I am strongly convinced that the possession of ideas and creations of the intellect is not possible. In my opinion, only physical things can be possessed, that is, things that are limited, that is, that can only be in one place. The power or the freedom to do with the object what one wants corresponds to the concept of possession. This does not mean, however, that one must expose everything openly. It is ultimately the difference between proprietary solutions, where the “construction manual” is kept to oneself, and the open source philosophy, where this source is accessible to everyone.
As the title says, I would oppose this thesis to your arguments and hope that together we can rethink and improve our positions. Please keep in mind that this can be an enrichment for all, so we discuss with each other and not against each other ;)
Intellectual Property should be abolished - change my mind!
Why would I want to do that? I can however try to poke at your arguments in the effort to improve them.
In my opinion, only physical things can be possessed, that is, things that are limited, that is, that can only be in one place. The power or the freedom to do with the object what one wants corresponds to the concept of possession.
Information can be in a physical format. That means information can be physical; but it doesn’t have to be. I would, however, argue that what you do with that physical object; including all the information; encoded or contained, and, in it or upon it; is also an intrinsic part of that physical property.
Therefore, I assert that owning a physical copy of information; like a book, photo, or CD/DVD/BD with some content; is the same as owning all rights to the information conferred by ownership of that object. There can be only one of that specific object; regardless of the possibility of existence of many more objects of an identical nature.
This does not mean, however, that one must expose everything openly. This is ultimately the difference between proprietary solutions, where the “construction manual” is kept to oneself, and the open source philosophy, where this source is accessible to everyone.
It is also possible, through the same rights conferred upon you through physical ownership, for a previous owner or even the inventor/manufacturer of the object to protect data on a given object with various methods. Intrinsically, objects that do this in a way you find objectionable are worth less to you than one with no such complications in extracting the desired data. This is the nature of DRM, and you should never buy physical items with protected content on it. All Consumers must agree that such things are absolutely worthless objects to them.
Thanks matey! I haven’t thought about these.
While I agree, the usual argument is that intellectual property provides an important incentive to creative types and the patrons who would fund their work. A total abolition of intellectual property could only be coupled with a massive shift in how modern societies function, including a universal basic income and automated labor, completely divorced from scarcity and competition. Less extreme changes, such as scaling down the number of years that IP can be claimed, are probably feasible but I can’t imagine any of these being popular with the centers of wealth that already own their share. Are you after a white room discussion on the ethical merits of IP abolition or are you more of an activist looking to brainstorm how to nudge society in that direction?
You are very right about the change. I also think that a sustainable and long-term change is only feasible in stages and together with a shift in consciousness among the population. So after each small step, you can always weigh up whether it is still the right way to go.
Nevertheless, it is important to have certain ideals that make it easier to position oneself in the decisions of everyday life. It is precisely these ideals that I am concerned with in this discussion. I want to put my views to the test and challenge the views of others in a joint exchange. So it is indeed very philosophical and I am aware of that. But I think that this is the best way to test the core of a theory.
Nice, I like doing it in stages and I like the idealism. Saw you provoked some discussion over on a piracy community I sub to. Good stuff, keep at it!
I don’t think it should be abolished, people should have the chance to be the only ones making money of off their original idea/design/whatever. IMO those rights need to be stripped down a lot:
- intellectual property is only for commercial work - individuals can legally reproduce whatever they want as long as they don’t make money off it
- all intellectual property expires after 5-10 years (not sure whether 5 or 10 is better, would have to think about it) - 10 years is more than enough to make money of your original idea before anyone else can
- if the discovery is deemed of public interest (as an example, you create a cure for cancer), one of these two must happen (at the discretion of patent/copyright/IP holder):
- you work with regulators to set the price
- you allow other companies to use your idea freely (basically you get rid of your IP/copyright/patent)
The only thing I wouldn’t change significantly is trademark, it’s IMO reasonable to forbid others using your name (or other trademark) to pretend they’re you.
Nice take! Could you explain to me where you drew this line? I always try to imagine why a line can be drawn right there or why not. According to my argumentation, this boundary lies with things that can be controlled and that are limited as objects. So if I pass on a gold bar then you have control over it but I no longer do. Thoughts and ideas would be something else. I can keep my idea undiminished whether someone copies it or not. Nor can I control who can own this idea or how someone uses it.
Do you have a similar train of thought for your border concept?
It’s quite simple, if you come up with something popular, there are corporations that would happily copy it to get the money for themselves and you’re left with nothing, And if people feel like their idea can’t make them money because someone richer will steal it, they’ll stop having ideas.
