Neither Intellectual Nor Property 280
Techdirt's Mike Masnick is writing a series of short articles on topics around intellectual property. His latest focuses on the term itself, exploring the nomenclature people have proposed to describe matter that is neither intellectual nor property. The whole series (starting here) is well worth a read.
So like Military Intelligence? (Score:5, Funny)
Actually, anything with that many lawyers has gone way past intellectual and we all know the lawyers end up with more of the property than anyone else...so yes - I'd say he's right.
I better go RTFA now
Re:So like Military Intelligence? (Score:5, Informative)
An "average" patent (basic electronics, software, mechanicals) costs between $4k and $8k in attorney's fees, plus the USPTO filing fees. Relative to the market potential, fees are minimal. That cost vs. reward is something the business, inventor, etc., must take into account when securing IP protection.
Biotech patents are another story but rarely go above $100k in fees. Assuming that a drug, for example, could bring in hundreds of millions+ in sales, the fees are pretty insignificant...
It's also a very rare situation that a lawyer will take an interest in the IP in exchange for services.
The real money is in the litigation (Score:3, Insightful)
Half the reason patent lawyers have no interest in filing quality patents is because that would cut down on patent litigation.
For heaven's sake... (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't understand why this is so difficult for you idiots to comprehend. The "property" around t
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't know why that is so difficult for you idiots to comprehend.
Re: (Score:2)
The technical sense of the word "property" is, roughly, "a collection of exclusive legal rights relating to some particular subject, or the subject to which some collection of those rights attach." And, IP is precisely property in that technical sense.
If you mean "not 'property' in some poorly thought-out, fuzzy sense in which only real property and tangible personal pr
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:For heaven's sake... (Score:5, Insightful)
Similarly, copyright, trademarks and the host of related items aren't property. They are a limited monopoly issued by the government for whatever reasons to their holder.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, this situation is not self-correcting. The only way to "fix" the problem is to tax th
Re: (Score:2)
Stallman's Zombies
There, fixed it for you. The vision of thousands of identical zombie clones of RMS is something out of an FPS-induced nightmare.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:For heaven's sake... (Score:4, Insightful)
The only thing scarce about music these days is the talent.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I agree inasmuch as commercially, mass produced music is concerned, but there is *plenty* of good, free (as in beer and liberty) music out there. You just gotta know where to look. Of course my tastes are rather diverse, so YMMV, etc.
If it were up to me, only the original composer(s) could hold a copyright on a piece of music which would expire (and default to public domain) upon their death. No corps or estates allowed.
Re:For heaven's sake... (Score:5, Insightful)
The scarcity's in the time and talent of the artist. Rick Astley put time and effort into his songs, and he's considerably more talented than most singers. If he wrote the music and lyrics, then that's even more time that was put into the song. It's not property in the tangible sense.
Also, our law recognizes this, because you're not charged with felony theft when you download a shitload of music/movies off the internet, so try again.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I download a song that I will never buy anyway, they've lost nothing by that download, unlike someone stealing a car, or a dvd off the shelf, or any of the other ridiculous bullshit analogies that they use.
I submit to you, sir, that "I wasn't going to buy it anyway" is equally bullshit.
If you couldn't get it for free, would you still listen to music? I'm guessing you would, but maybe you'd have to compensate the artist instead. Although I'd like to see a lot of them starving, I wouldn't want to see
Re: (Score:2)
Second, my comment about scarcity of time and talent was in support of paying for music. Time is always very limited, and talent is in
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:For heaven's sake... (Score:5, Insightful)
Calling us "idiots" was your first mistake.
Your second is jumping into a philosophical debate with something that doesn't make much sense -- the whole point of calling it "intellectual property" is so that there can be a concept of theft, right?
Well, I didn't steal the copyright, and can't.
I disagree with Stallman about many things. He did point out that Intellectual Property isn't a completely sound term, as it covers two or three completely separate branches of law.
But he didn't have a problem with the concept of copyright itself, which makes you an idiot for bringing him up in the first place. The GPL works through copyright. It could not work without copyright.
