don't buy books at the local information store, and we don't see movies at the information theater. If we are going to have a good discussion, let's call things what they are.

It seems ridiculous that we should ignore the power of the internet for content distribution forever because it doesn't pay the bills now.

Fiat money is ridiculous in exactly the same way. Would you say that it seems ridiculous to ignore the power of Xerox because it doesn't pay the bills for sellers of physical goods?

[ShawnBird]

Well what do you use to view information? You don't look at it on an information screen and you don't store in on an information drive. You are just arguing Symantec. If you have a book the physical object is the book and what is written on the pages is information. Information is different from an object in that it is intangible, it is the part that gets copied when people torrent something.

Fiat money is ridiculous in exactly the same way. Would you say that it seems ridiculous to ignore the power of Xerox because it doesn't pay the bills for sellers of physical goods?

That makes no sense. I don't see what you mean. Right now the internet could deliver content to more people more efficiently than a retail store but it is being restricted by laws that have been put in place to guarantee a paycheck for the content creators. I don't think that this is bad but I do think that we are in a state of transition and that in the not so distant future you will not go to a store to get music movies or books (except possibly as a novelty)

[rada]

Kind of like a hotel is a physical object but your stay in it is intangible so once you forge the key you are entitled in staying for free? Or kind of like McDonald's brand name is intangible so anyone can open a shack and call it McDonalds without paying a franchise fee?

Seriously, you can make up esoteric arguments ad infinitum and ad absurdum but the fact is, an arbitrary distinction - digital vs. printed - does not a theft unmake. Information wants to be free but books, movies and songs want to sell, or we wouldn't be having this argument.

One last interesting thing for you to ponder: the entire fiction genre is, by definition, misinformation.

[ShawnBird]

I said that information is intangible, not that all intangible things are information.

You are being absurd. A physical book and a digital representation of the information are completely different. The only thing that they have in common is that once used you get the same information. If you steal a book, that is theft. If you copy a book that is copyright infringement. The difference is that the person who had the book stolen from then is deprived of property in one example and in the other they are not.

This is not a simple matter. Making a copy is not theft. There are not clear lines here.

[MrScruff]

I'm not sure what you mean - are you arguing that all information should be put into the public domain as a matter of course? If so, I wouldn't agree with that, no.

I'm curious as to why you think people posting on Hacker News should wish for information to be free. The vast majority of start ups benefit from withholding information from competitors, for example their source code or client list. In general, I would say most people like to be given the opportunity to choose which information is free and which is not.

Just because the internet makes that difficult to enforce doesn't fundamentally change this in my view. As long as we still have a concept of wealth, at least.

[jivatmanx]

The ability to withholding something from the public is privacy.

IP is use of law to prevent others from using something that is public.

Note: I don't think copyright is that evil, just current term lengths, enforcement laws, and infringement damages. Patent as it exists now is pretty screwed up and in order to not be evil would have to be pretty radically different from what it is now.

[ShawnBird]

I was speaking generally. I obviously don't think that there should be no privacy but I do think that free and limitless access to public information is an ideal of the hacker community. I consider books, music and movies as a kind of information.

[olalonde]

Taken to extreme, your argument is also one against trademarks as they are a form of intellectual property. Do you think anyone should be allowed to build a laptop and stamp the Apple logo on it? If your answer to that question is "no", you should consider approaching the problem with a more pragmatic/consequentialist standpoint.

[ShawnBird]

What you are saying makes no sense. I am not talking about manufacturing or brands or trademarks. I am talking about the data. Trademarks are already public, you don't have to pay to look at a logo. How is my argument even tangentially related to trademarks?

I am saying that digital content will one day be freely available (or available on a subscription) because it costs nothing to copy. Never before has content been restricted when it could be copied freely. Radio is free television is free and websites are free. I think that is the natural end point of intangible goods it is just a matter of figuring out how to pay the content creators.

[olalonde]

> You've stolen his idea, he says, and profited with it against his will. And here the internal conflict introduced by the concept of "intellectual" property is highlighted. You used your own property as you pleased and in a way that did not harm or threaten to harm anyone else's property, and yet according to Bob, you've violated his "intellectual" property rights. In fact, the only way to not violate Bob's "intellectual" property is to not do with your property as you please, even though that use is entirely nonviolent. Bob's exercise of his "intellectual" property right is a violation of your property right!

