[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.

Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
"Unlike most human rights which prevent you from using force on people
except in extreme circumstances (people have a right to life, thus murder
is wrong, etc.), copyright permits you to use force on people. This is
backward. The burden of proof is on the pro-copyright side."

Can I bring up my list twist on the whole give versus take rights thing? 
Sure you can claim I don't have a right to control distribution of my 
work, but I can also claim you don't have the right to distribute work 
(not just mine). This works for the right to life. I can say you actually 
don't have a right to life, but no one has the right to take it away.

You brought up the fact that it really is not about rights and instead 
the end result. I have made my comments here: http://www.digitalmars.com/
webnews/newsgroups.php?art_group=digitalmars.D&article_id=75199

"But the real world isn't ideal as it is right now. This is where you 
might be able to justify a copyright law. In the real world, if you 
devote several months to creating something, you have bills that need to 
be paid during those months."

Frankly I really don't care about the bills either. The true fundamental 
thing that controls whether I can spend time developing stuff for other 
people, is if I can get food on the table. And guess what, no matter the 
lack of copyright/patent laws, it still takes work to to produce food to 
put on the table. Society has change in a way where not everyone has to 
work producing the things they need, instead a few people do it and we 
just pay them. This lets them buy things they want so they can spend time 
producing the fundamentals.

"Another is to work on commission. You create a custom work for someone 
who pays you ahead of time to create something just for him. This is 
actually how I make money off my software right now in the real world; I 
write extremely boring, but highly specialized applications to specific
customers. They pay me for a custom fitted program, which I cannot 
control at all when it is done (the copyright is assigned to the 
customer.)"

You claim your goal is to have ideas flourish. Yet in this scenario you 
can't create your ideas, you create someone else's.

"That is how artists worked through most of history. It's a fairly good
model for various kinds of artists, including software developers. Even
without copyright, people will probably still want custom-tailored
solutions to their own problems and will be willing to pay for it."

Don't care if it is a good model, see my beef with ignoring rights.

"That result is the only thing that justifies copyright. It isn't about 
the rights of the creator - he doesn't have the right to use force on 
people under normal circumstances, so that argument is right out. It is 
about the end result."

Once again I hope you have read my beef with ignoring rights. I just 
don't see the end result as what justifies copyright. I'm not here to 
make a Utopia.

"In an ideal world, copyright would be an evil. It would do only harm and
no good. (As you can probably tell, the definition of the ideal world I'm
using here is simply one where bills /don't/ have to be paid. Other than
that difference, all things are equal with the real world. I strongly
believe that the real world could be adjusted to fit this definition in
the near future, if only we had the political will to make some changes.)"

You did so well there moving away from Utopia, but you're back. See my 
first comment. It ain't just the bills, its the food man, the food. Your 
ideal world just got harder to create.

"In the ideal world, the only restriction I'd place on 'intellectual
property'..."

Wait, stop right there. You don't have a right to place restrictions on 
something you created.


"In the real world, it serves a useful purpose - letting artists work full
time without selling originals or working on commission, permitting things
to be created that otherwise would be neglected in favor of the artist
paying his bills. Thus it is allowed to exist."

I think it should exist for a different reason.

Assuming the creator has kept his creation private. He is the only one to 
know of it. The creator has the rights to this creation. He is able to 
use it as he wishes. Would you not agree with this? I mean, no one knows 
he has it, so they can't take rights away.

So with total control of his new found creation, he creates a legal 
document that is agreed upon by using the his creation. He has every 
right to do so, no one knows he has it. His product now has a binding 
contract that takes affect when the product is used, and he lets his 
product loose into the wild. So what happened, how did his right to 
assign a legal document to his product get taken away?