Intellectual Property, Harmful and Immoral?

[Garoad]

This came up as a result of a thread (page 2-3) where an open source KSP plugin with no license specified needed an update and it was/is unclear as to whether a modified version or even a fix (in what form?) could be distributed. I didn't want to sidetrack that thread, so I'm taking my IP bashing here instead.

Personally I believe IP--patent & copyright in particular--cannot be justified on any basis. They are only micro-monopolies, enforced arbitrarily by government lawyers and bureaucrats. Nor does IP fit the definition of real property. You cannot "steal" an idea, technique, or a concept. You can't own such things, and it's not possible to deprive someone of the use of their knowledge, as it is with stealing for example a car. Copyright is most often used by powerful bully organizations such as the MPAA or RIAA to protect outdated business models - to the detriment of all consumers, and (most) artists as well.

It's not justified on a utilitarian basis, that society benefits overall, either. (Utilitarianism isn't morally defensible in itself anyway.) Entire industries were built in eras with little or no concept of IP - actually this is the case for most inventions and ideas throughout history. People often justify patents by saying that inventors need an "incentive" to invent. But I can't imagine how anyone could think this after considering it seriously. People invent and create all the time with no expectation of ANY compensation of any kind (one example might be KSP modders...), and obviously virtually every major invention would have been invented and created by someone, if only because they wanted it for themselves.

This system (patent/copyright) is one of the most evil and harmful things the government does, and I truly believe it should be abolished entirely. It's getting worse as time goes on, too. I feel strong contempt every time I'm forced to dance around and waste my time on this immoral, stupid set of rules.

All this is from a US-law perspective, but I imagine the way this works in other countries is fairly similar.

Since this is probably the first time most reading this have even heard such a thing anyway, I guess I'll stop here.

[satcharna]

I agree wholeheartedly. Copying intellectual property or patented ideas for private use should be entirely legal, and I'm certain most areas of business would be positively boosted by the influx of competition.

[drakesdoom]

I would not go so far as one of the most evil, i mean they do kill a lot of people too. I do agree in general though, I believe a European country recently removed computer software from it's IP regulation and this was spearheaded by a programmers union.

[Nikolai]

There's some fundamental tension there, since artists and inventors who cannot compete (with, for example, economies of scale) need to make a living; at the same time, they're restrictions on free speech ("You can say whatever you want, as long as it's not too similar to what that guy over there said") and free creativity. I think the founders of the U.S. Constitution understood that, which is why the Copyright Clause (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8) guarantees protection to authors and inventors "for limited Times" (emphasis mine).

Of course, this sort of thing has been subject to abuse, because intellectual property has become a rather substantial revenue stream for some rather heavy hitters. There's a saying that you can expect copyright terms to increase in length whenever the copyright on Mickey Mouse is due to expire, for example.

I don't think it's one of the most evil things governments do, but it is certainly something that can be (and is being, IMHO) abused in a way that makes society less well off generally. There's a heritage to be explored in the fairy tales of Europe from centuries ago, for example -- and you can only discuss, say, Snow White as long as the discussion doesn't wander too close to a particular megacorporation's incarnation of that story. I don't like the idea of restricting free speech in perpetuity, but I also like the idea of allowing innovators to do something exclusive with their work for a while as a reward for extraordinary creativity. I can't think of a good solution that would satisfy everyone.

[Kerbface]

Don't know if I agree entirely. Humanity has made a lot of progress since IP laws came about, a lot more than previously, and while obviously there are many other factors as to why this happened, I don't think it didn't help.

Lots of things are made simply because someone wants them but often that simply isn't a feasible model. Many inventions simply take far too much money, time and effort to create that simply "being able to use it" at the end is NOT a strong enough incentive to put yourself under years of financial and, physical and emotional strain. Also, we could end up with a situation where if someone puts years of effort into writing a book, they can ask to get it published, have their rights denied and then have the company publish it themselves and take all the profit, that is until another company also starts publishing it. This would give all the money to those with means of selling things and none to those with means of creating things, which means that creating things can't be a full time job unless you're selling paintings on a street corner or performing. These are just a few examples of problems.