Intellectual property is an umbrella term that encompasses copyright, trademarks, patents, etc. Using someone else's trademarks also does "not harm or threaten to harm anyone else's property". I know that you don't mean that, but in that case, you should offer more practical arguments against IP instead of getting all philosophical.

[ShawnBird]

I didn't make that comment so I can't answer for it.

What I can say is that the area that the term covers is arbitrary and that you can discuss one facet of it without involving the others.

There is no reason that trademarks need to be discussed when talking about content distribution systems just like there is no need to talk about expiration dates when shipping plastic lawn chairs.

[praxeologist]

The funny thing is that you didn't make any genuine arguments in the prior post to refute, just several non-arguments and vague complaints like "manifestly obviously just rationalisation".

>However the legal system doesn't exist to just enshrine and enforce basic rights. It's also used to shape societies in ways we (or our representatives) feel are beneficial.

There is no benefit in IP except to the holder of the state-granted monopoly, and perhaps the politicians who get MAFIAA money. You enjoy the copyright system and feel entitled to more than you would have earned without it.

There are slews of studies showing that patents hamper innovation. I challenge you to find one showing it aids it. You are repeating a falsehood, something people "feel is beneficial" but really isn't.

[MrScruff]

The funny thing is that you didn't make any genuine arguments in the prior post to refute, just several non-arguments and vague complaints like "manifestly obviously just rationalisation".

followed by:

There is no benefit in IP except to the holder of the state-granted monopoly, and perhaps the politicians who get MAFIAA money.

Do you seriously consider this to be an argument? Because I would classify it as tired cliché.

You enjoy the copyright system and feel entitled to more than you would have earned without it.

What absolute tosh. You know absolutely nothing about me and make such ridiculous statements.

I challenge you to find one showing it aids it.

Ok, after 5 seconds of google:

http://allafrica.com/stories/201211290581.html

I'll hazard a guess that you'll dismiss the report authors as copyright loving MAFIAA apologists though.

[praxeologist]

I am struggling to find any actual facts to back up the common falsehood you are repeating. Want to point out something?

[pg. 11] "International companies would only invest in research in locations with sufficiently strong IP."

Yeah, I would prefer to put my investment where I have government helping me strongarm people into paying me more money too. Somehow your paper failed to mention other possible factors like being able to get away with testing sexual dysfunction drugs on children and only getting fined $97: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-16381458

[pg. 15] "Most policymakers reported that the IP system was an asset to encouraging domestic innovative activity. Changes in the IP system in Brazil was seen as significant in setting the foundation for innovative activity."

This is just bare assertion from policymakers.

[pg. 37] "A common measure of the output of innovation used in the literature is the number of registered patents in the country. In particular, it is common to see analysis based on the number of international patents (defined as the number of patents granted to inventors from a particular country)."

[pg. 43] "There has been a clear increase in innovation in terms of patents. Leaving aside South Korea, this again shows the dramatic performance of China, but also gradual progress in a number of other markets."

This is ludicrous to measure innovation by the number of patents. The "dramatic performance of China" is an increase in patents due to strengthened IP laws in recent years, that's it. If the mechanisms for enforcement of an IP regime are strengthened, then sure you will see more people using it. More companies are willing to disclose trade secrets because they have patent protection. That's all this shows, not that innovation is occurring because of IP law.

I don't really see much more that needs to be addressed in this paper, certainly no supporting evidence for your claim that IP is beneficial besides to the monopoly holders and monopoly givers. It's your claim, so you need to do better than just link an article. There is a more meaty section in your paper, but you would have to actually read your own source to find it and then I can proceed to demolish it.

[joseflavio]

The problem is how much the law is being corrupted, how much it is far way from the interests of the society. Each time the law extends copyright period, it is MY RIGHT of accessing public information being pruned.

"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all." --Thomas Jefferson

"An unjust law is no law at all." --Augustine

[temp453463343]

But I think the crux of why your argument is incorrect is your overly narrow definition of ownership. Everything else is daisy chained from that.