It ever occur to you that our legal system might be wrong? And that this might be the whole point of these discussions?
All this "sophistry" is very relevant to the point, which is this:
You can post as many Slashdot comments as you want. You can let the RIAA and the MPAA sue as many people as it can. You can pass as much legislation as you want.
But all of that is pissing in the wind. Piracy is a fact. It is real, it is happening, and it is not going away.
So, the question of whether or not to legitimize something that a large portion of the population is already doing anyway is a good one. Think Prohibition.
And think very carefully about how you'd like copyrights, trademarks, and patents to work.
Deja Vu (Score:3, Insightful)
That said,Sounds nice, but I don't think it holds merit at all. The very purpose of property and property rights is self-interest and the philosophical right to pursue self-interest. It has nothing to do with managing allocation of resources. It's human nature to declare ownership (ever been around a two-year-old?) because ownership of things translates to better survival and reporductive rates.
At any rate, I'm sure I'm gonna get modded into oblivion here, since my post runs counter to the opinions of some of the more rabid libertarian/anarchist moderators. I'm not going to get into some of the other things in his blog specifically in relation to IP... since rebuttal of same is apparent in the comments to so many articles have come before.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Deja Vu (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think it's theft. I merely believe that it results in sub-optimal results for the community as a whole. I don't really want to put effort into supporting something that's specifically designed to be contrary to my interests and to make it illegal for me to make it work in a manner that isn't.
It isn't theft.
And downloading a movie isn't theft either.
It's arguably doing damage to the community for the movie to not be freely available. The cost of the movie is likely too high for many people who might otherwise enjoy it. So the community as a whole is hurt by the value these people are not deriving from the movie because the monopoly right granted on its distribution makes the cost too high.
The idea is to trade off the damage to the community as a whole as opposed to the good for the community as a whole to grant a temporary monopoly right in an attempt to encourage the production of the movie. Treating copyright as a property right is to totally short-circuit this attempt at balance.
The existence of electronic distribution means this balance needs to be re-thought. The tradeoff is different. The ability to make a copy so cheaply means that the amount of damage to society being done by the granted monopoly right is correspondingly greater. Even more people than previously might be able to enjoy the movie if only the monopoly right didn't exist.
There is no analogue in the world of physical property. Sure someone who doesn't have a pound of sugar might be able to derive a lot of value from having that pound. But in order for them to have it, it has to be taken from someone else who is also deriving value from having it.
Calling copyright 'intellectual property' totally casts the debate in terms that lead people to make poor decisions.
The idea of capitalism is to derive the overall greatest value to society as a whole from the distribution of various resources. It turns out that to do that it is best to let each individual actor assign their own values to various resources and each bargain with the others to gain the things they most value. This has various interesting problems in practice, but that's the basic idea.
Casting copyright and patents as 'property' totally skews how people think of them and prevents this calculation from being done appropriately.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed [slashdot.org]. 8^)
The phrase itself goes back to 1997 [questia.com], too.
Reverse Psychology (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Legal fiction? (Score:5, Interesting)
IANAL (I don't even play one on TV), but it seems to me that IP might be considered a legal fiction [wikipedia.org], much like the equally disputed concept of corporate personhood [wikipedia.org]. Maybe our resident NYCL could set me straight on this.
