| trent44 said: People here seem pretty vigilant on downing and belittling these labled "pirates" and their belief that any and all information should be free. I think the idea of Intellectual Property is rather a bit silly, sure it is a common practice now days to claim an idea as your's and your's alone. An idea no one else can think and act upon? People nowdays are often forced to sign non compete clauses (these are almost entirely in place to protect intellectual property of a company to maximize its profit) in order to get a job, then limiting their freedom to find their next job. An intellectual property is a property that can never be taken away, can be reused indefinately, and can be modified into an indefinite multitudes of other ideas to be resold again and again and again... Sounds like selling an unlimited resource at a limited resource's price. (Many useless rehashed products come to mind o.o ) If Intellectual properties were done away with (All information was free). This would free up resources often spent in redundant technology research, tens of thousands of lawsuit cases, Anti-competitive patenting, patent sitters, unemployable people, etc. This is an interesting lecture over the legal side of Intellectual Properties http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1jdYIMKPiA Also, here is a fair article over the global economic ramifications of patents. (and intellectual properties in general) http://fare.tunes.org/articles/patents.html The cost to society far exceeds the benefit of the owner of the intellectual monopoly.
|
I think you're thinking too much in extremes.
Nobody is saying that the current situation with IP rights is perfect, just like freedom of speech hasn't been perfected, etc.
Nobody then goes and says, lets get rid of it.
I don't see how the general concept of IP is silly. You can't actually own an idea or ideology (which why I think scientology is fucked up O.o, at least it violates the right to freedom of religion too). However you can own the right to print an arragement of words (books), produce a software with coding, etc. But you can't actually own an idea itself. Like you said, it's a bit strange to think of it that way.
However, like the Wikipedia definition I just ctrl+v'd, IP rights is the exclusive right to produce a certain thing based on a creative idea (a chair or table, based on a design for e.g. Or labeling your product with a logo and name).
You don't actually own ideas, but the RIGHT to use them for a limited ammount of time.
After a while the right becomes public, as it only seems to be hindering creativity if one gets to have an monopoly over that right forever.
Ideas are usually based off of previous ideas (e.g. Disney's most iconic characters are ironically based off of stories that are public domain now), and it helps creativity for them to be shared. But the government thinks it also helps for people to have a monopoly on using that idea, and be rewarded for it, to give incentive to think of those creative ideas.
=============================================
You're right, if it's forever, then it's hindering, but if there's no IP at all, no temporary intellectual monopoly there are many ramifications.
If I create a product, and it, along with its name, gets a good reputation what would happen if people are allowed to use my brand name? Not only does it hurt me, but the consumers, who won't be able to tell a quality good from a bad one (since the names are all the same O.o).
Real world example is bootlegs. You see a product and it looks genuine. You buy it, you get scammed.
If I spend money to research a technology, or medicine, and it gets to be produced by others, it's now a matter of who can produce cheaper and manufacturing, rather than who researched better, and there'll be no incentive to invest in research. It'll be a death to private and commercial science.
To what extent? Who knows. That's another debate. But I think everyone agrees that we need SOME sort of IP rights...