> Ownership is the right to do with your property whatever you'd like, provided what you do does not affect or threaten the property of others (including the property they have in their own persons)

Ownership doesn't intrinsically preclude you harming others. Ownership is about exerting exlusive control over property. If you own a gun, you can do whatever you want with it because you exert control over it and it's in your possession.

The part that precludes us from harming others is part of a separate legal framework. You also can't use your wood to build a fence around the forest, or a barracade to impede other people's movement. There is a lot more you aren't allowed to do with property then "affect or threaten the property of others "

So the fundamental issue is that you're conflating the two into a more narrow definition of ownership and then you're claiming IP "destroys the internal consistency of property rights in general"

_____________________________

As for "threshold pledge system"... The problem is it's a non-capitalistic mechanism that relies on the altruism of the wider population. Altruistic systems don't scale (see communism). Not to mention it rewords free-riders. If a bunch of people fund a movie, and then I come in and pirate it at the end, then I end up being better off than them (b/c I too get to see the movie and I also get to keep my money). This will probably lead to disenchantment.

I just can't believe that you think like a big budget movie like say the latest James Bond could be funded through a threshold pledge system and then distributed for free. It seems rather naiive

[tossacct]

>>>Altruistic systems don't scale (see communism).

Altruistic systems don't necessarily scale. GNU, Linux, and Apache would like to tell you that it absolutely can scale.

>>I just can't believe that you think that big budget software like say an operating system could be funded through a threshold pledge system and then distributed for free. It seems rather naive

I completely agree with you that it seems naive. I wouldn't believe it myself if I wasn't using it to send you this comment.

[temp453463343]

okay. you're missing the point. I think it was implied that I meant they don't necessarily scale. It's quite obvious that sometimes you have large altruistic projects that are successful.

Kickstarter has funded plenty of large projects.

The point is that the threshold-pledge-system isn't a viable substitute for ALL funding. Therefore getting rid of the copyright system would destroy the potential for a lot of project (like my James Bond example) because they wouldn't be able to be funded through altruistic schemes.

The burden of proof - that it is viable to substitute to the copyright with the threshold pledge system - is on its supporters

[ericHosick]

"Ownership doesn't intrinsically preclude you harming others."

How can I have property rights (ownership) if you can simply damage my property through your "property rights"? Property rights can not exist in this case.

It is intrinsically implied that people can not use their property to damage the property of others.

[temp453463343]

What? That doesn't make any sense. Why does the right of owning something present any kind of guarantees?

A hurricane can come by today and destroy your home. It doesn't mean you don't have the right to own the home.

The protection from damage is a separate right from that of ownership. That's all I'm saying.

[joseflavio]

You summarized very well exactly how I feel about IP!

Before our century the word for IP was "Monopoly Privileges". It is funny and scary how a simple change in wording: adding "property", is slowly brainwashing people in a very unnatural way of thinking.

[novamantis]

... Of course it's natural. Everything in the universe is natural.

However I do agree with you that they are brainwashing people so that they can have almost unlimited control.

[olalonde]

You did not actually offer a counter argument. All you did was explain how "intellectual" property is not the same as "material" property. I think most of us will agree with you that the two are different and that the same rules don't apply. Now, we still need to figure out if intellectual property is a good thing for society.

IMO, copyright laws are a good thing as it leaves the choice to the content producers themselves whether or not they want to make their work freely available. However, as those laws are close to impossible to enforce effectively (on the Internet), there might be an argument for discarding them completely, stop fighting a lost battle and moving on.

[diminoten]

In your example, Bob should have first asked you to agree that you wouldn't share his idea, or use his idea in a way which would harm Bob's ability to benefit from his idea.

In reality, this is what happens. Aside from the utilitarian argument, there is a moral argument to be had here. You agreed to not make use of Bob's idea, and then you did. You broke your word, and are responsible for the pain you caused Bob.

You might argue that there are scenarios in which you never actually talk to Bob - Bob shows his idea to Tom, and Tom is the one who breaks his word. You're merely getting the idea from Tom, and are as such free from any moral obligation.

However, I would offer you this rhetorical in response: If you are offered goods in such a way that you reasonably know these goods to be gained through deceit or other immoral acts, is your acceptance of those goods (and therefore benefit of the immoral act) a moral act itself?