I don't think that certain types of IP are a problem, but I think what laws currently exist on them are. Copyright is insane these days and has long since past the purpose of providing a creator with the means to create and a reward for doing so. Now everyone involved in a project can be long dead and someone can still be getting money from them. And then there's things like patenting genes so that research into them can be made illegal except by the owning company. Now that's just terrible and not how patents should work.

[Nuke]

information wants to be free. its a law of physics.

nothing against content creators making a buck, but give some to the public domain every now and then. dont keep lobbying for patent/copywrite extensions.

[Custard Donut (In Space)]

I must admit my opinion on this is fairly left of field, i believe the creator of a work has a moral right to two things with regard to his creation, firstly to be identified as the author in perpetuity, secondly for any edited or changed version of his/her work to be clearly stated as such.

As more and more people became aware of these simple laws they would seek out the original creator/creators of said works in order to donate to them, and they would quickly become aware of any imposter trying to cash in on their work.

And if someone says "i only made 100k dollars where i could have made a million were copyright laws to be in place," you can turn around and say, "and i could make you work for half your wage if the corresponding laws were in place too, doesn't mean the laws are moral," 100k is what your creation was worth to a free people, end of story.

But we live in a world where might makes right, copyright law is just one symptom of a deeper sickness caused by greed in our society. (In my opinion)

Edited May 20, 2013 by Custard Donut (In Space)

[Tw1]

Though I agree to a certain extent, that certain things should not be patentable, copyright law is very important. Imagine if an author spends years working on a novel. Then, once they've published it, someone else copies it letter for letter, then starts selling it for a fraction of the price.

It is not the just the words and ideas that have been stolen, it is the hours of work that the creator put into composing them.

Imagine if when Squad completes KSP, then some larger, more well known company goes and downloads it, makes a few tweeks, and starts selling it as their own.

That would not be right, would it?

This is why good copyright laws have their place. To protect the content creator.

But I would argue, in the case of things like medicines, break-through technologies, and anything else that would be of sufficient benefit to humanity, that there should be mechanisms to allow someone else to create the product, should the patent holder refuse, or be incapable of doing so.

Also, patenting simple ideas, like using magnets to hold a plug in, are a little ridiculous. Same with patenting something from nature, like a gene.

I think there is need for reform, but definitely not abolition.

The case raised in that thread is quite specific, about modifying and redistributing a piece of code. Perhaps it could be better addressed by changing the consequences of uploading it to spaceport.

Edited May 20, 2013 by Tw1

[comham]

The point where we're at now, where the lengths are artists life + 90 years and many artists don't own the copyright to their own work, that's pretty indefensible. I don't think there's anything fundamentally wrong with the idea of IP, but how it's implemented now is laughable. The lengths should be absolutely slashed to better reward artists, incentivise publishers to fund new content, and to recognise the completely different facts of digital distribution vs physical distribution.

[ZedNova]

Though I agree to a certain extent, that certain things should not be patentable, copyright law is very important. Imagine if an author spends years working on a novel. Then, once they've published it, someone else copies it letter for letter, then starts selling it for a fraction of the price.

It is not the just the words that have been stolen, it is the hours of work that the creator put into composing them.

Imagine if when Squad completes KSP, then some larger, more well known company goes and downloads it, makes a few tweeks, and starts selling it as their own.

That would not be right, would it?

This is why good copyright laws have their place. To protect the content creator.

But I would argue, in the case of things like medicines, break-through technologies, and anything else that would be of sufficient benefit to humanity, that there should be mechanisms to allow someone else to create the product, should the patent holder refuse, or be incapable of doing so.

Also, patenting simple ideas, like using magnets to hold a plug in, are a little ridiculous. Same with patenting something from nature, like a gene.

I think there is need for reform, but definitely not abolition.

This is how i see it as well. Copyright laws are necessary, but they need to be Tweaked a little.

[The Jedi Master]

Now, I tend to see the world in black-and-white. It's a problem for me. However, even I know that this is a VERY grey area. All sorts of arguments can break out over it. So, please, don't do this. Not on the KSP forum.

[LeonG17]

Now, I tend to see the world in black-and-white. It's a problem for me. However, even I know that this is a VERY grey area. All sorts of arguments can break out over it. So, please, don't do this. Not on the KSP forum.

Everything in the world is a grey area.

[The Jedi Master]

Everything in the world is a grey area.

Some more so than others. Like. This.