At the same time I don’t think you should be able to hold copyright etc. for a hundred years like it is now, that’s just disgusting.
The rest of my previous comment I think has clear reasoning, if not, feel free to ask.
I got you. I phrased my question too vaguely. I understand why you want to do this, but how do you justify setting the limit right here? There must be a logical separation, as in my example, between limited and controllable items and those that are not. How exactly do you arrive at this number of years? Are these requirements that you set out in your first post conclusive? Is there anything else missing?
This is a ridiculous argument. In your world, how would anyone who makes an intangible product ever be fairly compensated if you could just steal it? Things like books, songs, video games, films do take real effort, time, care, talent, and loads of hard work to create, and if someone consumes that, they need to pay the creators for that consumption. Your view is rather myopic because a society doesn’t just produce tangible, physical products, but many other intangible products and services. For example, Tolkien wrote and created the entire LotR world, why should his property not be protected so that he can earn some money from all that hard work if some customer wants to consume it? Because it certainly takes an immense amount of work and talent to create something. As someone else mentioned, you have no right to claim the fruits of anyone’s labour.
I find a lot of people make the argument you’re making to try and justify their own theft of IP. But those same people sing an entirely different song the moment someone else begins to steal from them. I certainly hope that happens to you someday, that your hard work is not fairly compensated or stolen from you, so you can understand it from the opposite perspective too.
You sound very bitter. I have nowhere claimed that this is the only truth but rather asked for arguments to question this thesis. In your answer I see unfortunately none of these arguments but at most assumptions and groundless accusations.
In order to give a constructive answer to your fears, I would like to clarify something first. I do not want to deprive anyone of his honest work, because how could I? Everyone who has an idea has this in his control and can decide freely what he does with it. But he can’t take away anyone’s freedom to take over these ideas and use them himself or develop them further. How could he, since he has no control over them? He could only do it through an autocratic authority that is only there to restrict others in their freedom.
I am convinced that a society without artificial restrictions on goods that are neither limited nor ultimately controllable has many advantages, contrary to the loud voices of those who have benefited from these irregularities for decades. Your example of Tolkien is a wonderful example of this: How much money do you think Tolkien received for his fantastic works during his lifetime? And how much money is still being earned today by large license holders for the shameless exploitation of his works? Do you really think this is any better?
Yes I do think it’s better. If it were up to me, copyrights and patents would last forever, and not just for 100 years (or less). What Tolkien created is his and his alone, and he and his family should continue to profit from it for all time, it’s his creation to do with as he pleases. Why on earth should it not work like that? Why should society take away then product of someone’s hard work and creation? That sounds like a horrible, North Korea society. If an author wants to put their work in the public domain for all to have, they can still do so.
As somebody already told you in another post, in a world without IP protection, people would just jealously guard their secrets and their secrets would die with them. Tremendous human genius would be lost rather than shared with all of humanity, because nobody would ever be inclined to share anything. And if creators couldn’t make a living, you’re talking about a world utterly devoid of creativity. We wouldn’t have things like Tolkien, Harry Potter, Star Wars, if creators didn’t exclusively own the rights to their creation so they could profit from them, because what would be the incentive to create then? In any economic system, people acts as greedy, rational agents, so rewarded and ownership rights must exist or there is zero motivation to create.
Like all human laws, patents and copyrights can be woefully abused if people and laws allow for abusive behaviour, such that they stifle innovation rather than help it. But this isn’t a problem specific to IP itself, humans are just awful creatures who will abuse any form of law if they can (unions for example, can also be horrific, just look at the USA police union). We could improve laws to get rid of things like patent trolls without discarding the concept of IP entirely.
I’m really sorry but I just can’t let these arguments pass. First of all, we have to realise that this is all hypothetical and there are pros and cons to everything. The post you refer to takes the historical context as a basis and gives an example of how knowledge could be lost through this proposed change. But there are just as many positive examples from much earlier times (antiquity, ancient Egypt, the stone age) that also oragnised into advanced civilisations without any IP only through cooperation and trade.
On the subject of authorship: I can understand that people want to be paid for their work and I can also understand why people prefer to rely on IP in order to demand this money for themselves during their lifetime. But how do you justify licensing beyond that? Who benefits from it: the creator who has put in the effort and work for it or some lazy descendants who enrich themselves from the work of their predecessors?
