Intellectual Property - In All Fairness!

[Rassah]

There is a difference between an idea and media. I am in favor of protection of media. I am not in favor of ideas nearly so much. Any idea can be expressed in countless ways, but a specific expression of an idea - a book or movie, deserves protection.

As for patents, which are more akin to ideas, some are valid, and perhaps some are not. The inventor does deserve some credit, but again, it is a matter of degree, which boils down to the complexity required to describe it.

A media is what the idea is put on. Paper, plastic, hard drive. The idea is what words should describe a setting, what pattern the notes should go in, how the computer code should execute. We protect some ideas with copyrights and patents, and ignore others. That seems rather arbitrary. Why would my recipe, or my restaurant design, or my new business practice not be protected if I spent time thinking it up and creating it, and may also depend on it for profits?

Conversely, how come some ideas are not protected by specific IP laws, and yet the people who came up with them can still profit? If your assertion is true, then those ideas should be easily copy able, and their ownwrs shouldn't be able to make any money?

Also, 104 pages.

[1715363184]

1715363184

[1715363184]

1715363184

[1715363184]

1715363184

[FirstAscent]

There is a difference between an idea and media. I am in favor of protection of media. I am not in favor of ideas nearly so much. Any idea can be expressed in countless ways, but a specific expression of an idea - a book or movie, deserves protection.

As for patents, which are more akin to ideas, some are valid, and perhaps some are not. The inventor does deserve some credit, but again, it is a matter of degree, which boils down to the complexity required to describe it.

A media is what the idea is put on. Paper, plastic, hard drive.

My mistake in terminology. You know what I mean, so let's not continue with the mincing of words.

We protect some ideas with copyrights and patents, and ignore others. That seems rather arbitrary. Why would my recipe, or my restaurant design, or my new business practice not be protected if I spent time thinking it up and creating it, and may also depend on it for profits?

Trademarks protect logos, slogans, etc. And in fact, they largely adhere to the idea of homesteading. But frankly, my interest is in books and movies, due to their size. There simply isn't any mathematical possibility within reason of the same book or movie being created simultaneously by two separate entities, therefore, it is perfectly reasonable to accord the creator ownership.

[Rassah]

If you ... wish to address why you believe you can deny compensation to those who put forth a huge effort to make a film, then do so.

They can come up with their own ways of getting compensation without IP laws (like cotton farming slave owners had to)

Once the film exists (by virtue of effort), then why can't you respect the individuals who made it, by continuing to enforce a policy that only seeks to prevent others from doing what they never could've done before anyway?

They can come up with their own ways of getting respect without IP laws, examples of which were provided.

Why should it be the case then, that when some group of individuals create the movie (discover the number out of thin air, so to speak) should cry foul when they are told that they still cannot do what they weren't doing in the first place? Only by virtue of the efforts of others, do these number duplicators even have the opportunity to duplicate the work of others.

Because the number creators can come up with their own ways of getting respect and compensation without IP laws, even if their work is freely duplicated.

[FirstAscent]

They can come up with their own ways of getting compensation without IP laws (like cotton farming slave owners had to)

Despite your intense desire for this argument to be related to cotton farming slaves, it is not. I in fact addressed this in the third and fourth paragraph of my second to last post.

[FredericBastiat]

You either allow all forms of patent, copyright and trademark use on all forms of ideas and patterns or you disallow all of them (logically speaking). You aren't allowed to pick and choose. That would be nothing more than sheer capriciousness. It does not follow that you can have your information protected and not mine. Or likewise, you shouldn't have any greater permission granted to you by your government bureaucrat than mine for any collection or combination of information.

It seems to fall back again on the majority vote or monopoly privilege via an oligarchy control structure. Your idea is only valued more than mine because more people or elite governors in high places said so. If your supposed IP property can't stand on it's own two feet sans government intervention (monopoly blessing) and because only you can own it and nobody else, it doesn't deserve discussion. Stupid and illogical.

[Rassah]

Just a personal anecdote:

I have a patent for revolutionary new technology, one that has long been dismissed as impossible. The estimated value of that patent is in (tens) of millions of dollars. Problem is, no one really knows or understands it, so we've been having a very difficult time trying to find a buyer.
My other option is to just give it away to my university's research department, in exchange for me working with them, developing a full scale system, and making millions as either a consultant or a manager of the business based on that tech (path I'll be likely pursuing). Problem is, since it's my family pattent, everyone in my family would instead prefer I sell it and split the money. Selling still sucks, more so in this economy.
So, my options are rely on IP laws, hope the estimated value is correct, and keep trying to sell it to wealthy tech companies, likely getting nowhere, and making a profit of $0, or screw the IP laws, develop the technology myself, and make money from my own work and from providing intellect as a service (consulting/management), which will likely pay out more, since even if the patent tech descriptions are easily copyable, they're not exactly easy to understand.

