intellectual property

[eclectica]

"Intellectual property" is the term used to describe the ownership of ideas, thoughts, and art. The supporters of the concept will claim that its existence is important, because if people are not allowed to claim ownership, then they will not feel compelled to innovate. I disagree with that. People will continue to create because it is their nature, though greed drives a few.

The very concept of "intellectual property" is a distortion of reality, driven by greed. One can not own thoughts and ideas any more than one can own the air. No one can really claim to be an original thinker. If so, let the person live a life locked in a dark cell, and see what kinds of ideas he would have developed then. We are always borrowing ideas from others.

"Intellectual property" rewards those who are greedy and shameless enough to take the initiative of ownership.

Laws which enforce the concept of "intellectual property", such as the DMCA, are further tools for enslaving the common people who don't have wealth and resources. From this site (http://www.comstock.com/web/IHF/COLLEGE/ImagePiracy/), is the telling quote:
Mistake #4
Thinking, hey, I'm too "small potatoes" for anyone to care.

To the contrary. The Internal Revenue Service figured this out a long time ago, which is why they focus on the "small" cheaters, not the big ones: There are a lot more "small fry" than there are "big cheeses", and the message you send when you attend to the smaller entities is a powerful "word of mouth" engine. If you're doing a little out-of-the-way website or a local-distribution brochure and thinking you'll just appropriate a few images because, after all, who's going to care... guess what? You are smack in the bull's-eye, exactly the "profile" that is being targeted.
They don't go after someone who is wealthy and established and has the resources to fight back. Instead they do what the RIAA does, by suing college kids $150,000 for each mp3.

There really is no such thing as intellectual property. It is a big lie that has been repeated many times, with legal backing.

[nicobie]

Originally posted by eclectica


They don't go after someone who is wealthy and established and has the resources to fight back. Instead they do what the RIAA does, by suing college kids $150,000 for each mp3.

. [/B]

Wrong.

they go after the money.

I, until now didn't know U were ~~~ slow

[eclectica]

"Intellectual property" (IP) bottles up ideas and talent into the hands of the few rather than in the public domain. The free flow of information and ideas will be stifled by IP. Countries enact IP rights because they fear a "brain drain" of talent out of their country to other countries. But the effect is the opposite. Enactment of IP laws creates a brain drain, because the free flow of information is kept out of the public domain.

The issues surrounding IP are similar to other public domain issues, such as inheritance tax. An inheritance tax is a way of assuring that families of wealth and royalty do not exist, and wealth is returned to the public domain. When the United States was founded, copyrights were originally 14 years, but now it takes 90 years before material reaches the public domain. It is unAmerican in spirit to have such a long period. Strong IP laws create a royalty in which power is preserved in the hands of the few.

The best phrase uttered in defense of the public domain were the words of Neil Armstrong as he made his first step on the moon. "That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind." IP laws are the equivalent of that small step for man, because they only benefit a few individuals. Innovative people must take a back seat to their vanity, ego, and greed in order to serve the public good. We must take that giant leap for mankind and free ourselves from the chains of "intellectual property".

[Criminal_Sniper]

even the public domain is out of our control
good old walt disney!!
Fuck Mickey!!!
to do what he did we have to steal
and yet the money is still pouring in for them and thier very empire that they have created has been built apon taking from others
if he did that today he would have been jailed for life
of sued $150k for each line he stole
fucking lawyers

the problem is not just money but it comes back to it
competition means less profit
or a need to go better
sould like almost everything in this world right now?
sounds like micrcocks business model

[eclectica]

Here's a good article pointing out the absurdity of the concept of "intellectual property".

Morten Skriver - get rid of copyright.html (http://www.tatom.org/documents/Morten.Skriver-get.rid.of.copyright.html)

[slx]

Wrong.

they go after the money.

I, until now didn't know U were ~~~ slowyou're wrong nic....they do attack the small guys, the ones they know can't fight back because of the costs involved....do you actually believe if they sued several of the larger universities that know their students are using the institues bandwidth to download these files, they'd not have a few big fights on their hands

[eclectica]

The people hoping to profit from an intellectual property portfolio are the same ones who lack any fresh ideas, such as Disney or SCO. The increase in "intellectual property" and lawsuits regarding copyright is not a sign of a healthy economy, but a sign that companies are becoming more stupid and lack any fresh ideas, and so have to resort to litigation.

This is a good article about intellectual property and the DMCA:
http://www.digitaljournal.com/news/?articleID=4031

[eclectica]

The open source movement is the attempt to give software to the public rather than having proprietary code. By making it public they are making their computer code as common and as free as language is. No one has to pay to speak a language. Why should anyone have to pay to use computer code either? The supporters of the notion of "intellectual property" want to keep knowledge in a proprietary format, owned by corporations or individuals rather than the general public. They believe that knowledge and information should only be given to people on the basis of their needs to know such information, or to be sold for profit.

The best gift one could give would be to donate to the public. It means nothing when one's wealth and contributions never reach the public domain, or they take a really long time to do so.

The open source movement is part of a greater social movement, which is the liberation of knowledge for free use by the masses. At one time in history only a few people had knowledge, and as time has gone on more people are finding that it is easier to get a hold of knowledge. But there still exists proprietary controls over the knowledge, supported by the universities and scholars with their tuition which they charge for their degrees, as well as the widespread belief that one's knowledge and employability is proportional to one's amount of proprietary schooling. I would like to see people think of the pursuit of knowledge as a lifetime affair rather than a temporary affair while in school pursuing a degree. All of life presents an opportunity for learning.

We are still in a backwards time in regards to the widespread acceptance of copyrights, patents, intellectual property, and university degrees. The current system that exists encourages a slavery of the collective human intellect, and is like royalty with a higher status and prestige given to certain people who have received their proprietary degrees, or are deemed to be experts in a field. I am hoping for a future in which all knowledge and information belongs to the public domain and is open source, and no one can claim to have such authority in one's opinions that they are given the status of indisputable facts.