Intellectual Property - Real or Imaginary?

[steveh_131]

'Intellectual Property'

Do you believe that a person can own a thought? An idea? A collection of words? What about words themselves? Is this 'property'?

Please note that I am asking this as a question of ethics, not as a question of legality. I am aware of the legislation and the case law surrounding it, as we all are.

In addition please note that the invasion of privacy or the taking of something by force is also not what I am asking.

 

[mrjarrell]

Posted in the other thread, but it applies here, too. Copyrights are an abstract that congress created. Creators of content DO deserve some protection for their intellectual property, otherwise they would stop creating because they couldn't profit from it. My issue is that most copyrights are warped and last way too long. The original 14 years (with a 14 year optional extension) was more than sufficient. But, paying someone for performing a song? No. That carries things a bit too far. Same for old plays.

[ame]http://youtu.be/-KrI59fviIE[/ame]

 

[steveh_131]

Posted in the other thread, but it applies here, too. Copyrights are an abstract that congress created. Creators of content DO deserve some protection for their intellectual property, otherwise they would stop creating because they couldn't profit from it. My issue is that most copyrights are warped and last way too long. The original 14 years (with a 14 year optional extension) was more than sufficient. But, paying someone for performing a song? No. That carries things a bit too far. Same for old plays.

I will agree with you that copyright law is a mess.

I don't necessarily agree that people would stop creating in the absence of copyright. There was innovation and entertainment long before copyright law existed. Even today, there are artists who release their work for free. The vast majority of the software that I use is open source. Heck, even the novels I read lately are posted for free online.

The economic benefits of it are not really what this thread was intended to address. I simply wanted to address the philosophical ideas behind it.

Most of us ought to be ethically restrained from taking someone's physical property. Do we have the same ethical restraints when it comes to utilizing or sharing someone's ideas or thoughts?

 

[WebSnyper]

Yes I believe in intellectual property. Authors own their work as do songwriters, but intellectual property can also refer to designs, formulas, etc.

 

[steveh_131]

Yes I believe in intellectual property. Authors own their work as do songwriters, but intellectual property can also refer to designs, formulas, etc.

Followup question for you and anyone who agrees with you:

What property rights do you claim for these ideas that you own?

 

[Liberty1911]

Intellectual property rights are real. Just ask Hank Rearden.

 

[rambone]

I think the most reasonable and realistic solution is to shrink the duration of copyrights, as mrjarrell mentioned. Those laws need a major overhaul.

 

[downzero]

I do believe in some intellectual property rights.

Thoughts and ideas, however, are not intellectual property that the law protects.

 

[steveh_131]

I do believe in some intellectual property rights.

Thoughts and ideas, however, are not intellectual property that the law protects.

So let's get specific.

What qualifies, ethically, as intellectual property?

And what rights do you believe you are naturally entitled to as the creator of said intellectual property?

 

[Prometheus]

I haven't watch this particular video yet, but with the phrase mickey mouse, I'd suspect it is talking about how Walt Disney built and empire using stories that, a few decades later, his company lobbied to have the laws changed so drastically that virtually everything he did (except for Mickey) would have been illegal under the same laws the current Disney company championed.

I believe the copyright laws as seen under the initial years of the Constitution (28 years maximum) are sufficient.

This notion that you can have a copyright on something (such as apples 'page turn') for 80 years AFTER the inventor dies is insanity.

If you can't make your fortune on your IP within 28 years, it wasn't very intellectual to start with and doesn't need protection anyway.

This sets aside the notions that once you own something, you can't use it or back it up as you see fit nonsense. That's another ball of yarn,

The poll sucks. The two choices don't allow any room for logic or reason to be introduced. It's like asking do you want to be stabbed with a 10" blade or a 12" blade. It's a loaded question.

 

[Tsigos]

No. Intellectual property is a fiction created for economic purposes. It has been good to provide financial incentives for development of new technologies, ideas stories etc. but an idea cannot be owned, only rewarded with a period of exclusivity in the right to use the idea for commercial purposes. The problem is that we have extended the rewarded exclusivity period for far too long.


I feel slightly different regarding fictional characters than I do about other types of intellectual property. Whether Disney has permanent exclusive rights over the image of Mickey Mouse is less important to me than whether someone can have a perpetual monopoly on the cure for cancer.

 

[downzero]

So let's get specific.

What qualifies, ethically, as intellectual property?

And what rights do you believe you are naturally entitled to as the creator of said intellectual property?

Intellectual property is an economic issue and presents no morally relevant points for discussion.

It is ultimately a question about how long we want to allow creators of useful things to profit from those things by granting them a monopoly, to encourage others to create useful things. That is a policy question, not a moral one.