Re: (Score:2)
There are certainly faults with the system and even some of the concepts, but without a legal creation and definition, how else can ideas be protected? As with the concept of corporate personhood, sometimes it's a matter of convenience or at least a way to fit a different concept into an alr
Re: (Score:2)
Copyright does NOT protect ideas, it is CLEARLY defined that copyright protects the EXPRESSION of an idea in a fixed, tangible medium. It's this simple fact that is so often overlooked and if more people understood it then we'd have far fewer people whining about copyright. Well, except for those who are only arguing against copyright because they just want shit for free which seems to be pretty much everybody arguing against copyright in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Compare, say, the idea for practical fusion power (literally, that's it: 'There should be practical fusion power') with a copy of the plans for a practical, working fusion reactor, and lots of supporting documentation to show that it is viable. Which do you think the PTO will issue a pa
Intellectual property (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That's an interesting point, but really it's just splitting hairs. A patent is really just some ink on a page that represent a less vague idea on how to implement something. Music is just air pressure differences that hit the eardrums in a certain order. Bits on a hard drive (or in memory) are just an arrangement of electrons that represent some idea that can entertain or provide a tool to get work done. Ultimately everything is just a sequence of something, and that's now what's really important - it's wha
Tax Intellectual Property (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Tax Intellectual Property (Score:5, Insightful)
And about as practical.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Patents exist as an aberration to "how things work". Monkeys learn by watching other monkeys do something. They don't patent their doings of things. Patents are supposed to encourage people to do more interesting things, but what they're being used for is basically squatter's rights on vague ideas, and then as a measure to tax anyone that does anything like you've done before. More of those "righ
Re: (Score:2)
But mainly I was thinking of copyright.. which is another problem with the blanket term "intellectual property", no-one knows if you are talking about copyright, patents, trademarks or trade secrets.
Re: (Score:2)
Term of Art (Score:2, Informative)
The right to exclude: If you own real property, you can prevent trespassing; if you own intellectual property, you can prevent infringement.
The right to convey: If you own real property, you can sell it; if you own IP, you can sell it.
The right to s
Re:Term of Art (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's look at the difference between the two in the physical world, rather than the abstraction of the physical world which is the law.
Intellectual property - exclusion can only occur with the aid of 3rd parties (i.e. law enforcement).
Intellectual property - Once conveyed, you still have it.
Intellectual property - Subdivision is infinite, you can give away pieces of arbitrary size to as many people as want them.
Intellectual property - control requires 3rd parties (i.e. law enforcement)
Re: (Score:2)
Real property - exclusion can be accomplished without involving 3rd parties.
Intellectual property - exclusion can only occur with the aid of 3rd parties (i.e. law enforcement).
Really? If me, and 6 of my friends, and a few dozen of their friends, decide we want to use your backyard, can you stop us without using third parties? Hell, you'd have every right to - but it's that "i.e. law enforcement" 3rd party that makes it all possible without you hiring a private army and fighting force with force. Maybe we want to torch your garage while we're at it - think "real" property rights are any more enforceable without government?
Real property - control does not require 3rd parties.
Intellectual property - control requires 3rd parties (i.e. law enforcement)
Same problem as above - "Real" property is no more o
Re:Term of Art (Score:5, Insightful)
With physical property I (or me and both my friends) can (attempt to) physically secure property from you and your roving band of 6^2^2 friends. Regardless of whether or not I'm successful, only one of us ends up with it. Either I'm successful in defending it, or you manage to take it from me. This idea led mankind to villages and countries: To defend my property from the invaders.
Contrast this with an idea: Once I publish my idea (or even tell one person) it is impossible for me to ever be sure that no one else uses my idea. I suppose I could kill the first person I told, but this is an unusually harsh 'defence' for 'property' and still doesn't guarantee that either they already told someone else, or (as often happens) someone else had the same idea as me.
The reality is that physical property can be protected, but ideas can not.
The 'net is a perfect example of this: the more some organization tries to stifle the dissemination of something (perhaps internal e-mails) the more it gets copied throughout the net until it becomes literally impossible for anyone (including the government) to halt this spread.
That we may or may not make use of the government to help protect our physical property isn't really important. What is important is that physical property can be protected, while ideas can not. And this is true due to the rivalrous nature of property, and the non-rivalrous nature of ideas. This "problem" has been exacerbated by the internet, which is of course a giant idea copying machine: your idea goes in once, but comes out everywhere...
Re: (Score:2)
The post Jherek Carnelian (831679) is replying to is a complete pro-IP propaganda hit piece without any real analysis of the situations in which various real and unreal, so-called "intellectual" properties find themselves in.
There are huge and irreconcilable difference between physical properties and ideas.
