
Our Intellectual Property Laws Are Out of Control - Libertatea
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/gadgets/news/our-intellectual-property-laws-are-out-of-control-15467970
======
np422
Why do we have IP-laws? What are their purpose?

Do they serve that purpose well? Are there any unintended consequences?

Any and all comparisons to physical property and ownership laws is
meaningless, copying and theft is not comparable in any way. Whoever says so
needs to think it over a few more times or is willingly spreading propaganda.

Is it fair to call copyright "a monopoly on an idea"? If so, is that something
that is reasonable? Monopolies are usually not considered to be something that
promotes the general welfare of society ...

Is the patent system of today doing what is supposed to do?

Should we use IP-laws to maximize the usefulness of creativity and ingenuity
of humans for the good of the common man or for the profits of corporations?
Do these two goals sometimes conflict with each other? If so, do one take
precedence over the other or how may the be balanced?

My opinion is that a complete overhaul of the entire system of IP-laws is in
dear need. What do you think?

~~~
rayiner
You're punning on the word "monopoly." The monopoly on a specific
manifestation on an idea (e.g. a book) is used in the same sense as a property
right being a "monopoly" on a specific piece of land, not in the sense of say
the AT&T monopoly. It's exclusive control over a specific thing versus
exclusive control over a market. The latter is bad for economies. The former
is necessary for them to exist.

In a way, a copyright monopoly is far more morally justifiable than monopoly
over land. Land in the US is stuff we stole from the American Indians. It was
here before you were born and it will be here after you die. Why should you
get a monopoly over a piece of the earth? With regards to a book or a song,
you created that work. It did not exist before you. Your moral right to
control it is much stronger.

~~~
smokeyj
I fail to see why we should treat tangibile and intangible entities equally.
In your opinion, how do you deduce what type of intangible property should
qualify as intillectual property? Should chefs own his recipe? Should
fragrance designers own their smell? Should phillosophers own their
phillosophy?

~~~
rayiner
Treating intangible and tangible entities both as "property" does not mean
treating them "equally." "Property" is the legal system's equivalent of Java's
"Object" class. All "Objects" share certain common characteristics, but beyond
that they are all different. Calling something "property" just applies a
certain set of default rules to the thing.

As for "tangible" versus "intangible"--the set of things we call "intellectual
property" are not coextensive with the set of intangible things which are
called "property." Consider something like a "light and air" right, which is a
property right but does not involve ownership of a physical thing. Or consider
intangible rights like a vested legal claim, or assignable rights under a
contract. We treat all these things under a common framework for the same
reason UNIX treats everything as a "file"--it makes everything easier to deal
with.

~~~
smokeyj
> Treating intangible and tangible entities both as "property" does not mean
> treating them "equally."

Sure it does. We're treating conceptual entities as physical objects that can
be "stolen" (you wouldn't download a car would you?). We treat infinately
reproducible entities as scarce resources that can be "pirated". The idea of
IP is based on conflating the notions of copying and stealing, which I feel is
a set-back for furthering the discussion. I understand IP is a legal invention
not observable outside of a legal context, but the issue I see is using the
notion of property to justify intillectual property.

~~~
rayiner
Calling something "property" does not mean treating it like a "physical
object" because the concept of property is not limited to physical objects.
There are lots of things, besides intellectual property, which are "property"
despite being intangible. For example, certain assignable contractual rights
are property, but are intangible, infinitely reproducible, etc.

~~~
smokeyj
> the concept of property is not limited to physical objects

Why not? The word property implies possession. So I ask, what should be
considered property?

> certain assignable contractual rights are property, but are intangible,
> infinitely reproducible

I wouldn't argue that contractual rights should be considered property -- but
I find it somewhat irrelevant considering it has no bearing on anyone outside
of said agreement. Two people making a voluntary agreement is not the same as
a chef demanding nation-wide royalties for copying his dish.

~~~
bediger4000
Beyond demanding royalties - demanding that the state enforce his monopoly.
This entitlement to someone else enforcing the monopoly is a really pernicious
part of the whole "intellectual property" scheme.

------
xradionut
Follow the money. The folks with the money pay the folks that make the law.
Check out where some of the "virtuous defenders" of IP live and tell me IP's
not a cash cow.

[http://www.candysdirt.com/2013/05/06/monday-morning-
milliona...](http://www.candysdirt.com/2013/05/06/monday-morning-millionaire-
another-record-setting-19-5-million-dallas-real-estate-listing-to-lust-for-
dans-bois-crete-features-movie-theater-and-concession-stand/)

~~~
rayiner
The entire US music and movie industry is smaller than Apple. Money is not the
issue here, except to the extent that the tech industry wants to make money
off the content created by the media industry.

~~~
bediger4000
I think you're correct. Governments, I think, go along with the idea of
"intellectual property" because property rights are stronger than free speech
rights (usually). Calling ideas "property" gives governments a hope of
stuffing the internet's free speech genie back into the lamp.