 

[steveh_131]

Intellectual property is an economic issue and presents no morally relevant points for discussion.

It is ultimately a question about how long we want to allow creators of useful things to profit from those things by granting them a monopoly, to encourage others to create useful things. That is a policy question, not a moral one.

Agreed.

So let's hear from those of you who toss around the words 'theft' and 'stealing' in conjunction with intellectual property. From those of you who feel it is a real ethical constraint. Any interest in defending your position?

 

[ATOMonkey]

You can own an idea, so long as you protect it and don't give it away.

For instance, if I devise a means to turn lead into gold, I own that idea. The only way anyone else would be able to get that idea is through nefarious means, or coming up with it on their own.

If my idea was truly unique, then no one would ever be able to duplicate it.

Same for physical property. If I create a widget, then I own it. The only way someone else could own my widget would be to steal it.

If I sold my widget, then whoever buys it is now the new owner. If I let anyone borrow my widget, I shouldn't be too surprised if someone makes a copy of it.

IMO, same for IP.

Being successful at my job is predicated on the idea that we OWN our ideas. We keep them under locks and keys that cost millions of dollars. Those ideas are then used as tools to create items that are sold to the new owners. People try to copy our product, but they don't have the same IP that we do, so their copies often fall short.

The only IP you own is a secret.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Agreed.

So let's here from those of you who toss around the words 'theft' and 'stealing' in conjunction with intellectual property. From those of you who feel it is a real ethical constraint. Any interest in defending your position?

I do not consider anything published to be "owned" IP, because either the author or the publisher is selling it to a new owner.

They have given up their exclusivity to their idea by trading it for currency.

Any idea not sold, published, or otherwise intentionally made public, is most definitely owned by the author, and anyone who takes that idea and claims it for their own is definitely a thief.

I do believe that two people can have the same idea at the same time though. Rare, but possible.

 

[steveh_131]

The poll sucks. The two choices don't allow any room for logic or reason to be introduced. It's like asking do you want to be stabbed with a 10" blade or a 12" blade. It's a loaded question.

I don't think it's a loaded question at all. Either you believe that information can be owned or you don't. Posting allows you to expand on your logic or reason.

I do not consider anything published to be "owned" IP, because either the author or the publisher is selling it to a new owner.

They have given up their exclusivity to their idea by trading it for currency.

Any idea not sold, published, or otherwise intentionally made public, is most definitely owned by the author, and anyone who takes that idea and claims it for their own is definitely a thief.

I do believe that two people can have the same idea at the same time though. Rare, but possible.

I also agree with this. Ethically, this falls under the category of 'initiation of force'. Taking information from someone by force is most certainly unethical.

But once you have shared that information with someone else, there is no more possibility of force.

 

[downzero]

Ideas: Economics as a Unifier of Law: A True Story

 

[steveh_131]

Ideas: Economics as a Unifier of Law: A True Story

Interesting article. Makes you wonder whether or not this is even sound economic policy, ethics aside.

That said, I am not at all surprised at the lack of activity in this thread.

People love to throw around the terms 'stealing' or 'theft' when discussing piracy. They love to talk about patents and copyrights like they are natural rights. And yet not a single person will come here and make their case on the ethics of the matter.

It's a whole lot easier to just regurgitate what we've been conditioned to believe and continue to be intellectually lazy.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Not many people have to deal with real IP in a professional context either.

The extent of their experience is burning CDs and DVDs on itunes.

 

[cqcn88]

You can own an idea, so long as you protect it and don't give it away.

For instance, if I devise a means to turn lead into gold, I own that idea. The only way anyone else would be able to get that idea is through nefarious means, or coming up with it on their own.

If my idea was truly unique, then no one would ever be able to duplicate it.

Totally disagree. Ability to be duplicated is not what determines if something is a unique. Unique simply means no one else has thought of it, e.g. it is the only one. Perfect example is Emerson Knives wave feature. I believe the patent is still active. Unique idea, incredibly easy to duplicate and impossible to "protect". Most any physical product sold for a profit can be reverse engineered. If everyone under the sun is allowed to blatantly reverse engineer, manufacture, and sell for profit any new idea, incentive to advance technology would be killed off. Why should a company use their engineers to think of inovative ideas if they know every other company will immediately be manufacturing and selling the same thing?

To the OP, yes I believe it is ethically wrong to steal someone else's idea. I'm an engineer, being able to do something in a more efficient way then the competition is sort of the bread and butter of an engineering firm. "Efficient" is a very large word in this sense. People who come up with and refine a new idea have put a lot of their time and energy into it. Stealing their idea is to me the same as stealing their time and energy. Ethically wrong in my opinion.