But this isn’t a problem specific to IP itself, humans are just awful creatures who will abuse any form of law if they can
Taking the law at its word and dancing right up to the edge of it is not “abusing” it
Yes it is, it has to do with abusing the spirit of a law. Patent law exists to protect innovation so as to encourage it. Patent trolls do the opposite.
Similar laws which were designed to allow people in a community some measure of voice in that community have been abused for years to enact Nimbyism. That’s also abusing the spirit of the law.
Humans are just awful cunts.
Designing a legal system is hard. It is not immoral to conduct such stress tests on a legal system
Sure it is, because they’re not doing it to stress test but to rent-seek. They’re not coming from an altruistic place of helping build a better system, but from greed, and a desire to earn money without doing much work.
Coming from the viewpoint that the greatest threat to free markets is the artificial beings created by government called “corporations”, I fully believe that some form of IP, appropriately time-limited and only licensable, not transferable, is a perfectly valid way to protect individual human creators, but that it cannot be granted to anything other than natural human citizens.
It’s not about prevention of use by others, it’s about prevention of monetization by others…
Sure, I’m also more of a civil/technolibertarian. I fear the power of the government and the power of big corporations equally. There are different ways to mitigate this problem but the main ones are:
- Try to restrict everything and close every loophole
- Make no distinctions and allow everybody to do with the assets they control to to whatever they want as long as it does not directly harm the other person
And as you see I’m leaning towards the second one. Bear in mind that the corpos arent the only ones who can copy everything and redistribute it. Everything they make is also freely accessible. I think many people tend to forget that abolishing IP is a bigger threat to corporations than small individuals. Just think about it: Could monopolists as big as Microsoft, Google, Apple still exist if every invention could be copied by other big companies? Wouldn’t they be more likely to keep each other in check, so that no one could achieve such an oversize?
By what right do you claim the fruits of somebody else’s labor?
“rights” exists in sets of rules which humanity created for a better society. Expropriation is used often to build common infrastructure - - the same (expropriation) should be used for intellectual property : when it makes societies better - - adequate monetary compensation should be given to creators.
That would be a potentially sound argument in favor of situationally (and with compensation) overriding a creator’s claim to the fruits of their labors.
But that’s not the issue at hand on this thread. The OP has asserted that “intellectual property should be abolished.” That necessarily means that there is no presupposed right a creator might have to the fruits of their own labor, and that by extension, any and all who might be so inclined do have an unfettered right to them, with no need or even basis at any point for a determination of societal value or any form of compensation.
You’re right that OP said that : “intellectual property should be abolished” and that my comment doesn’t take this statement head on. Yet he also writes: “change my mind” and if you want to do this, you have to acknowledge their energy (their convictions) and try to see where that energy can go.
No - I really don’t have to do that. I might have chosen to, but I didn’t.
If that’s what you wish to do, you’re certainly free to do so.
I didn’t say : “you have to change people’s mind”.
What I said is : “if you want to change people’s mind then…”I know - I was just being prickly.
I simply have zero patience for the NoIP position. I think it’s asinine on its face - the philosophical equivalent of flat earth. And I just have no interest in taking someone who espouses it by the hand and walking them through to an idea that actually makes sense (and more to the point and as opposed to NoIP, an idea that actually lines up with the rest of the things that they already believe). I just want to tear their gibbering nincompoopery down to the ludicrous shreds in which it deserves to die and be buried and forgotten. Whether or not they can blunder their way to a better position (they couldn’t hardly find a worse one) is their problem - not mine.
Ungenerous I know, but I think it’s particularly important at the libertarian/minarchist/anarchist end of the spectrum that people learn to actually think instead of just mindlessly regurgitating whatever impressed them when someone else said it.
if all bad things in the universe where destroyed, other would arise. I wish you peace.
Clearly no one is forcing you to do this. But I have politely asked for it. I just want to better understand your points of view and present mine to you. I have never claimed to be right. But I think that your hardened attitude of defiance looks like an inner blockade to me. Something that perhaps builds on the fear that all work would be pointless if you can’t expect a reward for it. What is the whole point of doing all thisthen? Would we as a society simply give in and stop developing? Or would we discover a different meaning behind innovation than just money?
The idea that “intellectual property should be abolished” isn’t even coherent.
“Intellectual property” exists. It can’t be “abolished” any more than gravity or oxygen can.
When, for instance, an author writes a novel, they have created a thing. And before you even go there - no, I’m not talking about the physical books that might later be printed. I’m talking about the composition - the specific ordering of specific words that serve to tell a specific story. That composition is a discernible thing, and it exists. It can’t be “abolished.”
