[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.

Christopher Wright wrote:
"That is my natural right, since it is my ability. I do not claim that it
is right or good or just; society defines those, and society is not the
source of natural rights."

See, I disagree here. The "ability to" is not a right. Let me define it 
in a round about way. In my little world 'right' means 'correct,' so to 
have a right is to be able to do something that is correct. That is to 
say, to be able to do something that is socially acceptable.

To say it is a natural right, is just saying that doing so is such a 
basic and fundamental that it not only shouldn't need to be explained as 
to why you have it, but should be universal. Unfortunately it is a social 
construct and those things always take explaining to someone.

"But it's pointless to talk about natural rights. You can talk about
societal rights or, if you're so inclined, God-given rights."

see above.

"Well, yes. If fifty armed men showed up at your door and said that all
your pillow cases were now theirs, you wouldn't be inclined to argue."

No one said you had to argue, you may even claim to others they always 
own it. But by my definition of a right, 50 armed men don't have the 
right to claim it as theirs even if you give it to them.

"Being a recent invention, intellectual property protection is clearly not
a basic right of humans. Not all societies will require it."

I really don't care about all societies, just the ones where it exists.

"Because intellectual property is a recent invention, its implementations
may not be optimal. Unfortunately, a well-defined legal system predates
intellectual property, so it's harder to try out different mechanisms for
IP protection."

Yes I do agree it may not be well defined or have the correct laws 
surrounding it. I also agree that the legal system is flawed. Luckily 
that is not my concern for this argument.