"Intellectual property" is no longer funny

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Fen, Aug 29, 2003.

  1. Fen Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    292
    oh fun, english

    How about "I wanna profit--just like the next guy does." But I suppose if you can't be bothered to capitalize, you can't be bothered to express yourself well.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. lixluke Refined Reinvention Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,072
    Hell ya!
    That's what I've been trying to explain.
    Only on earth do you have these ridiculous primitive laws.
    I bet you the aliens don't have IP crap laws on their planet.
    500 years from now, nobody would give a crap about IP.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Mystech Adult Supervision Required Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,938
    It seems to me that laws regarding intellectual property and copyrights and patents and all that are not the problem here. They are simply protecting what belongs to the companies in this particular instance, and that is exactly what they are there to do, they do it well, and frankly we are better off for it.

    The problem here is much more simple, it seems to be a lack of understanding about the way these things work. It cost those companies a very large amount of money to develop the drugs that they are selling, and we should be glad that they went through the trouble to do all that, and now if they'd like to recoup their losses and make it such that it was worth their time to have developed them by selling it, and not creating so much competition that they couldn't possibly hope to regain what they lost, then that is entirely up to them, and frankly if we want drugs to continue to be developed we need to allow companies to do this. If non-profit organizations bent on making these drugs available to everyone for nothing at all were a viable option I'm sure we'd see plenty of that already and no one would be blaming drug companies for selfishness, or patent laws for protecting people's property.

    It is precisely because the idea of non-profit organizations creating these drugs simply does not work that we should not force drug companies to give out their secret formulas and all that, as it will certainly have a detrimental impact on them, and they'll certainly think twice about foraying into the research of other medicines. If this were the case it would be quite likely that we'd never see any new treatments being developed and then what sort of situation would we be in?

    Now, if a cure or miracle treatment were to be developed I do feel that the companies involved would be socially obligated to release the information about how to make it as soon as possible, in order to put an end to the plague, but only because it is so widespread and presents such a danger. Later on they would certainly be due for compensation through government grants or tax credits or the like above and beyond what it cost them to develop the drug (to compensate the fact that their property was seized from them).
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Mystech Adult Supervision Required Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,938
    Will we all have developed some new and better addressing system by then? haha.

    Honestly, though, what's wrong about copyrights, trademarks, patents and all those other forms of intellectual property? It ensures that what's yours is yours just as sure as a chain secures your bike in public or locking your doors ensures that you won't be robbed (Which is to say hardly fool proof but it gets the job done at least most of the time). As James R said, if you write a great novel that you'd like to share with the world, and support your literate butt while you write a sequel how would you feel if someone who got hold of a rough draft photocopied a bunch of pages and already published it on his own? Is that fair? Isn't that just as much a theft as someone swiping your CD-player or cell phone?
     
  8. kazakhan Registered Abuser Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    915
    No-one holds a gun to their head demanding they do this. And poor people will be happy in the future when Joe six figure income can afford to cure his cancer while Joe four figure income is told to work harder:bugeye:
    I don't have a problem with IP rights, but they were meant to be for limited times, copyright in particular is now essentially perpetual.
     
  9. Nasor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,221
    How many new drugs have been developed by non-profit organizations in the last few decades? Any? If it weren't for the companies that you seem to dislike so much, these drugs wouldn't even exist for us to argue about.
     
  10. guthrie paradox generator Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,089
    Theres quite a lot of stuff been developed in Publicly funded paboratories over hte past few decades, but you dont hear about it so much. Heck, a few wonder drugs these days started off as publicly funded things in universitys, but the companies ended up with ownership.
     
  11. spookz Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,390
    fen a typical illiterate fucktard

    profit as much as the next guy

    profit just like the next guy

    i am........invincible!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    *the more common form of expression is...."....as much as the next person"
    *"just like ......" sounds like a young childs refrain
    *note how i sometimes dispense of punctuation marks as well

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Sep 3, 2003
  12. coolsoldier Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    166
    The problem with intellectual property is that the only real value that an idea has is it's implementation. When you implement your idea, you sell the implementation of the idea, and make money. An idea that is not implemented, or is implemented poorly, is valueless, so how does it make sense to let companies compete for the valueless part of the production process, but then grant a monopoly on the valuable part of the process?
     
  13. lixluke Refined Reinvention Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,072
    And this lack of understanding comes from these IP supporters that feel intangible ideas should be owned.
    These laws don’t protect anybody. They prohibit progress.


    What’s wrong with it is the fact that intellectual property is not yours.
    It’s not the same as a bike which is a tangle thing you can own.
    Intellectual property belongs to everybody.
    It’s a primitive nonsense concept that needs to be obliterated.
    People these days think about what a foolish concept slavery used to be.
    A few hundred years from now, intellectual property laws won’t even exist, and people would think about what these idiots in the past were thinking when they created these senseless laws that limit the progress of civilization.

    We already went over all this last year:
    http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=11686
     
  14. coolsoldier Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    166
  15. Mystech Adult Supervision Required Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,938
    Well you can't hold a patent on an idea, you can however patent a specific process or product.
     
  16. Mystech Adult Supervision Required Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,938
    Well SOME intellectual property is mine, and the rest is either public or privately owned, much like a state park or a speedy red sports car. Crying over the fact that some of these things belong to others and not to me doesn't do anyone much good.


    It's very much the same thing as a bike. And from inspiration to formation to implementation and fruition, at what point do the thoughts and innovations of other people become your property? You have no more right to the product of another persons mind than he is willing to give you. I could write a great epic, and keep the only copy locked up in my sock drawer and never let anyone see it, and there would never be any dispute over who owns it, why then must there be dispute over who truly owns the product of their mind when it becomes much more easy to steal?