[Nuke]

copywrite and patent laws aren't exactly a bad idea. i just wish they weren't constantly abused by mega-corporations and extended indefinitely through lobbying.

[Czman007]

Intellectual property, patent and copyright laws are in place to protect against theft. If I invented something, I would be very upset if someone were allowed to waltz in and copy the design I had worked so hard to create. Stealing ideas for personal gain is just as bad as stealing objects.

[Kerbface]

Everything in the world is a grey area.

That's a very black and white way of looking at the world.

[Flymetothemun]

That's a very black and white way of looking at the world.

That's a very Orange and Green way of looking at that comment.

[Nuke]

Intellectual property, patent and copyright laws are in place to protect against theft. If I invented something, I would be very upset if someone were allowed to waltz in and copy the design I had worked so hard to create. Stealing ideas for personal gain is just as bad as stealing objects.

patents and copyright are meant to stimulate innovation and creativity, respectively, by giving inventors and content creators a limited period of exclusive rights to their works in order turn a profit. it was never meant as a way to stop theft. right now they aren't doing either of these things. we have things like patent trolling and tech companies making and fighting over patents on the shape of interface elements in their software. i dont even want to discuss what the entertainment industry gets away with.

[drakesdoom]

It sounds to me that we could all mostly agree on two changes, 1 corporations are not people and cannot hold copyright, and 2 trivial items need to be removed from the copyright system.

[Flixxbeatz]

Intellectual property, patent and copyright laws are in place to protect against theft. If I invented something, I would be very upset if someone were allowed to waltz in and copy the design I had worked so hard to create. Stealing ideas for personal gain is just as bad as stealing objects.

What about sampling music? I have heard about some famous artists and record producers getting in trouble for not asking permission from the original creator or record label who holds rights on a certain music before using it.

And there is me, who do sampling by request and upload it into youtube for other people (aside the one who requested it) to use. The main difference is that I do sampling for free (not even a single coin) and I don't sell exclusive rights to sampled beats. I also tell people who use my beats to not profit from it (since they didn't bought it from me and I don't sell it in the first place anyway).

[Garoad]

I would not go so far as one of the most evil, i mean they do kill a lot of people too. I do agree in general though, I believe a European country recently removed computer software from it's IP regulation and this was spearheaded by a programmers union.

Well I completely agree with that, it's certainly a lesser evil. I use the term because of the degree to which IPs proponents have managed to convince virtually everyone that this is necessary, justified and moral, when extremely strong arguments can be made to the contrary.

There's some fundamental tension there, since artists and inventors who cannot compete (with, for example, economies of scale) need to make a living; at the same time, they're restrictions on free speech ("You can say whatever you want, as long as it's not too similar to what that guy over there said") and free creativity. I think the founders of the U.S. Constitution understood that, which is why the Copyright Clause (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8) guarantees protection to authors and inventors "for limited Times" (emphasis mine).

This is something I disgagree with the founders regarding, although I definitely agree that a shorter term monopoly is preferable to the absurdly long ones of today. The concern for rewarding innovators and creators is a common one, but there is very little (if any) actual empirical evidence to suggest that this is even necessary. The notion that inventors and artists would simply quit and get a regular day job--because they aren't guaranteed the right to use force to stop others from doing the same or similar--goes against what I think is human nature.

Don't know if I agree entirely. Humanity has made a lot of progress since IP laws came about, a lot more than previously, and while obviously there are many other factors as to why this happened, I don't think it didn't help.

...

Sure progress had been made, but how much of that can be attributed to IP versus other major catalysts such as increased respect for property rights (which does much more to guarantee financial gain from your work), liberalism (in the sense of personal freedoms or "liberties"), increases in trade, science, and of course capitalist competition? There's little hard evidence (not based on what people or politicians "think") that it provides any net benefit at all, and there's a massive cost to society which takes no effort to see. Think about all the money which goes into the legal system (lawyers!) and government offices simply to keep the system running. That's part of the cost--it effectively diverts all those resources from our economy, which could have gone to much more productive uses such as scientific research, farming or manufacturing.

The example of an author is a good one! A real life example I like is that during the pre-copyright American era, copyright law was enforced for English authors in England, but not across the Atlantic. Authors did get paid, in both markets, and would often make *more* money from American publishers in exchange for early access. They were paid up front, and the payment would often be greater than what they were paid in royalties over years in England. A major point being that (besides evidence that copyright didn't help anyone) a different business model evolved.