~~~
rayiner
I don't really see how intellectual property impinges on free speech rights.

Governments support IP rights because: 1) the idea that creators have a right
to control their works is more popular than the idea that the public has
certain rights to access "culture"; 2) industries dependent on IP create jobs.

A senator supports the MPAA companies versus downloaders because he can easily
see that the MPAA companies are a source of a large number of jobs. It's as
simple as that.

~~~
dublinben
Intellectual property 'rights' are diametrically opposed to free speech
rights. Free speech allows you to reproduce copyrighted materials, except the
IP rights overrule your speech rights. Free speech allows you to transact
under a trademarked brand, but IP rights overrule your speech rights.

~~~
rayiner
Reproducing other peoples' creative works has none of the relevant
characteristics of "speech."

~~~
bediger4000
Sure, except what about political slogans? Supporting a candidate you like by
making your own versions of posters? Oh, wait, that's what Shepard Fairey got
in (copyright) trouble for:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_%22Hope%22_poster>

But it's the control over derivative works
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work>) that copyright gives you
that's more obviously suppressive. All of the uses of Mona Lisa would be
derivative, if Da Vinci's estate still owned the "intellectual property". All
of the uses of Grant Wood's "American Gothic" would be derivative.

Yes, not all "derivative works" are worth it, but neither are most "original"
works. 99% of everything is crap.

Copyright law is also used to suppress anything that the Rightsholder doesn't
like: [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/03/gopro-can-fall-
fr...](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/03/gopro-can-fall-from-planes-
with-no-parachute-cant-get-copyright-law/),
[http://www.dailydot.com/business/dentist-bad-yelp-reviews-
co...](http://www.dailydot.com/business/dentist-bad-yelp-reviews-copyright/)
and many others.

This may indeed be an abuse of copyright law (copyfraud) but the laws are
apparently intentionally written to allow this sort of thing. The practice is
to not prosecute improper DMCA takedown notices, for example:
<http://www.techdirt.com/blog/?tag=copyfraud>

So, yes, copyright per se doesn't tend to stifle free speech, but the concept
of "intellectual property" gets used to get laws like DMCA passed, which are
then promptly abused to censor people and their ideas. Moreover, the practice
of lengthening copyright terms towards infinity keeps ideas out of the public
domain, causing derivative works to not appear.

One more thing: Mickey Mouse Meets the Air Pirates.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Pirates> If that ain't censorship, I don't
know what is.

~~~
SEMW
> Copyright law is also used to suppress anything that the Rightsholder
> doesn't like

Neither of the examples you give really support that.

GoPro was about trademarks (and was hopeless anyway - it's not really the
fault of trademark laws that someone can send a nastygram that's completely
without legal merit, using 'trademark violation' as a scary magic word).

The dentist one was only worded in terms of copyright so that the dentist
could use DMCA takedown notices. You could abolish copyright altogether, and
that wouldn't stop a dodgy dentist putting a clause into their patient
contract saying 'you can't post bad reviews' and suing people who do.

(Obviously it's bad that the DMCA is so easy to abuse, and the DMCA's flaws
are well documented on hn - the point is, they're flaws in the DMCA, not in
the concept of copyright).

~~~
bediger4000
If you don't like the examples I gave above, use some Google fu - I chose
among a bunch of alternatives. I didn't want to just list a pile of URLs.

Any particular instance of DMCA-based speech suppression is probably arguable.
"Oh, that's just some crank getting riled up." You have to look at the DMCA as
a system. The DMCA encourages notice and takedown, not notice and notice. The
bias in copyright law as a whole is towards the rightsholder, so copyright law
becomes an easy tool for abuse.

~~~
SEMW
> You have to look at the DMCA as a system.

I do? I was approaching this thread as being about the correctness of IP
rights as a concept. Again, I'm not disputing the defects of the DMCA, only
the use of DMCA abuse to imply that the whole concept of copyright is
inherently flawed. (As it happens, I don't even live in the US, so the DMCA
doesn't apply to me).

> The bias in copyright law as a whole is towards the rightsholder

In its current US (and EU) implementations, sure. But unless you're saying the
existence of copyright as a property right itself is the bias (in which case
'unbiased copyright law' would be an oxymoron), that's an implementation
issue.

