"Intellectual property" is no longer funny

In your scenario corporations would never hire a researcher to work for them, since they wouldn't have any way to profit from the results of the research. The problem is that often large amounts of money are required to fund research; it's nearly impossible to make major new discoveries in your garage. It doesn't matter how brilliant a physicist is if he can't afford to buy the several million dollars worth of equipment that he needs. Since many new advances in science and technology come out of corporate labs, not allowing companies to pay researchers would cause a major slowdown in development.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Many new advances are also funded by grants, universities, defense projects (the DoD is the largest funder of research in the world), etc. Also, once a scientist develops a successful new idea through one of these methods, a restricted IP system would give the individual scientist much more opportunity to profit from his idea, and possibly eventually even be able to fund his own research. Also, since no one company would have a default monopoly on the implementation of the research, ideas could be expanded on more quickly, rather than the current system of having to wait until a patent for an idea expires for others to build on it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm sure these oh-so-important industries will be just fine without IP laws.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

How would they be fine with no way at all to make money?

Why is it that in your own opinion, that which you create does not belong to you? What entitlement does anyone else have to what you have made? I just don't understand where you are coming from with this.

Exactly, and that's the essence of intellectual property protection laws. If there were none, and everything was just public property then you would essentially have to force people to disclose, as it were.

It is certainly sensible to have intellectual property laws. They are every bit as crucial as laws protecting private property of any other form. They don't halt or hinder progress at all, they speed it along. How is science, or art, or any other field in which Intellectual property is involved supposed to function when we punish scientists and artists, and tell them that what they discover and create is not theirs to own, that they are essentially slaves for society or the people at large. Under such conditions how well do you think such fields would do? Would you want to have to work under these conditions? The fact is that without intellectual property there simply wouldn't be very many Scientists or Artists, hardly any innovators or progressive intellectuals at all because it would be a completely fruitless venture for anyone to seek employment as such! Culture and scientific progression can not march forward in people's spare time, we have to allow people to be able to make it their livelihood, THAT is how society makes advancement.

 

You're still trying to gloss over the fact that companies wouldn't be able to hire people to do creative work. Yes, many advancements are made by universities, public grants, etc. The fact remains that many of the things that you probably appreciate every day (like the computer you use to access sciforums) are products of corporate R&D labs.

 

I'm not denying that, I'm just saying that if Dell didn't do that research, some computer science department somewhere would, and we as consumers would be better off if several companies could use the same tech.

 

Just out of curiosity what research exactly are you referring to? heh. You mean the secret formula they used to spawn the "dude you gotta' get a dell" kid, or something else? hehe.

Anyway in your hypothetical world, if dell supposedly did do some sort of research and were using some sort of proprietary and unique technology why should they be abused and essentially thrown to the dogs for having developed it? They put all that damn time and effort into it, probably sunk a bunch of money in, so why should it be taken away from them and given to a bunch of slackers who didn't have to spend a dime for that new technology? Under your model the true innovators, the movers and shakers are destroyed simply because they were the ones who cared enough to get creative.

 

Mystech quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How would they be fine with no way at all to make money?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These industries have tons of money. Enough to feed the world. They’ll be fine.
Furthermore, they don’t have no way at all to make money. They can always make money.
Further still, even if they couldn’t make money, there are much more important things in this world than the greedy industries that the IP laws support.


Mystech quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why is it that in your own opinion, that which you create does not belong to you? What entitlement does anyone else have to what you have made? I just don't understand where you are coming from with this.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s an idea.
Just because you came up with the idea does not mean you can own it.
Therefore you have no right to keep others from using it however they want.
It’s an idea. It’s not a bicycle. It does not belong to you.

You cannot steal an idea.
If I take your bike, you loose possession of it.
I cannot take your idea because weather I use it or not, you still never loose possession of it.


Mystech quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If there were none, and everything was just public property then you would essentially have to force people to disclose, as it were.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
People don’t have to disclose if they don’t want to.
People do not have the right to force you to disclose.
In the same sense, if you do disclose, you have no right to force others not to use what you have disclosed.