That reminds me, a lot of bands make way more money from their service of playing their own music live (concerts) than from CD sales...

[Hawker]

You either allow all forms of patent, copyright and trademark use on all forms of ideas and patterns or you disallow all of them (logically speaking). You aren't allowed to pick and choose. ...snip...

Not correct.  Some ideas, for example machinery designs, are of value and supported by IP laws.  Others, for example food recipes, are not.

[Rassah]

You either allow all forms of patent, copyright and trademark use on all forms of ideas and patterns or you disallow all of them (logically speaking). You aren't allowed to pick and choose. ...snip...

Not correct.  Some ideas, for example machinery designs, are of value and supported by IP laws.  Others, for example food recipes, are not.

You're relying on the "because that's the way it is in current law" fallacy again. My recipe may be the thing my restaurant or soda is dependent on, and is thus of great value to me and my company. So why can't I get protection?

[FirstAscent]

You either allow all forms of patent, copyright and trademark use on all forms of ideas and patterns or you disallow all of them (logically speaking). You aren't allowed to pick and choose. That would be nothing more than sheer capriciousness. It does not follow that you can have your information protected and not mine. Or likewise, you shouldn't have any greater permission granted to you by your government bureaucrat than mine for any collection or combination of information.

You have it wrong. If my book is protected, so is yours. Same for movies. It is not the case that my movie will be protected and yours will not.

[FirstAscent]

Just a personal anecdote:

I have a patent for revolutionary new technology, one that has long been dismissed as impossible. The estimated value of that patent is in (tens) of millions of dollars. Problem is, no one really knows or understands it, so we've been having a very difficult time trying to find a buyer.
My other option is to just give it away to my university's research department, in exchange for me working with them, developing a full scale system, and making millions as either a consultant or a manager of the business based on that tech (path I'll be likely pursuing). Problem is, since it's my family pattent, everyone in my family would instead prefer I sell it and split the money. Selling still sucks, more so in this economy.
So, my options are rely on IP laws, hope the estimated value is correct, and keep trying to sell it to wealthy tech companies, likely getting nowhere, and making a profit of $0, or screw the IP laws, develop the technology myself, and make money from my own work and from providing intellect as a service (consulting/management), which will likely pay out more, since even if the patent tech descriptions are easily copyable, they're not exactly easy to understand.

That reminds me, a lot of bands make way more money from their service of playing their own music live (concerts) than from CD sales...

None of the above is an argument against the value and utliity of protecting the hard work of others.

[Hawker]

You either allow all forms of patent, copyright and trademark use on all forms of ideas and patterns or you disallow all of them (logically speaking). You aren't allowed to pick and choose. ...snip...

Not correct.  Some ideas, for example machinery designs, are of value and supported by IP laws.  Others, for example food recipes, are not.

You're relying on the "because that's the way it is in current law" fallacy again. My recipe may be the thing my restaurant or soda is dependent on, and is thus of great value to me and my company. So why can't I get protection?

IP law is intended to be of benefit to society.  If you can't persuade your legislature that granting IP protection to recipes is a good idea, you are stuffed.

[FirstAscent]

You're relying on the "because that's the way it is in current law" fallacy again. My recipe may be the thing my restaurant or soda is dependent on, and is thus of great value to me and my company. So why can't I get protection?

So now you're saying that you do want IP laws, but in greater force than already exist?

Or are you saying that if IP laws exist for movies, then they should exist for recipes? That might indeed be a valid question, but it certainly is not an argument against IP laws for movies.

[Rassah]

None of the above is an argument against the value and utliity of protecting the hard work of others.

It is an argument against the idea that IP laws are the only, or even the best, way for creators to get compensated for their intellectual creations. Also I guess pointing out that the idea of intellectual property is meaningless if no one is willing to pay for it, even if its creation involved over ten years of very rigorous work.

[Rassah]

You're relying on the "because that's the way it is in current law" fallacy again. My recipe may be the thing my restaurant or soda is dependent on, and is thus of great value to me and my company. So why can't I get protection?

So now you're saying that you do want IP laws, but in greater force than already exist?

Or are you saying that if IP laws exist for movies, then they should exist for recipes? That might indeed be a valid question, but it certainly is not an argument against IP laws for movies.

No, I am saying that even with current laws on the books, the application of laws to protect ideas seems arbitrary and inconsistent.

[FirstAscent]

None of the above is an argument against the value and utliity of protecting the hard work of others.

It is an argument against the idea that IP laws are the only, or even the best, way for creators to get compensated for their intellectual creations. Also I guess pointing out that the idea of intellectual property is meaningless if no one is willing to pay for it, even if its creation involved over ten years of very rigorous work.

But so? It's still not an argument against the validity of IP laws. And besides, it isn't necessarily an argument demonstrating that IP laws are not the best. Maybe IP laws are the best, maybe they're not.