------
mtgx
The whole problem comes from the whole "Intellectual Property" concept.
Patents and Copyright _should not be_ called Intellectual Property. The idea
of property exists in conflict with the idea of patent and copyright, which
were created to further spur more innovation down the road from _others_ \-
the whole "living on the shoulders of giants" and all.

Property implies the idea or a certain implementation of creative work is
yours for life (and possibly even beyond that). You can't have "property" and
then expect others to use it and experiment with that. That's exactly why
copyrights and patents were not created as another form of property, but
merely as an incentive to create something.

~~~
macspoofing
Who cares about semantics.

~~~
josephlord
Language affects perception. Perception affects reality. Especially in human
constructs like law and culture.

~~~
meej
I logged in today just to upvote this comment. I have long wondered about
people who dismiss concerns over semantics. How can we communicate clearly and
honestly with each other if we can't agree on what words mean?

Here is an anecdote about just how much language can affect perception:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Korzybski#Anecdotes>

 _One day, Korzybski was giving a lecture to a group of students, and he
interrupted the lesson suddenly in order to retrieve a packet of biscuits,
wrapped in white paper, from his briefcase. He muttered that he just had to
eat something, and he asked the students on the seats in the front row if they
would also like a biscuit. A few students took a biscuit. "Nice biscuit, don't
you think," said Korzybski, while he took a second one. The students were
chewing vigorously. Then he tore the white paper from the biscuits, in order
to reveal the original packaging. On it was a big picture of a dog's head and
the words "Dog Cookies." The students looked at the package, and were shocked.
Two of them wanted to vomit, put their hands in front of their mouths, and ran
out of the lecture hall to the toilet. "You see," Korzybski remarked, "I have
just demonstrated that people don't just eat food, but also words, and that
the taste of the former is often outdone by the taste of the latter."_

~~~
macspoofing
>I have long wondered about people who dismiss concerns over semantics.

There is no doubt language is frequently misused to further ideology. In fact,
this is exactly what OP is doing. He's trying to redefine a universally
understood term to fit his particular ideology ("IP is not property" or maybe
"information should be free").

There are problems with current laws around IP, but redefining terms is not a
way to fix them. Furthermore, most people would not agree with the extreme
position that that OP is taking (no IP laws) either, so arguing for semantics
is either detrimental, confusing or pointless.

~~~
josephlord
I think that the use of the word property isn't properly aligned with the
current law and also isn't the right word to use. That doesn't mean that I
believe that all information should be completely free from the moment of
creation. A balance is needed and the word 'property' implies too exclusive
and permanent a state for either the current law or to an even greater extent
my view of a better balance.

I don't believe once published/played/performed the artist/creator has a total
exclusive right over the material. The public, fans and anyone that hears or
sees the work gain some right over it as it affects their mind and thoughts.
This isn't to say that the artist immediately should lose all control and
protection but that the people of the culture they put the work into also gain
some rights to it. The balance is probably best struck by a duration of
exclusive rights and then release although those exclusive rights themselves
may have limits.

If you want to keep intellectual property as your own personal property in
perpetuity you need to keep it in your own head or otherwise privately
secured.

------
jasallen
Great article. Putting in terms of where these laws came from (the need to
abolish the monopolies granted as favors) helps put it in perspective, and
makes you realize we've come full circle. Same problems. Of course, I'm the
choir on this one.

~~~
DamnYuppie
As we all are, but at least all signs are pointing to the choir getting larger
:)

------
emp_zealoth
I am a big fan of making copyright sane again.

But i had a thought. If most of humanity's contemporary culture is put into
public domain, won't it saturate the paid market? Why buy CD's if you have
hundreds of thousands of quality music/movies/books and so on? It actually
might be detrimental to higher forms of art, as i would wager that only mass
pop would sell thanks to trends and such. Just a thought i had.

~~~
yew
There are _already_ hundreds of thousands (millions, really) of quality works
in the public domain.

From a pop-cultural perspective the difference between twenty-year-old music
and fifty- or hundred-year-old music isn't large. Too, many 'abandoned works'
that are effectively available for free with the author's permission are even
newer.

People read old books (which is a very good thing!) but most haven't stopped
buying new media because of it.

~~~
emp_zealoth
Well, the problem is discoverability, from personal experience. I listen to
rock mostly and I really doubt there is much public domain quality rock music
out there. Imagine almost entirety of rock being forced into public domain.
Why would I buy anything in that situation? Most of my music collection would
be in public domain by now.

Imagine all the quality study materials being in public domain. I would love
it, but after a while it might crash the market completely. At least for non-
cutting edge fields like advanced but still reasonable math or physics or
mechanics.