If the moderation remains as it is, I will conclude that Slashdot is keeping it artificially in place. This is complete against the historical trend of the opinion
Re: (Score:2)
And grass is green!
Titles 17 & 35 specifically intend to put real property restrictions on intellectual works. IP, by definition, makes a non-scarce thing scarce by treating it as property. So it is of absolutely no coincidence that exclusion, conveyance, subdivision, and limited control of IP are parallels of real property. Loose analogy in geek terms: if class B inherits from A then it's of no surprise B has the same
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is a false example - as all examples attempting to use physical property end up being. Fundamentally physical property is rivalrous and ideas are not. This is fact, and this is why all
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A copyright, for example, is not the same thing as the creative work to which the copyright pertains, nor is either of those the same as a copy in which the creative work might be fixed. A copy is certainly property. A copyright is arguably property. A creative work is certainly not property.
Ultimately, p
Re: (Score:2)
There are plenty of types of property that you do not pay property tax on. The pair of pants I'm wearing, for example.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Speak for yourself. Here in Philadelphia, we pay a 4.3% pants tax, but only while they're being worn, which is why so many Philadelphians go around pant-less. Stupid pants tax!
Lawyer Letters (Score:2)
Understanding language and property (Score:2)
Well, no, apparently Masnick doesn't understand the way language works. Modifiers (here, "intellectual") indicate that things are different from other things in the modified class (here, "property"), not that they are "just like" the other things i
What happens when all physical production (Score:2)
Intellectual Property (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
People as they mature often realise that having a nice house and new car are worthless things in themselves. We derive true enjoyment from out relationships, interactions and associations with other people.
It depends a lot on why the guy is not working hard: disability, lack of o
Annoying (Score:2)
Honestly, I doubt we'd b
Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
I thought he was saying that he owes the estate of Aristotle for his use of that idea, and he owes some money to various Germanic tribes for their contributions to the English language. I'd imagine that is keyboard is illegal, as it didn't include any payment to the estate of Christopher Sholes, inventor of the QWERTY keyboard layout. Does his power company pay rights to Tesla's decedents for their use of alternating current to power that computer? Is there anything that we as humans can make or do that doesn't utilize the ideas of other people?
Re: (Score:2)
So you're saying that you owe society nothing for providing the stimulus to your amazing brain? That everything that comes out of my brain is MINE MINE MINE and has nothing to do with the world I live in? You know this kind of bullshit thinking harks back to Aristotle right? and that even he decided it was wrong.
You're saying that because other people existed, you can't do anything new? Can't add anything to the pool of knowledge? Can't do something revolutionary? Can't do something small?
Even the
Re: (Score:2)
No, he's saying the opposite -- you may not do so well on your own without the support of this society thingy. That includes your family, your country and the Greek philosophers.
But, attributing everything to others because because they're older is anti-knowledge.And so is keeping a perpetual right on what you invented. So?
Re: (Score:2)
Funny how it's "society" that came up with the idea of IP. But I digress.
Nobody outside of Mickey Mouse has ever argued that you should keep "perpetual right" on inventions.
The fact that nobody does anything "on their own" is a non sequitor. Let's see where Ford's family, society, and Greek philosophers would have been without the assembly line and the Model A.
If you discount the value of the individual, you will, one by one, discount society.
Re: (Score:2)
Then, what is not the point declaring something a property unless making it permanent? Property is by definition permanent. The reason IFPI is using the word "property" is th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's up to each individual to choose for themselves, and if they choose to work for their own benefit, then they have a right to do so... and society has an obligation
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Now if I were saying I shouldn't pay taxes, you'd have a point. As it is, you
Re: (Score:2)
You've shifted goalposts somewhat from your original comment, but even in this case you don't owe nothing to society for providing you with inspiration, except anything you borrow from the culture you were brought up with. It'll be interesting to see what kind of inspired work you'll prouce if you were to remove all traces of your cultural background from it.
Re: (Score:2)
I owe society nothing for providing me with stimulus....
By which I meant that I owe society nothing with providing me with experiences that can inspire a creative work... which is the same as what I meant in the part of my post you quoted.
