[OT] - does IP exist?

[Jesse Phillips]

On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 13:54:56 +0300, Yigal Chripun wrote:

> I've started a new thread so we don't pollute that other one.
> 
> Lets start from the beginning: we live in a democracy which is a
> compromise between the right of the individual and the rights of the
> community he belongs to. One of the rights of the community is the right
> to public access to any idea/artistic creation any individual has
> published. The idea behind both laws, patent law and copyright law, is
> very similar even though they serve two distinct purposes: they give an
> exclusive time-span to the creator after coming forward with the
> creation on the expense of that right of the public in order to make it
> worthwhile for individuals in the community to come up with new ideas
> and to encourage new ideas and new creations.
> to answer the specific issues raised:
> 
> Robert wrote:
>> Anyways, music is a pretty bad example, since most online music sites
>> are crap, record companies don't pay artists well, etc., etc. Let's
>> restrict our domain to software, since we're both creators of software
>> (I'm guessing) and it's our work that's being ripped off. Say you quit
>> your day job, took out a loan, and spent two years, 10 hours a day
>> developing a Photoshop-killer. Would you think people had the right to
>> use it without paying you?"
> 
> Yes, people do have the right to use any software I create and put out
> in the open. The question you should have asked is this: "_what_ is you
> business model for such a situation?"
> 
> there are tons of possibilities: I could sell support and consulting
> services (if it works for Red Hat..) for example. all depends on the
> size and complexity of the product. say I developed an IDE ( I like
> IDEs..) I can also make my living by developing custom plugins ordered
> by customers. What's important to realize is that Software is a service
> not a product. and each service needs to have its own business model (so
> the business model appropriate for say an IDE won't suit an online
> game). I know we are developers and all we want to do is just write code
> and get paid for it but unless you have a viable business model that's
> just wishful thinking.
> 
> next point: you talked about online alternatives like netflix, itunes,
> etc. I'll assume you live in the US, and as such you live in a bubble.
> all those services are limited to the US and Canada. I live in Israel
> and none of those sites will let me in. Last I checked I tunes only
> recently allowed for people from Israel to get in and to a very limited
> subset of stuff (only software, I think). Therefore those are not
> alternatives for me. Most of the piracy doesn't come from the US where
> those services are available but from other countries where the "legal"
> options are much more expensive and no viable "legal" solutions exist.
> 
> To address Mike's post:
> Your entire post is based on the wrong assumption that software is a
> product and not a service (of free information). hence, your business
> model is wrong.
> When the dinosaurs lived 65 billion years ago, there was plenty of
> oxygen in the atmosphere, when that went down a notch they couldn't
> breath and got extinct and replaced by more efficient breathers
> (mammals). The fact is that the level of oxygen were reduced. the choice
> was to either breath more efficiently or die. same goes here - you need
> to adapt to the environment not the other way around. you want to make
> money from your software? than come up with a viable business model. Do
> not expect everyone to bend over for you. the free market isn't that
> much different from nature. you don't adapt, you get extinct.
> 
> I'll say it one more time: "The customer is always right". that's the
> gist of it.

Alright, let us start from the beginning. What is a right, who gives us 
this right, and why do we have them?

"Yes, people do have the right to use any software I create and put out 
in the open."

This shows that you have given the right to others to distribute your 
software freely. Who gave you the right to say that that is what they 
could do?

As said before rights are an agreed upon social construct. We namely 
create this through past experience. To me it seems that your claim is 
that rights come from the ability to do something. You can copy and 
distribute which gives you the right to do so. Could you please explain 
the logic here, and try to keep out who gets hurt by what or what makes 
the best business model?

I claim that the creator has a right to control copies for distribution, 
and not because it helps him make a living or makes a good business 
model. This right is extended to him through a social construct because 
of the lack in physical control of said creation.

I wish to re-iterate here what I consider information is in the context 
that you use it. "Information can refer to a number of things, but only 
one of them will you get me close to agreeing should be free of charge 
once released to the public and that is, "Knowledge about a topic." and 
any combination of bits does not fall into this."