I must admit my opinion on this is fairly left of field, i believe the creator of a work has a moral right to two things with regard to his creation, firstly to be identified as the author in perpetuity, secondly for any edited or changed version of his/her work to be clearly stated as such.

Great points. It sounds like you're basically just asking that the historical fact that X created Y be recorded honestly. I wouldn't go as far as calling this a *moral* right but I agree that society should tell the truth about history.

One might argue that JK Rowling would not have made as many millions on her Harry Potter books without copyright--and they'd be correct about that. She'd still be filthy rich now--simply from the sheer popularity. (Those concerned about wealth disparity should take note!) But does anyone really believe that she wouldn't have bothered writing the books at all for a lesser portion of wealth? Or that without copyright, publishers wouldn't still pay her a fortune today for a copy of her latest work? Absent IP, she may only earn a mere few million to live off for the rest of her life - boo hoo, over this?

Though I agree to a certain extent, that certain things should not be patentable, copyright law is very important. Imagine if an author spends years working on a novel. Then, once they've published it, someone else copies it letter for letter, then starts selling it for a fraction of the price.

It is not the just the words and ideas that have been stolen, it is the hours of work that the creator put into composing them.

Imagine if when Squad completes KSP, then some larger, more well known company goes and downloads it, makes a few tweeks, and starts selling it as their own.

As I mentioned below, that exact situation did happen regularly during the years where copyright law was being born. It didn't appear in Europe or the US simultaneously, and there isn't any evidence of any "boom" in creativity after such laws were put in place. (Actually there's a good deal of evidence against such a boom.)

In your KSP example, even if someone did this - Squad has the source code, all the expertise, all of the current user base, and will most definitely be the preferred company which publishers choose to work with over some shumck with no expertise. Can a 3rd party really compete effectively with this? Can they provide better support, better (or any) updates, and better additional content?

Another interesting example would be the Linux market. Redhat (and others) sells a free open source operating system for relatively cheap, offering support and other perks. Conventional wisdom says that such a company couldn't possibly exist since there aren't any copyright or patent rights being enforced on Linux--but there it is, it works.

You hit on some of the worst aspects of patents, and yeah we're going down that path--it's only going to get worse from here out. And society will suffer greatly (people will literally die) as a result. Actually, from what I've read, people in Africa who can't afford expensive patented drugs (only out of reach due to the patent monopolies) already are dying - disgusting!

Now, I tend to see the world in black-and-white. It's a problem for me. However, even I know that this is a VERY grey area. All sorts of arguments can break out over it. So, please, don't do this. Not on the KSP forum.

Why not? I don't see any flames; I think we're adult enough here that we don't need to censor discussion. It's not like this is going to change any laws (lol) so it shouldn't offend anyone... if it does that much, it might be a good thread to just skip.

It's only a grey area if you haven't examined the topic in great depth (more importantly, hard evidence and philosophical justifications).

Intellectual property, patent and copyright laws are in place to protect against theft. If I invented something, I would be very upset if someone were allowed to waltz in and copy the design I had worked so hard to create. Stealing ideas for personal gain is just as bad as stealing objects.

This is pretty much the standard conventional wisdom, but to name just a few problems with it:

-All innovations are based on past innovations - literally, science would grind to a halt if ideas were universally treated as "property"; if all inventions throughout history were patented, we'd probably still be in the "dark ages".

-Great amounts (if not most) of creative work is "similar" or builds on the past work of others. There isn't a non-arbitrary, objective way to judge similarities, either.

-Government calls it theft, yet after this crime is committed the originator still has full use of their creation. For theft to occur there has to be a deprivation of the use of property, so this has to be something other than theft.

-Is a business guaranteed profit for the hard work of setting up their business? Obviously not, so why should society bear the cost of enforcing an arbitrarily length & scope private monopoly on something which was given away? Presumably if we create something we wish to sell and profit from, we wouldn't carelessly just send it to anyone without at least a non-disclosure agreement. If a "regular" business must develop a functioning business model to survive, why should those in certain other (IP) businesses not be required to develop their own functioning business model for profit?