In any case, I maintain that I owe society nothing. Even though I may borrow elements from the culture I was brought up in, and the experiences I've had, I still do not owe society the work that comes about as a res
Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
That's (one reason) why people get so upset over IP law - there's nothing stopping them copying ideas EXCEPT the law (it's so rare that something is produced by one person that it may as well be discounted), and there's no harm done by copying IP (RIAA/MPAA might argue that, but you could just as easily argue that their business system is based solely on the law, which means that it would be different/redundant without that law).
That's as succinctly as I could manage to summarise the article, and none of it seemed like intellectual wankery - this argument has serious ramifications IRL, and looking at the fundamentals of it seems as good a place to start as any. So, what you generate with your brain IS your property, but just like your money, it's completely useless if you don't SPEND it.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? I suggest you go down to your local book store and look at the spines of the books. By far, the majority will list exactly one person as the author.
Re: (Score:2)
Intellectual Property is not trespassed upon by someone having an idea, as that is not within the scope of the exclusive rights conveyed by any form of IP. The actual things that constitute violations are things that are, conceptually at least and often in
Re: (Score:2)
there's nothing stopping them copying ideas EXCEPT the law
Is that a bad thing? In all cases?
Revolutionary, fun, tube-filled things of sparkles and sunshine take research. Research takes money. Without IP law, a company has two options:
Which one do you think will happen more often?
Why do the research to begin with if, by "stealing" someone else's lets you make the same product on the cheap? Y
Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It isn't a question of theft.
It is question of how society assigns rights and interests.
You snooze, you lose.
Elisha Gray filed his telephone patents three hours after Bell.
Gray - no innocent - was an electrical engineer with millions of dollars worth of patents in his name.
But it was Gray in the
Re:Hmmm (Score:4, Insightful)
No man is an island.
The ideas etc that you generate with your brain are not emanating only from you but are generated by your experiences; your education, the society in which you grew up, your life experience.
They do not arise out of some kind of vacuum, unless you really *are* empty-headed.
Hence, if there really is *property* here it must be said to be the property of all of society; you *didn't* come up with it *all* by yourself. Never. Ever.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In the past the artist had a patron: The church. The state. The merchant prince. The patron's one rule is that the art he commissions remains unique. You do not embarrass Nero by building a knock-off of his golden house.
You should ask yourself why you want to be paid forever for something you do once.
Because it is something no one else has ever done - perhaps no
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
When I say "make some", you say "noise" (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
um... yes it does looky here [wikipedia.org]
what you are talking about is BIAS. BIAS indicates a preference to something and therfore against something else. for example i have a BIAS in favour of goth/rock/industrial stuff(amongst many others) and i am BIASED against country/western as it is truly evil!
in fact i have been told that if country/western music is played backwards you get your wife,job,house,car and dog back!
Re:When I say "make some", you say "noise" (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:When I say "make some", you say "noise" (Score:5, Funny)
Dude,
Re: (Score:2)
Especially if you amp goes to 11.
all the best,
drew
http://zotzbro.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I want to start a band that makes music that is actually not music at all, but poor quality recordings of terrible noises. Something so stupid and so utterly annoying and maddening to listen to that there isn't a single person on the face of the planet that would bother to pirate it even if paid to do so. Not to mention that playing it back would probably damage any good speaker.
Then, I would get some dirty lawyer to represent my band in court, claiming that thousands of people are illegally pirating m
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You'll know the IP lawyers are desperate when one of them brings a copyright infringement suit against someone for uploading/distributing John Cage's 4' 33" [wikipedia.org].
Re:valuable intellectual property (Score:5, Informative)
If you read further down the Wikipedia page, you'd know that it actually did happen:
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The thing is, to me
Re: (Score:2)
Since copyrights and patents don't apply to the same kind of things this is probably true in a sense, though it is certainly the case that, e.g., the non-functional elements of the design of a product could be protected by copyright (and possibly trademark) and the functional ones by patent at the same time, and that the common-language description of that situation would be that the product was copyright, patented, and possibl