Mystech quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is certainly sensible to have intellectual property laws. They are every bit as crucial as laws protecting private property of any other form. They don't halt or hinder progress at all, they speed it along. How is science, or art, or any other field in which Intellectual property is involved supposed to function when we punish scientists and artists, and tell them that what they discover and create is not theirs to own, that they are essentially slaves for society or the people at large. Under such conditions how well do you think such fields would do? Would you want to have to work under these conditions? The fact is that without intellectual property there simply wouldn't be very many Scientists or Artists, hardly any innovators or progressive intellectuals at all because it would be a completely fruitless venture for anyone to seek employment as such! Culture and scientific progression can not march forward in people's spare time, we have to allow people to be able to make it their livelihood, THAT is how society makes advancement.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is not how society makes advancement. It’s part of the reason society is getting nowhere fast.

More freedom to write and sell whatever you want, and less limitations means more writing and creative works.
More works means more ideas and knowledge for people to learn from.
More ideas means even more ideas.
More ideas ultimately lead to more progress.

IP laws prevent civilization from flourishing. Because of IP laws, people cannot be creative because chains are put on ideas. This prevents creativity from flowing. Without IP, there would more ideas available to more people, therefore more progress. With any luck, an advanced alien race would descend upon us, laugh at us, and tell us how retarded we are for having laws against the free use of ideas. A society living with these absurd laws, and saying they are great is like a slave saying that slavery is a great law.


Fen quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can even argue IP makes less sense than slavery
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s not the same as real physical slavery, but it is intellectual slavery.

 

Big industries need an income too, they aren't the immortal tightens that you seem to want to think that they are. They are not "Greedy industries" (well ok the greed of individual industries is arguable, the recording industry for instance bends it's artists over and rapes them up the ass without any lube, but that's an issue between the musicians and the company not between you and I), these are the industries that produce the things you love!

Without IP laws, a movie studio would sink hundreds of millions of dollars into a film, then they'd try to release it, and immediately any two bit thief with a DVD burner would be making copies which they could sell for all of about 99 cents each and still make a profit because blank CDs are cheap and plentiful, whereas the studio would have to charge quite a lot of money for the film in order to recoup the loss of those hundreds of millions of dollars that was used to make the film in the first place. Under this model the studio would probably not make much money at all, would bring in no where near enough to cover their expenses in the first place. Because there would be no Intellectual Property laws protecting their ownership of the content of that film they'd have no legal recourse to take against the opportunistic scavenging pirates and would be left with either the choice of simply disbanding all together or continuing to produce movies with money that they don't have until they all end up in debtor’s prison. Once that happens the scavenging movie pirates haven't got anything to steal, so they stop making money, too, and there would simply cease to be a movie industry all together. That's what happens when you punish the productive and reward the thieves, and that's all removing intellectual property laws can bring us.

Well I'm just glad that the rest of rational society disagrees with you. I for one love music, video games, movies, and books, and would hate to see these things all but vanish from our culture. Also, as an aspiring artist who hopes to start selling his work, I'm glad that I have that option, and am alowed to make a proffit off of those things which I create.

If you steal my idea then there are certainly damages which can be incurred, that's why copyright violations are good grounds for suing. If you steal my idea and distribute it you've denied me all of the profit that should have been mine, and you've denied me the right to use my property how I want, and to restrict it's use. It's like taking my proverbial bicycle while I'm asleep and not using it, and riding it around the block only to bring it back with flat tires and scratched paint.

Well policy wise, in a world without intellectual property laws forced disclosure makes a lot of sense. If you're supposed to believe that your ideas don't belong to you then it's wrong to hold them back from others and you should be obligated to give them up. But in a more practical sense, yes it would be easy for an individual to simply deny that he has anything to give, and that's just what would happen. We'd have much less painters paintings, composers composing, and photographers photographing. Things which are protected by copyrights, trademarks and patents today simply wouldn't happen anymore. Congratulations on creating a world without culture, science or innovation.

If you think society and culture are going nowhere, perhaps it's time to crawl out of your cave and bask in the awe of modern culture. There's a lot of really ugly and just flat out stupid ideas out there right now, but take a look at the advancements, and beauty we have created just in the last 50 years, it's really a very interesting and exciting world.

