[ExI] intellectual property again

JOSHUA JOB nanite1018 at gmail.com
Thu Mar 4 19:01:22 UTC 2010


On Mar 4, 2010, at 2:13 AM, Emlyn wrote:
> But patents are a massive issue, because patents will lock up entire
> areas of innovation. If a metacortex relies on some basic
> technologies, all of which require permission from a patent holder,
> then there might not be a way to get a liberated metacortex. In a
> world where such a thing is available, there's a good chance it is a
> necessary condition of existence, or at least leaves those without
> them at a massive disadvantage. Combined with only being able to buy
> closed commercial products, it's a scary future.

But even given that it will put you at a disadvantage, you still have the option, you can survive without it, just as humans have for thousands of years. You just may not want to. In which case you'll accept the restrictions that come along with your decision.

> Well, but isn't this an argument against your own position? You're
> saying here that these companies are developing ubiquitous, relatively
> open services in response to people going around them and just taking
> copies. What would have happened if people *couldn't* just duplicate
> copies amongst themselves? How likely are the above developments in
> that alternate universe? Note that it has been technically possible
> for many years to do this stuff; the only reason it hasn't happened is
> because the content industry have been fighting it tooth and nail.

Part of it is a result of piracy, but a major incentive is that people don't like being restricted, and are doing everything they can to avoid such restrictions (including simply not buying their products, or only watching shows on Hulu because they don't feel the investment in DVDs is worth it when in a few years they will no longer have access to those, as DVD players may well be defunct, etc.). It doesn't take piracy. Never buying CDs but only listening to radio, or Pandora, or watching videos on Youtube. All those are avenues that are legal, and are at least partially supported by the strict enforcement of IP by companies.

People want to buy content, not particular instances of the content, and there is significant public pressure to change to that way of doing things. It is, at least in part, why Hulu has done so well, as I can watch it pretty much anywhere, anytime. And the companies that come out with open services first will get big public support (and make more money). That's why they are all working together (as they realize that if they did it separately, they might end up losing money).

> You can say this is an individual's choice, but that doesn't make it
> so, especially if said individuals are beholden to an intellectual
> property regime which restricts their choices, in practical terms, to
> a very small set, laden with boobytraps. I guess people in the eastern
> bloc had choices - take what the state provides or go without - but we
> wouldn't call it choice, we'd call it oppression. If I am forced into
> a situation where I cannot make choices commensurate with my
> interests, where the other parties are in collusion with the
> government against me, that's not freedom.
> 
> And all of this is only one tiny facet of this argument; I haven't
> even mentioned the massive good that comes to individuals from
> information being free.
My view is informed by my outlook on the origin of property rights (in a person's control over their own mind and body, and their need to produce to survive, and be able to control their actions), which makes IP a requirement. IP is a form of property right, and just because my property rights impede your ability to say, enter my home without permission, that doesn't mean I shouldn't have property rights in the first place. It just means you have no right to enter my home unannounced. People in the eastern bloc were operating under a government which did not respect legitimate rights, and instead made up lots of them, or ignored them completely, thereby initiating force against its people. They didn't have choice, because they were operating under threat of force. IP is not a threat of force, it is the enforcement of a right. Initiation of force is the violation of rights, so enforcement of IP cannot be initiation of force. Which is why I take the position I do.

However, this does NOT mean I think everyone should enforce IP all the time. Many, many times it would be better, both for the IP rights holder and for everyone else, if they gave up their right to their intellectual property. Jonas Salk is an example. Apple, now, has been knocked down a lot in my eyes for its filing of lawsuits against HTC for violation of patents, such as on "multi-touch screens". That's a ridiculous patent in the first place, and Apple needs to just get over it. Loss of public support because of a-hole-ish actions are one major reason why many companies should simply ignore infringement on their patents (they lose respect and business, and besmirch their own names).

So I fully agree that there are some major benefits of letting a lot of information go free. But ultimately, whether it does or not is up to the creator, and while you can try to convince them it would be better for everyone (including them) if they let it go free out into the world, it is still, ultimately, their decision to make. And we have to respect that it is not our decision to make for them.


Joshua Job
nanite1018 at gmail.com






More information about the extropy-chat mailing list