    It's a necessary idea which protects the rights, wellbeing and livelihood of very many people. Without protection of intellectual property, quite frankly we'd have many less artists and innovators, because frankly everyone would just have to get a menial day job because they wouldn't be able to make a damn dime off of what they create.

    How many works of art, music, books, cinema, video games, or any other form of media for that matter do you think would exist today if their creators knew that there was no hope of them being able to pay for the costs of making them, or even hope to support themselves during or after their release? Intellectual property laws make culture possible!

    I'd say that a society without protection of intellectual property is a primitive and hopeless one, and that those who are against it are either simply too narrow minded to understand what they are suggesting, or are just outright thieves.
     
  17. lixluke Refined Reinvention Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,072
    Mystech quote:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Well SOME intellectual property is mine, and the rest is either public or privately owned, much like a state park or a speedy red sports car.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    No it isn’t. None of it is yours. Nobody really owns intellectual property because it doesn’t physically exist.
    You might write a story, and own the paper that the story is on.
    You might take credit for coming up with all of the ideas, but in reality, claiming ownership to it is futile.
    It would be foolish to consider that something that doesn’t exist on a physical level could or should be owned.


    Mystech quote:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    It's very much the same thing as a bike. And from inspiration to formation to implementation and fruition, at what point do the thoughts and innovations of other people become your property? You have no more right to the product of another persons mind than he is willing to give you. I could write a great epic, and keep the only copy locked up in my sock drawer and never let anyone see it, and there would never be any dispute over who owns it, why then must there be dispute over who truly owns the product of their mind when it becomes much more easy to steal?
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I might have no right to ideas and information in the sense that I can not force a person disclose.
    But the fact of the matter is, everybody (or nobody) owns it because no matter what you do, an intangible idea simply cannot be physically owned.
    Furthermore, it isn’t sensible to have chains on intellectual property.
    These chains bring progress to a halt, and do not belong in a truly intellectually prosperous civilization.


    Mystech quote:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    It's a necessary idea which protects the rights, wellbeing and livelihood of very many people. Without protection of intellectual property, quite frankly we'd have many less artists and innovators, because frankly everyone would just have to get a menial day job because they wouldn't be able to make a damn dime off of what they create.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    That’s not going to happen.
    Intellectual property laws hinder creative freedom. Without them, we can only bring about the acceleration of progress.


    Mystech quote:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I'd say that a society without protection of intellectual property is a primitive and hopeless one, and that those who are against it are either simply too narrow minded to understand what they are suggesting, or are just outright thieves.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    It is impossible to be a thief in this sense because an idea cannot be owned. Therefore, it can not be stolen.
    It is a primitive concept, and really would hold no bearing in a more advanced civilization.
     
  18. Nasor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,221
    As Mystech pointed out, without intellectual property laws there would be no music, movie, book, magazine, or video game industry, just to name a few. If artists, authors, programmers, etc. weren't able to make a profit off of their work, they would have to find some other way to support themselves and you could kiss most of that goodbye.

    Imagine an inventor why creates an amazing new device in his garage. Why should he bother to share it with anyone if there aren't intellectual property laws? Some huge corporation will simply take his idea and use it themselves, without giving him a dime. Few people would bother to write books because they wouldn't get paid anything by the publisher; the publishing companies could simply print the book and not give him any money. Of course you could forget about big-budget movie and video games, since no one would be willing to invest money in a movie or game if they knew they wouldn't get any return on it.
     
  19. coolsoldier Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    166
    The purpose of intellectual property laws is to encourage people to create, NOT to ensure them what is rightfully theirs. Therefore, copyright and patent terms should be only JUST LONG ENOUGH for creators to make a profit and not a day more. I also believe that copyrights and patents should be non-transferrable and available to individuals only. Non-transferrable because if you personally are not using your idea then it should be open for use by anybody, and to individuals only because every idea originates in the mind of an individual.
     
  20. Nasor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,221
    How do you define 'a profit'? Do you mean that a person should simply be able to recoup the money that they've invested in it? An author might have spent a lot of time on a book, but not actually spent any money on writing it.

    There would be all sorts of problems if copyrights weren't transferable. People often aren't able to directly implement or distribute an idea themselves. Most people don't have their own printing presses, so it's necessary to transfer copyrights to a publishing company for a book to be printed. It works the same way in the video game industry; most game companies don't have the resources to stamp, package, and distribute a million copies of their games, so they work out deals with game publishing houses after creating them. Similarly, a person could come up with a great idea for a new product but not own any factories. You have to sell the idea for a new device to someone who is able to implement it.
     
  21. coolsoldier Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    166
    That's not necessarily true. It would be quite easy to license the idea to somebody else for implementation while leaving the actual ownership of the copyright in the hands of the owner. This would be better for the people who actually come up with good ideas because (a) they would get a cut of the profits from the actual success of their idea rather than just a single payment from a purchaser, and (b) It would leave open the option of having multiple producers, or switching producers, if the idea was being implemented poorly.

    Music is a great example of this. Because artists sign with exactly one label and actually transfer ownership of their music to the label, then the labels are given a monopoly, and the artists get screwed.

    What I am suggesting is that we keep a limited form of intellectual property around, but basically leave control of an idea with the person who came up with the idea instead of the manufacturer/publisher. I am certainly not advocating eliminating third-party publishers completely. Sorry if I wasn't clear about what I meant by "transfer"

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  22. Nasor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,221
    What about situations where a company pays someone to do creative work? A researcher in a corporate lab, a writer working for a magazine, etc.
     
  23. coolsoldier Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    166
    It's still an individual who comes up with the idea.

    Obviously the paradigm for developing and sharing information would change if the IP laws did, but IMO it would be for the better. More writers would be freelancers, more scientists would be entrepreneurs, etc., but that wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.
     

Share This Page