Answer for: Do intellectual property laws have a negative or positive impact on society and culture?
#6 Of course its beneficial!
| 
9 Comments
Until banks start taking "good intentions" for my mortgage rather than money I'd like my IP protected. How else do you turn art into a living? We could all live in a communist state where you don't have rights to your own IP and the state makes all the money off it. I believe that happened to the inventor of Tetris. Ask him what he thinks of IP laws.
Comments |
Leave a comment
?
Even in the absence of IP laws, painters can still sell paintings, and musicians can still have concerts, and both will and can make good money doing so. The arts and sciences existed and flourished well before the notion of ideas as property and will continue to do so regardless.
Yes, but in today's world, the companies that have platoons of lawyers, marketing experts, distribution models, etc, have a distinct advantage over a "little guy" with an innovation or artistic creation. They also have the resources to seek-out-and-steal your stuff, and then use all of the above to make money on it.
I'll turn your original argument around. What's to protect the little guy from getting screwed from the people with the tools, money, expertise and lack of scruples? I agree that currently IP tends to get gobbled up by these same people (I have a patent, which of course went to my employer as soon as it was approved -- so I understand the problem). That's why I suggested reform, not abolition.
IP laws apply to more than paintings and music. Software for example falls under these laws as well. In fact all work created in all engineering disciplines. As a computer scientist I viewed this question from my unique perspective.
Also "good money" is a relative term. If you want, you can always put your art in the public domain and just make money by doing performances like you suggest. Radiohead would be a good example of someone trying that strategy, although they're already millionaires.
I'd say there's more opportunity now to share your art with the world than at any time in history. I won't claim that's because of IP laws, but indirectly the IP laws that encouraged technological innovation (ie. the invention of the internet, etc.) was definitely a factor.
My viewpoint is just that encouraging the ability of individuals to invent new IP and have it protected is a good thing.
I would agree that the current laws could be improved, but the original topic was more general and I am a strong believer that we are better off as a society and culture because of IP laws that we would have been without them.
The inventor of Tetris lived in Russia, or part of the Soviet Union, he created one of the highest selling games of all time. He got next to nothing from it because his IP was owned by the state. So its just an example of why I believe that IP laws in this country are better than others.
Make sense? I wasn't trying to upset the apple cart or anything, just throwing in my perspective...
@MDAdams
"I'll turn your original argument around. What's to protect the little guy from getting screwed from the people with the tools, money, expertise and lack of scruples?"
Well, as history has shown, it certainly isn't copyright ;)
"That's why I suggested reform, not abolition."
But why reform a system that has only shown itself to exacerbate the problem, even from the very beginning?
@ConcentratedEvil
"I'd say there's more opportunity now to share your art with the world than at any time in history. I won't claim that's because of IP laws, but indirectly the IP laws that encouraged technological innovation (ie. the invention of the internet, etc.) was definitely a factor."
For what it's worth, ARPANET was a fully state-funded endeavour. That's not to say that subsequent innovation would have happened exactly as it did without IP, but I would put forth the argument that it's more than possible a very similar outcome would have taken place with or without copyright / patent laws. Just my speculation, though.
"The inventor of Tetris lived in Russia, or part of the Soviet Union, he created one of the highest selling games of all time. He got next to nothing from it because his IP was owned by the state. So its just an example of why I believe that IP laws in this country are better than others."
.. Which is yet another example of IP proving itself to be a detriment to creators the whole world round. It seems to me that instances where IP law actually lent itself to the benefit of the artist / engineer directly are by far more the exception than the rule.
Regardless, great discussion, and interesting points all around.
"For what it's worth, ARPANET was a fully state-funded endeavour. That's not to say that subsequent innovation would have happened exactly as it did without IP, but I would put forth the argument that it's more than possible a very similar outcome would have taken place with or without copyright / patent laws. Just my speculation, though."
And ARPANET's growth was minimal until the commercialization of the internet. The ability to protect intellectual property and charge for access to goods and services is what made the internet grow. It had nothing to do with the govt. origins, in fact I'd say just the opposite. The internet growth is proof of the power of IP protection. You could go back to using telnet and gopher if you liked the govt. funded system. :)
"The inventor of Tetris ..."
" Which is yet another example of IP proving itself to be a detriment to creators the whole world round. It seems to me that instances where IP law actually lent itself to the benefit of the artist / engineer directly are by far more the exception than the rule."
I don't see that interpretation at all. IP has paid my bills for my entire professional career. I haven't seen this massive detriment you're talking about? Can you site some examples of why IP protection is so bad? Without it how do you make a living? Software businesses cannot scale without it, the opensource movement is based on the premise that services can provide revenue, but they can never scale to the size of a pure product company. Product companies can never exist if IP isn't protected. You'll have to let me know what the negatives you're referring to are? Give me some specifics so I can understand your argument.
Too bad there aren't more people in on this discussion, I agree its a good one. Probably one of the more substantive threads I've seen. We could start calling each other names and stuff, maybe then people would get more interested. ;)
Having trouble bringing myself to name-calling, as this has been a civil and constructive conversation. However, I could propose a jocular insult. For instance: Shouldn't you first develop some talent before worrying about IP?
Nice! Now we're getting somewhere...
@MDAdams:
"...Shouldn't you first develop some talent before worrying about IP?"
"The problem for artists isn't piracy, it's obscurity"
~Tim O'Reilly