[FirstAscent]

You're relying on the "because that's the way it is in current law" fallacy again. My recipe may be the thing my restaurant or soda is dependent on, and is thus of great value to me and my company. So why can't I get protection?

So now you're saying that you do want IP laws, but in greater force than already exist?

Or are you saying that if IP laws exist for movies, then they should exist for recipes? That might indeed be a valid question, but it certainly is not an argument against IP laws for movies.

No, I am saying that even with current laws on the books, the application of laws to protect ideas seems arbitrary and inconsistent.

Welcome to the real world. As for arbitrariness, it is unavoidable. You no doubt agree that granting ownership of the number 1 is absurd? And you contend that perhaps granting IP rights to a film which contains tens of billions of pixels is perhaps not unreasonable? Somewhere in there an arbitrary line needs to be drawn based on possibly many factors.

Are you against arbitrariness in all its forms? Because that's ridiculous.

[MoonShadow]

103 pages of mental masterbation as two ideological sides talk past each other, neither side willing to consider the position of the other, because they have mutually exclusive principles.

Maybe you as well would like to comment on the following statement by me:

If you wish to address why you believe a particular film would just magically come into being in the absence of those who created it,

By what logic must I address any particular film?  What makes any particular film worthy of support contrary to principles?  Would Spielberg have created E.T., or even developed the wealth and prestige to do so?  Probably not.  Is the particular movie that we know as E.T. worthy of special consideration under the law?  No.  Spielberg's wealth is predicated upon a monopoly on distribution of works, a monopoly enforced by government agency.  This is pretty much what the OWS protestors are protesting, the unjust favor of government of one group over the remainder of the people for unjustifiable (according to the remainder, anyway) special treatment under the law.

 or wish to address why you believe you can deny compensation to those who put forth a huge effort to make a film, then do so.

I'm not denying them compensation at all.  That's a fallacy.  I, personally, would pay the asking price or simply not see the film.  It's the idea that the producers have the right (in addition to the monopoly provided ability) to deny that others can see the film, or produce derivitive works based upon the film, 70 years after the original copyright holder has died.  As already pointed out, current films don't really depend upon copyright laws for their revenue stream; they largely depend upon contracts.  Steam doesn't even depend upon that, only on the technical difficulty in subverting their system compared to the cost of convience of voluntary participation of users.  Copyright law doesn't substantially affect the first run profitability of a major motion picture, but does on the 'long tail', which limits who can see the film or produce derivitive works of the film, including upon the decendents of the copyright holders themselves who may not have even been born yet.  You never did address Nina Paley's right to freely sell her own magnum opus, which just happened to included modern versions of old blues songs.  Does she not have the right to earn a living as well?

Either a film exists or it does not. If it does not exist, then nobody is duplicating it. Once the film exists (by virtue of effort), then why can't you respect the individuals who made it, by continuing to enforce a policy that only seeks to prevent others from doing what they never could've done before anyway?

Your concept of IP is narrow.  You assume it comes down to simply copying.  Oftentimes it's not about a direct copy at all, but simply a similarity.  The band that recorded "Under Pressure" sued over five notes that were substantially similar to five notes in "Ice Ice Baby".  They won that suit, even though it came down to five notes.  They did not contend that the songwriter could not have come up with five notes on his own, nor did they contend that his song was substantially similar to theirs, only that they had a copyright on the song, including 'samples'. 

Parodies are protected under free speech, and thus are considered exempt, but producers of parodies get sued under IP laws all the time.  What about all those artists?  Do they not have a right to an honest living?

In other words, it's physically impossible to duplicate that which does not exist.

Nor is it possible to parody pop culture that does not exist.  Again, your concept of IP is narrow.

[FirstAscent]

MoonShadow,

I agree with a lot of what you're saying. 70 years, five notes, etc. We're in agreement.

But somewhere in there is a line that is defensible. It's not 70 years, and it's not five notes.

[MoonShadow]

Can you prove which outweighs which? No, you can't.

And you can?

No, I can't. That's fine for me though because I'm not the one advocating the existence of such laws. Since you admittedly can't prove whether intellectual property laws are helpful or harmful, it's irresponsible to advocate them. You're like the religious person that says, "You can't prove God doesn't exist."

You just shot yourself in the foot.  By your argument, since you can't prove that the abrogation of all IP laws would be helpful, then there are no grounds to propose any such an abrogation

I can prove, without much difficulty, that the abrogation of copyright laws would be in the best interests of the public, just based upon the educational aspect of popular culture alone.  There are few, if any, educated supporters of copyright that would contest this position; and most of their arguments are based upon the 'property rights' aspect of considering data to be equal under the law to real physical property.

If I go to the trouble, would you even consider changing your position?  Be honest, now.

[FirstAscent]

If I go to the trouble, would you even consider changing your position?  Be honest, now.

Are you speaking to me? I won't change my position with regard to works represented by numbers so large that they would never be available to anyone other than the fact that some entity went to the effort to create it.