I couldn't agree more, but getting rid of Intellectual Property laws would only serve to destroy this ideal. Without Intellectual properties you can write whatever you like, but you sure as hell can't sell it, because someone else will steal it and do that for you. You'll make no money and get no recognition for your work, and guess what, you're going to learn that writing doesn't pay off, and you're going to stop, or if you happen to have a particular passion for it, you're going to continue writing but not going to share your work with anyone because you don't want to get screwed over like before.

Your entire opinion on this subject is horribly flawed.

 

OK, I am assuming that Dell funded some research into computer design and hardware in order to produce a product. "Dell" did not do the research -- they funded it perhaps (or perhaps they didn't -- Innovation isn't really Dell's strong point

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

), but ultimately, it was individuals that did the research, and Dell (or any other company or organization that uses it) should IMO be responsible to the individual that actually came up with and/or expanded on the idea in the first place -- hence the concept that actual "ownership" of an idea should be limited to individuals. After a few years, the individual has had a chance to profit from his idea and others should have the chance to implement it also, since some other innovator could perhaps take the idea further once the "need" to profit has been satisfied. Dell, would, of course, still be able to implement the idea (in this example computer hardware design), but they would have to do so on the terms of the person who actually came up with the computer design, and would have to compete with any other companies to which the individual who developed the idea decided to license the idea. This is NOT a problem, it just gives the credit for the idea to the person who actually came up with it, and leaves companies to compete on the basis of implementation.

Again, "Dell" does not actually do research. People do research -- Dell might fund that research, but there are other sources of funding for computer science research. The most important part of an idea is it's implementation, so I see no problem with leaving companies to compete on the actual product they produce and leave the idea business to people (who actually have them)

No, researchers put time and effort into it.

Again, if Dell didn't fund computer research, there are other sources of funding that are not tied to a single producer.

Again, I don't think you're really understanding my argument -- I'm saying give "ownership" of an idea (on a temporary basis) to the individual who actually came up with the idea.

No, under my model, the "true innovators" (the people who really come up with ideas) are the ones who benefit most because (a) they, instead of some corporate entity, are the ones who have control over their idea, and (b) they have more material to build upon. The ones who are hurt are the ones who, by the luck of the draw, come across one good idea and want that one idea to make them successful without any additional work or creative output.

 

This seems to be the heart of your argument; you apparently believe that if companies stopped innovating we would continue to progress and develop at the same rate. There is absolutely no reason to believe this, and virtually the entire rest of the world disagrees with you.

It takes a lot of money to create innovative new things. You won't find anyone willing to donate millions of dollars to make a movie without expecting to get any of the money back. You won't find anyone willing to donate hundreds of millions of dollars to fund the development of the next generation of desktop computers, unless of course they think they can make a profit on it. You are suggesting that we switch to a system in which corporations are not allowed to profit from their own research and innovation. If that were to happen, corporations would stop researching and innovating. Contrary to what you apparently believe, there wouldn't be anyone around to pick up the slack. A world in which you can only buy your CD players from the Sony corporation is better than a world in which there are no CD players at all.

 

I know that it's not a very important part of the debate, as we are talking mostly about hypothetical, but for the record Dell doesn't really developed any computer or technology related . . . things. They just buy parts from manufacturers and slap them together to sell to the consumer, they don't invent any of this stuff. Though there is still room for innovation in their business model and advertising strategy. . . though weather the "Dude you gotta' get a Dell" kid was really a worthwhile innovation is something I think time will have to tell, haha.

Ahh, so now you are changing your tune! You had been arguing that no one can own intellectual property and that such a thing doesn't even exist, but now you say that only individual people can own intellectual property? I guess that this model is ok for simple entrepenurial and artistic situations, but now you've got to think of the big picture. Shouldn't individuals be alowed to transfer that property, or give others rights to it, licence it to a company for instance. If I've got an idea for a book and no printing press and I want to work out a deal with a publisher is it unreasonable to lend them the publishing rights, or assure them exclusive distribution, promotion and reprinting rights?

Come on, now, this is quite akin to saying that you think a cashier should be able to keep the money that they have in their register at the end of the day because they were the ones who collected it. If you're in a lab or a think tank or something of the sort, and are being funded by a corporation, it's perfectly reasonable to work out a contract ahead of time which explains how your research can be used, and who own's the rights to what, and so long as it's mutually agreed upon who else should have any say or worry about it?

