[UFO Chicago] Intellectual property

[Larry Garfield]

Oh I really wish I'd been able to attend the meeting last night, I
imagine it must have been quite a trip. ;-)

"Neil R. Ormos" wrote:

> > One such culture is the one we call "Pop Culture".
> > Witness how naturally so many people install copies of
> > whatever software they please on whatever computers they
> > please whether the license allows it or not.  Witness the
> > proliferation of recorded broadcasts.  Witness brief
> > orgasm of sharing which was Napster.  Witness the speed
> > with which memes spread and how eager people are to share
> > them.  By all indications, it's perfectly natural IN OUR
> > CULTURE for ideas and their expression to flow like water.
> 
> And by all indications, it's perfectly natural in our
> culture for those who originate ideas and their expression
> to seek to control who gets the commercial value from them.
> So what's your point?

So we have just shown that both the "property doesn't exist for ideas"
and "property must exist for ideas" attitudes are present in modern
American culture.  Neither side, therefore, can claim that it is "more
natural" based on the existence of the belief alone.  We must resort to
(gasp!) logical debate and pragmatic thinking.

> > Evian water is still just water.  The fact that it has a
> > label on it which denotes some kind of authority may
> > please some people, particularly Evian, but in a world
> > which is abundant with water, getting water from Lake
> > Michigan is better for the common welfare.  It is true
> > that the existence of Lake Michigan diminishes the market
> > for Evian water, but the truth remains that it is both
> > more economical and more feasible to get water from Lake
> > Michigan.
> 
> > s/Evian/(Disney|Microsoft|Sony|Random House|...)/
> > s/water/(software|recorded music|movies|essays|novels)/
> > s/Lake Michigan/shared media/
> 
> Nate, now you've really confused me.  If I understand your
> position, you object to the application of property law
> concepts to ideas/creative output.  But now you seem to be
> trying to apply the law of water rights to ideas/creative
> output.  Why is that supposed to be any better?  And how is
> that Evian stuff relevant to any of this?

Actually, the analogy seems sensible to me, if you will permit an
explanation.  (Nate, forgive me if I am misinterpreting it.)  

1) Water naturally exists in the world.  Ideas naturally exist in the
world.

2) It is possible to get water F/free from big pools of it (Lake
Michigan).  It is possible to get ideas F/free from big collections of
it (libraries, software archives, universities, journals, etc.)

3) There are companies that make money by "certifying" water (Evian). 
There are companies that make money by "certifying" ideas (Disney,
Microsoft, Random House, etc.)

4) For a community to get its water from the lake (City Water
Department) is cheaper, more efficient, and more egalitarian than for it
to get its water from Evian.  For a community to get its ideas from
public sources (Open Source / Free Software community?  OS/FS companies
like Red Hat?  Organizations like Debian?  The Chicago Public Library?)
is cheaper, more efficient, and more egalitarian than for it to get its
ideas from a controlling corporate entity.

5) The fact that the community gets its water from a public source
reduces the profits of the certification company (Evian), but does not
imply that Evian is therefore owed anything, or that the public source
is inferior.  Therefore, by analogy, the fact that the community gets
its ideas from a public source reduces the profits of the idea company
(MS, WB, etc.) should not imply that the idea company is therefore owed
anything, or that the public source is inferior.

I would, in fact, go a step farther.  If I buy water from Evian, I may
use it as I wish.  I may give it to someone else.  I may use it in a
recipe to make pancakes.  I may mix a quart of Evian water with a quart
of tap water from the lake and sell the resulting gallon of water,
saying to my customer "Here, this is half Evian, cool huh."

So why is it that with an idea, under current law, I may not use it as I
wish?  Why may I not give it to someone else?  Why may I not use it in a
larger recipe to make another idea?  Why may I not mix it with an idea
from the public domain and sell the resulting "gallon of ideas" saying
to my customer "Here, this this is half Disney characters, cool huh"?

It certainly seems that there is NOT parity between physical property
and ideas, and in fact ideas are more tightly restricted than physical
property.  Why is that, when we have previously shown that ideas are
naturally more fluid and more infinite than physical property?  (See
previous scientific version of "information wants to be free.)

(Forgive the Socratic method, I am still in "The Four Questions" mode
from Passover. <g>)



Of course, I can answer that question myself, but before continuing I
suggest the reader attempt to do so on his own as a mental exercise.  

Our economy is based around a society of scarcity.  Resources come in
limited quantities, far fewer than the amount needed to provide everyone
with that resource.  So we must find some way to regulate and protect
those scarce resources.  Since the industrial revolution, the notion of
a society of scarcity is breaking down.  Ideas are but the first and
most obvious case of a resource that is no longer finite and scarce.  Of
course, those who are invested, either financially or more likely
psychologically, in the society of scarcity are terrified of a society
of plenty, because the old rules with which they are familiar do not
apply.  Knowledge is but the first battleground in the shift from a
society of scarcity to a society of plenty.

And I can already hear Neil decrying the preceding paragraph as off
topic, irrelevant drivel fancied up with cute language and philosophical
tripe.  I will not argue the point. ;-)



> >> Larry, you are a liar, and your intellectual dishonesty
> >> knows no bounds.

Thank you, I try.


> > And it is also relatively biased to reflect a change in
> > the English language that publishers of all kinds
> > (including the publisher of the dictionary) WOULD LIKE TO
> > SEE, and they are propagating this defintion, possibly
> > without realizing that they are affecting a change.  You
> > are an intellection property lawyer.  Your livelihood
> > depends on the regime of intellectual property.  This
> > taints your views in the same way that the views of
> > publishers are tainted.  Note that I have nothing to gain
> > or lose from intellectual property except my job.  I am a
> > computer programmer, and every day I contribute to
> > non-free in exchange for the money I survive on.  However,
> > I am not so base in my judgement as to let my individual
> > dependency on intellectual property disturb my rational
> > analysis of right and wrong.
> 
> Heh.  the evidence doesn't support your position so you haul
> out a conspiracy theory?  I suppose poorly paid dictionary
> editors, or college professors who are even further removed
> from the mother lode of publishing, have conspired to
> incorporate changes in the dictionary to infiltrate their
> publishers' nefarious intellectual property ideas into the
> minds of the American public?  Give me a break.
> 
> And while you're at it, spare me the holier than thou,
> "you're biased, tainted, and irrational but I'm unbiased,
> untainted, and rational" baloney.  You have an awfully big
> axe to grind, yourself, Nate.

Of course he does.  So do you.  So do we all.  The most biased person is
the one who claims objectivity.

> >>>> Third, the notion that "ideas" or creative output are
> >>>> somehow fundamentally inconsistent with the application
> >>>> of property concepts is simply wrong.
> 
> > I believe the opposite has been shown.  See above
> > regarding "natural" vs. "unnatural" and comparison of the
> > cost of copying.  Your assertion that Nick is therefore
> > wrong is hereby rendered invalid.

I would actually submit that neither viewpoint on property is "natural",
on the grounds that the concept of property itself is not natural, vis.,
innate in our existence as human beings.  All rights, including
property, are a product of the society in which they exist, and
therefore are only as natural as their ability to improve the well-being
of the members of said society.  If a would-be "right" does not improve
the well-being of the members of the society, then it really has no
purpose, and if it works to the detriment of the members of the society
at large (even if at the betterment of a small few within that society),
then it should be cast aside as useless.

-- 
Larry Garfield			AIM: LOLG42
lgarfiel@students.depaul.edu	ICQ: 6817012

-- "If at first you don't succeed, skydiving isn't for you." :-)