Why intellectual property is such a confusing concept

[Louigi Verona]

Hey guys!

I wrote a small article on one of the most popular topics these days ))) hehehe. No controversies, just some basic stuff.

http://www.louigiverona.com/?page=projects&s=writings&t=authorship&a=authorship_property

[Sam_Zen]

Your writing of this article is very well, by the way, Louigi.

A first comment :

That means that this individual is granted a special right to use that object in any way he wants. Rules which define ownership differ in various countries, cultures and historical settings.

Hm. It can easily go wrong here. To treat the object you own in any way ?
Of course it's a cheap example to mention the culture of beating up your wife, because she's your property.
Is it decent to buy a Picasso, and then use it for your campfire ?
Property doesn't only mean rights, it also means responsability.

So I first want to question the concept 'owning things', before reading on about the intellectual variant.

[uncloned]

here is an interesting idea....

But I still don't like it

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/09/goodbye-drm-hello-stealable-digital-personal-property.ars

[Louigi Verona]

The wife example would not apply - wife is not an object, she is a person and interpersonal relationships are quite different from relations to objects.

Is it decent to buy a Picasso, and then use it for your campfire?

It might not be decent, but you have the right to do so, yes. On the other hand you have found an example that has a pretty complex issue here - can work of art "belong" to any one person or will in this case the person be destroying the collective property of the society?

If you believe my definition of ownership to be too general (it was meant to be general), then you can rephrase it as "That means that this individual is granted a special right to use that object in certain ways." It will not change the conclusions of the article.

Also, you have brought up an example of Picasso, but in examples of more "ordinary" objects its owner can do absolutely anything he wants. You can buy an expensive beautiful car, then put a dynamite under it and blow it up. It might not be considered "sane" thing to do, but it certainly is not prohibited within the concept of ownership.

[Louigi Verona]

Chris, interesting article.

In Sweazey's view, most people understand why rightsholders want some limits on copying, but they can't abide the electronic tethers that DRM currently requires. They don't want to be told what to do and who to share their content with; what they want, he tells Ars, is for digital property to "complete the emulation of the physical world."

The assumption made in the beginning of the article is very-very questionable. I personally believe physical property to be limiting (read my article above) and have never wanted it to complete emulation of the physical world. In fact, the good thing about digital technology is that it makes it possible to step out of the usual limitations. And I have never heard people wanting to "complete the emulation of the physical world". What he says is simply untrue.

What he basically wants to do is strip computers of what they can do best - copying technology. His desire is a step backwards - he wishes, like the industry, to create an artificial scarcity. I do not think this is any good in the long run.

[PPH]

The wife example would not apply - wife is not an object, she is a person and interpersonal relationships are quite different from relations to objects.

Is it decent to buy a Picasso, and then use it for your campfire?

It might not be decent, but you have the right to do so, yes. On the other hand you have found an example that has a pretty complex issue here - can work of art "belong" to any one person or will in this case the person be destroying the collective property of the society?

If you believe my definition of ownership to be too general (it was meant to be general), then you can rephrase it as "That means that this individual is granted a special right to use that object in certain ways." It will not change the conclusions of the article.

Also, you have brought up an example of Picasso, but in examples of more "ordinary" objects its owner can do absolutely anything he wants. You can buy an expensive beautiful car, then put a dynamite under it and blow it up. It might not be considered "sane" thing to do, but it certainly is not prohibited within the concept of ownership.

True. The thing is this: the fact that you have the right to do something doesn't mean doing it is morally right. So, while it is abhorrent to buy a Picasso painting only to destroy it, the buyer has indeed the right to do it. That's what property is about: the owner has exclusive right to do whatever he likes with his property, provided that he doesn't violate other people's rights.

[uncloned]

more fuel to the fire

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10355448-93.html

ASCAP wants money for downloads, film downloads, and even 30 second previews on iTunes and any other on line seller.

Since they are going to congress I wouldn't be surprised to find they'll want money from people whose music is not covered by ASCAP.

[Sam_Zen]

I wouldn't be surprised either. That's what they finally want.
Just a tax on anything, copyrighted or not.

[uncloned]

Yes like the tax on blank tapes and blank cdrs now too? In europe?

[Louigi Verona]

The tax on blank cds is not THAT bad an idea, although I do not like it too much. Basically, it is a tax on society to pay for arts. In reality though, it is a tax on society to continue support record labels and publishers.

In general, the bad thing about any tax-like scheme is that it is not a targeted payment. Instead of directly supporting arts, those tax have several layers between artists and tax payers and the money often goes into other channels.

However, better pay a tax for cds than be put into jail for copying a file.

[uncloned]

I agree a tax is better than jail

Still.... this is all crazy talk. The people who actually do the creation get hardly anything - and people who do hardly anything get rich. The system is upside down.

[uncloned]

and more crazy talk from the RIAA - what they teach grammer kids like


Students are also asked to pretend that they are entering a recording studio; one suggested "rap" they are to sing follows:

Music is worth it, if you're asking me
True words, new rhythms, sweet melody
Just tell me where to get it and I'll gladly pay
For a song that says what my heart wants to say.
But don't try to fool me with aphony [sic] copy,
'Cause songlifting's wrong, and it's got to stop, see?


http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/09/back-to-school-with-riaa-funded-curriculum.ars?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rss

[uncloned]

more insanity => music rules

http://www.music-rules.com/teachers.html

[Saga Musix]

Students are also asked to pretend that they are entering a recording studio; one suggested "rap" they are to sing follows:

Wow. I feel Brave New World becoming true once again. Or 3rd Reich. Or whatever.

[Sam_Zen]

It's brainwashing kids allright. But strangely enough they encourage them to make photocopies
of the program.
'music rules'.... I get sick.