-Stealing an object deprives the original owner of the use of that object; not so with ideas or patterns. Non-physical concepts or patterns are not "scarce", therefore the moral justifications that brought about the *need* for traditional property laws do not apply. The whole reason we have property law in the first place is to work around this problem of scarcity (the economic sense of the term), and prevent the fighting over resources which would result with the complete lack of private property. This is one of my favorite arguments against IP, because it gets into the moral/philosophical justification and principles, which should be the basis for any rational system of justice and law.

I could go on, but this is way too long already. I really didn't expect such a volume of response.

[drakesdoom]

I don't know why I didn't mention this earlier but at one time I was in college to become a mechanical engineer but dropped out. One of the major reasons for dropping out was current copyright law and how it was applied in employment contracts. Basically to be hired as an ME anywhere part of the contract was anything you worked on belonged only to the company, not just on company time, and not just with company resources. Anything you even so much as considered during your employment became the companies property. Even if you quit and invented a device and made good money off it the company would come back and sue you with a claim that you started the idea while still working for them, and standing case law left the burden of proof on you to refute that claim, a nearly impossible task. This was in America for reference.

[Nuke]

id argue that calling ip violations theft is bad vocabulary at best and outright deception at worst. the government does not call it theft, they have terms like "copyright violation" and "patent infringement" that describe it better. if it was theft, a lot more people would be going to jail for copying cds and downloading warez. the people making those 'piracy is stealing' adds aren't government entities, they are ip holders. they only call it theft to invoke an emotional response. misleading the public about the law in this way should be illegal.

Edited May 22, 2013 by Nuke

[Sir Nahme]

I don't think the laws are the problem, it's the mindset of the people who use them. Encourage creative commons releases and we'll all be better off. The best example is with Wizards of the Coast, they vigorously defend their copyright BUT when they released OGL for 3.x D&D they created a brand new mass market of d20 products by many other companies. Not all of those companies survived, but the ones that actually thrived were the ones putting out the best products. Now we have Paizo putting out a nearly completely open source line of games in pathfinder that CAN be played pretty much completely free under OGL and still turning a profit.

[Garoad]

Drakes, that's terrible (and yet another example of a hidden, un-measurable cost of IP destroying society). The only way I can see that justified would be using a non-disclosure agreement, which would be a time-limited (hopefully..) contract you'd agree to upon hiring. What happens if you need to find another job in that same specific area? You're bound by NDA and unable to do so, or even to create your own product independently. It's convenient for suppressing the competition, that's for sure. But I don't have a strong opinion on the topic of NDA agreements--patent and copyright are very different things. I have no problem with trade secrets, but I'm not sure if these NDAs go too far either.

Nuke - You're probably right that government doesn't call it stealing, at least in their official texts. I bet we can find some government "officials" or politicians who do call it stealing, though. The word probably gets used in court cases (dunno). I have no faith in the logical consistency of any branch of government.

Yes the public's mindset is probably the root of the problem. How this came to be historically, I'd love to know. It must have started early on, because even most (all?) US founders believed in this concept; of course they didn't have the benefit of hindsight, new examples of problems that we have today, and of course the research data showing the damage and disproving the supposed benevolence of IP law.

I'd still argue that the law is a problem though, because it's an enabling tool which allows people to subvert competition and obtain private monopolies. Without the law, mindset wouldn't matter. Without the government's willing participation, these people like the RIAA/MPAA would simply be loudmouthed bullies (and would be held accountable for breaking the law when using aggression to intimidate others).

Creative Commons is a fantastic development. If I thought it had any chance, I would be petitioning Squad to alter the forum and SpacePort rules to mandate something like this Creative Commons license for graphics/other and GPL for code. Nobody is making money off work here, it's entirely just generosity and a desire to see the community thrive that drives it, so it should be a no-brainer.

Also this disgraceful portion in the SpacePort rules needs to go. IANAL, but this sounds to me like they are restricting the right of the uploader to distribute their files from any other location. I believe this is the reason the Kethane mod is not available on SpacePort. I don't blame them either.

III. You will not have the right to upload, copy, transfer, publish, send by e-mail, store or make “the products†and “the services†available to the general public in any other way, including without limitation the Users of “the products†and “the services†offered by “Squad†or any other company in the same area.

Why, why, why put that restriction in there?