 

Under your model the 'true innovators' won't have jobs, because even the best electrical engineers can't afford to build their own semiconductor research facility, and few people would be willing to simply give them the money that they need for the good of humanity.

Imagine this conversation:

Movie Director: "I have a script for a great movie! Everyone will want to see it! It will cost fifty million dollars to make it. You should give me fifty million dollars so that I can make the movie."
Rich Investor: "Why should I give you any money to pay for your movie?"

Director's answer in the real world :"If you pay for it, I'll give you 80% of the ticket sales. You'll probably make back your initial fifty million dollar investment, and have a heft profit left over."

Director's answer in your fantasy world: "There's really nothing in it for you, but you should give me the money anyway. Hey, money isn't so important, right?"

Which of these answers do you think will result in the movie being made?

 

First of all, the director would not respond like that because, obviously, that would not result in the movie being made.

Also, if the "real world" worked the way you described it wouldn't be quite so much of a problem. Unfortunately in the real "real world", the studio demands ownership of the script before production even begins.

 

When did I "Change my tune"?

I'll quote myself from an earlier post:

Some posters have suggested in this thread that IP laws should be eliminated completely, but I have not made this argument. My suggestion is a compromise between the social ideal of everybody working to expand on a common intellectual base and the reality of people working for personal profit. I maintain that the idea is probably the least valuable part of the production process (as compared to the actual implementation of the idea), but where did I suggest no intellectual property protection at all?

 

My point was that some things require so much resources that they can't be done by individuals, which is why it wouldn't work for only individuals to have intellectual property rights. As I said, an engineer or scientist without a lab is effectively useless, and most engineers and scientists can't afford to equip themselves; hence the need for corporate backing. Since corporations won't pay for innovation if there's nothing in it for them, they need to be able to hold intellectual property.

 

Corporations have a vested interest in advancing the technology in their fields for several reasons, even if they do not "own" it:

-Advancements in technology bring media attention to a product If computer technology didn't advance, people would never buy new computers. By fostering the development of computer technology, companies are encouraging consumers to continue to purchase their product -- new technology creates a significantly increased demand for the product being developed. Companies that produce that product certainly benefit from that increase in demand.
-Companies that fund research gain goodwill Which company is a researcher more likely to license his technology to, one that has a reputation for embracing new research or one that has never funded any? This factor is more significant if only individuals can hold intellectual property, since the goodwill of the research community could potentially give them access to academic research and research originally designed for other uses (for instance, fuel cell technology developed for use in airplanes could be licensed by the developer to a car company for use in cars)
-Many companies hold local or regional monopolies In a small town where the only car dealer sells GM vehicles, GM reaps all of the rewards of any advancements in the automotive industry (this is of course just an example)

Of course, companies would not profit to the obscene degree they do now, but that is beside the point. The fact that they would profit from developing an idea at all is enough to keep them developing, and the difference in profit would go to the individual researcher, who would be free to invest in himself if he sees fit.

 

If he was honest that's how he'd respond, as it is really the reality of the world you've painted for us.

Well it does work the way he described it, and yes in most instances a studio will take full rights for the film, and a director/producer/writer/whatever doesn't really have much of a shot of keeping the rights to his work if he wants to go to one of them. That's an agreement between them and the studio, however and not something we should be worrying about. It's not until a director or writer makes a name for themselves, or starts their own production company that they really start to get some leverage in contracts like that. I don't see that there is any sense complaining too much about it, as it really hasn't got much to do with your argument.

 

Is making money immoral?

 

That question, I think, merits it's own thread, but it's not really relevant to this discussion. Did you see the "but that is beside the point" part of that sentence?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Making money is not inherently immoral, and money could still be made under the system I described. I maintain, however, that the purpose of intellectual property laws is to encourage people to create, not to ensure that companies make as money as possible (a concept taken directly from the constitution). IP laws do this by appealing to people's greed. As long as creators can receive some degree of ROI, intellectual property laws are doing their job. Admittedly, companies would make less money under my system of intellectual property, but they could still make money, in which case the IP laws would be doing what they are intended to do. Human knowledge is advanced by the greatest amount if ideas are opened to the public as soon as possible after the creator is allowed to profit.