So what you’re presumably really talking about is abolishing the concept that the person who labored to bring that thing into existence had the right to claim ownership of it. And that, not to put too fine a point on it, is asinine
That thing did not come into existence spontaneously. Words didn’t just magically combine themselves in such a way as to tell a coherent story. They were arranged in that particular order by someone. Someone labored to bring that thing into being.
And thus what you’re explicitly arguing is that the person who labored to bring the thing into being should not be seen to have the right to claim ownership of it. By doing so, you are in fact arguing that your presumed right to determine the proper ownership of the thing is superior even to the right of the person who created it in the first place - that they don’t get to decide who owns it and you do.
And so I ask, yet again, because this has been the key all along, by what right do you claim the fruits of somebody else’s labor?
The term “intellectual property” is something completely man made and does not exists independent of our perception unlike mathematics or gravity. The “ideas” themselves are. But IP suggests that they are a kind of property, which I cannot agree with at all.
I think there is more than just that. In my opinion it’s not theft if something is openly accessible and is not in itself affected by copying or modifying the copy. Either you protect you property well or it may get shared.
If you develop a new medication for example you still have the advantage that only you know how to produce it. It’s your right to keep this a secret and binding all your workers to keep this secret. But if somebody leaks this info why shouldn’t anybody be able to copy it freely? Of course the comapny could still sue the leaker for breaking their agreement but not the people using or redistributing it.
It was a very simple question.
By what right do you claim the fruits of somebody else’s labor?
Let me clarify a bit:
When you say that intellectual property should be abolished, you’re saying that the creator of a product of intellect should be afforded no claim to control over that product - that you should be free to use it as you please. Since it’s demonstrably the case that the creators of products of intellect generally believe themselves entitled to the fruits of their labors, when you assert that they should have no such right, you’re effectively asserting that your claim to the fruits of their labors trumps even their own.
So again, by what right do you make that claim?
That’s exactly the point: I believe that you cannot exclusively own the ideas or the fruits of your intellect. You can’t own them because you have no ultimate control over them. And if you have no ultimate control over them you can’t restrict them getting used by somebody else. More precisely: You still have control over your idea as the fruit of your labor and it is under your control exactly what you do with it. But you cannot control someone else’s idea, even if it is exaclty the same. Any information that is open in any way can and probably will also be used openly.
Some examples that illustrate this:
- Suppose a physicist goes for a walk every evening and observes the sky attentively. As he ponders the fundamental processes of our universe, he experiences an epiphany and begins to better understand one of these processes. He goes home and fiddles around with a mathematical formula that could support this insight. Finally, he finds it and happily publishes it in a scientific magazine. Even if you can now say that you would have to buy this magazine, it will eventually leak out and the whole world can benefit from his findings. Can the discoverer then say that he owns this knowledge because he has put a lot of work into it?
- Assume that two people are studying at the same university with the same professor. They don’t really know each other, but both are doing research on the same topic based on the same assumptions. They come up with two fundamentally identical results to solve the problem. Who owns this idea now? The one who runs to the patent office first?
I think the core aspect is to realize that work does not necessarily have to be followed by a reward. Just as a tinkerer can spend days working on a device only to discover later that someone else has already solved the same problem, one cannot say that an idea, no matter how innovative or fundamental it may ultimately be, can necessarily be rewarded monetarily. Or in short: work does not necessarily create wages. Is it not rather the decision of the customers whether they entrust their money to whom? Whether they prefer to give it to the original inventor or to a soulless copycat?
I think that in a world that is becoming more and more automated and where machines are slowly taking over the discovery of new formulas and processes, the story behind the products is becoming more and more important.
Yes - it is certainly the case that once a thing that exists only conceptually - an idea or composition - is loosed into the world, control of it is difficult at best.
So let’s narrow the scope.
TO THE DEGREE THAT the thing might be controlled after being loosed into the world, who has the more reasonable claim to exercise that control? The person who created it or someone else?
nobody/everybody has the right to claim it. Why should anybody be able to restrict the freedom of somebody else if its own freedom isn’t diminished by any degree?
So long as people are required to make money in a capitalist society and creative ideas can produce said money for income, this idea is merely a fantasy. Goods cannot be the only means by which a society can produce an income.
Sure this is just a theory or more of a philosophy just like libertarianism itself ;) I am just interested in ideologies because they help me to make decisions in everyday life.
