Xref: utzoo comp.society.futures:1960 comp.sys.mac.misc:2102
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!apple!usc!venera.isi.edu!jas
From: jas@ISI.EDU (Jeff Sullivan)
Newsgroups: comp.society.futures,comp.sys.mac.misc
Subject: Re: Intellectual Property (Re: polarization also piracy)
Message-ID: <14535@venera.isi.edu>
Date: 9 Aug 90 17:48:57 GMT
References: <1990Aug6.052300.2514@world.std.com> <4534@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au>
Sender: news@venera.isi.edu
Distribution: comp
Organization: USC-ISI
Lines: 93
In-reply-to: brendan@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au's message of 9 Aug 90 02:06:04 GMT

In article <4534@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au> brendan@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au (Brendan Mahony) writes:

   I think it is defintiely time to start seriously thinking about the
   worth of continuing to apply physical property rights to intellectual
   property. Some appropriate questions are:

   1) What does it mean to "own" an idea?
   2) How is it possible to enforce respect for this ownership?
   3) What are appropriate ways for others to respect this ownership,
      i.e. what laws are appropriate for protection of ownership?
   4) What rights should ownership entail?

   Clearly ideas cannot be owned in the sense in which a building may be
   owned. One cannot know of the existence of an idea without gaining
   possesion of it. Ideas have no unique existence. They concurretnly be
   used effectively by many people in many different ways. My use of an
   idea in no way disrupts anotherrs use of the same idea.

This is faulty reasoning.  By the same logic, my occupation of an
other-owned building that is not being used PERSONALLY by the owner
does not interfere with the owner.  However, it WOULD interfere with
the owners desires (e.g., to make a profit onthe property by renting
it).


This same holds true of intellectual property.  If you use "my" idea
without "renting" it from me, you are interfering with my desire, as
owner, that I amek a profit of some sort from my (intellectual)
property.


   At best ownership can be connected with invention or authorship.

Absolutely not.  See above.

   Is it for the benefit of society that the author of an idea have sole
   right of use of the idea? This is very reasonable in the case of
   physical property for at least two important reasons:

Don't be ridiculous.  It is for the good of society as a whole that 5%
of the world's population possess >75% of the world's resources?  Can
you substantiate this claim?  The fact of the matter is that those in
power do not wish to relinquish power.  Wealth is power.

   1. physical property can solely possessed, and can usually only be used
      effectively by a sole owner;

If I own an apartment building, it can't be used effectively by more
than myself?  Why not?

   2. those in sole possession of physical property have the means to retain
      sole possession, eg violent defence.

   Given the 1 and the potentially destabilising influence of 2 it is in
   society's interest to protect the right to continued sole possession.
   (Except of course where 2 can be easily overcome :-) )
   But neither point holds for intellectual property.

Wrong.  2 holds perfectly well for intellectual property; it's just
harder to find the perpetrators.  Extend your physical property
analogy to the case where you own a fleet of cars, spread over the
country, and you have a similar problem.

In either case, you can expend resources to track down and kill all
people in unauthorized possession of your property.  It's just harder
when the property is more easily transmitted.

   There is at least one very good reason for protecting the ownership of
   an idea.

   1. The author has a right to gain some benefit from the authorship.

   Clearly it is in the best interest of society to reward the author
   of good ideas, if for no other reason than the hope that more good ideas
   will follow. But is sole control over the use of an idea an appropriate
   reward?
   
Why not?  Don't you believe a creator has the right to do what he or
she wishes with his or her creation?

   Especially given the fact that it is an unenforcable reward.
   Are we in fact only ensuring reward for the powerful?

Murder is an unstoppable crime, in the global sense.  Should we do
away with the criminality of murder simply because there's no way to
stop people from doing it, and it is costly to pursue and prosecute
all who do?

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey A. Sullivan		| Senior Systems Programmer
jas@venera.isi.edu		| Information Sciences Institute
jas@isi.edu   DELPHI: JSULLIVAN	| University of Southern California