I haven't really looked through all the available stuff, but most of it seems
of little 'worth' to me. Old and hardly relevant to my interests. It might be
cool to read 1912 book on aircraft propulsion, but it's just a odd thing to
kill time with. 1999 (date chosen with regard to studies mentioned in some
other comment thread) air propulsion book is mostly up to date, at least for
studying.

I'd late here and my rambling might be a bit inconsistent. I'm not really
arguing for either side, but I do find overbearing IP a nuisance. Just trying
to cast a different light on the issue.

------
wes-exp
I am a little bit perplexed by the recent pushback against the DMCA as
embodied by this article and <http://fixthedmca.org/>. Don't get me wrong, I
think software patents need to be abolished. But on the copyright side,
explain to me why game console jailbreaking tools should be readily available?

~~~
betterunix
Instead of using marketing terms like "game console," try rephrasing your
sentence like this and see how it sounds:

"But on the copyright side, explain to me why _personal computer_ jailbreaking
tools should be readily available?"

This is about control over the computers we buy, which is becoming more and
more important. The purpose of the DMCA anti-circumvention clause is to remove
control from the users or owners of computers, and put it in the hands of the
manufacturers and their well-connected "partners." It says that you must have
permission from someone else to run software or read files, or even to use
printer cartridges.

The politicians who passed the DMCA were not merely naive; they were blinded
by their own conservative worldview. They had no understanding of individual
computer users writing their own programs, of software being distributed
freely on the Internet, of sharing computing resources, etc. In their minds,
people use their computers to access information stored on servers, or to
consume entertainment sold to them by others, and everything must happen with
the permission of someone else. It is the same mindset that leads people to
say things of the form, "Well that XBox was not _intended_ for you to run
GNU/Linux on it, so stop complaining!"

~~~
wes-exp
_They had no understanding of individual computer users writing their own
programs_

Individual computer users creating their own programs is a very specific group
of people. Consider for a moment that devices aren't really made for nerd
programmers. They are made for average people.

As a technology nerd, of course I want the freedom to modify and develop
stuff, without restrictions, on my devices.

As a family member though, I'm not convinced that my non-technical parents,
grandparents, siblings and so on really need root-level access to their
hardware. Software can easily get screwed up. For the same reason, IT
departments frequently take away admin rights from employees. This is rarely
tyrannical, but just meant to keep things running smoothly without having to
reinstall the OS every six weeks.

Already we are seeing with the Android "freedom" model a lot more malware than
the "closed" Apple model. Sure, there is a trade-off there of ceding some
device control to Apple, but at the end of the day, the benefits are quite
significant.

So at least for me, I am willing to give up some control, if it means that I
don't have to be plagued by technical support calls from my non-technical
family members.

~~~
betterunix
"As a technology nerd, of course I want the freedom to modify and develop
stuff, without restrictions, on my devices."

My point was that our representatives did not have a concept of _anyone_ doing
that unless it was part of their job (with a corporation). The idea of some
kid hacking out the next big thing in their dorm room was (and likely remains)
foreign to most of our politicians.

"So at least for me, I am willing to give up some control, if it means that I
don't have to be plagued by technical support calls from my non-technical
family members."

Except that you'll still be plagued by your less-technically-literate friends
and family members. A few months ago, my mother called to ask me how she could
copy a movie from a DVD to her new, locked-down tablet. I also received calls
for help when she got a new cable TV receiver that would not work with her
720p TV because of HDCP. Such is the reality of the world of built-in
restrictions and computers that are designed to fight their users.

~~~
wes-exp
_I also received calls for help when she got a new cable TV receiver that
would not work with her 720p TV because of HDCP_

This is lamentable, for sure. But, at least products exist, ready to go and on
the shelf, that would work and are interoperable. Consider for a moment in a
world of maximum freedom (without "Intellectual Property" at all), no one
could really profit making this kind of stuff, and it wouldn't exist at all.
What would be left? DIY?

So instead the moms of the world should buy all the parts for an HTPC,
assemble it, and then read up in the MythTV wiki how to make it all work? Is
that really a better future?

~~~
betterunix
"Consider for a moment in a world of maximum freedom (without "Intellectual
Property" at all), no one could really profit making this kind of stuff, and
it wouldn't exist at all. What would be left? DIY?"

Standards are a separate issue. We manage to have standards for things like
screws, nuts, bolts, and even connector head shapes for electronics.

Electronics manufacturers made plenty of money in a world of analog standards;
they make plenty in a world of digital standards too, and would continue to
make plenty of money in the absence of HDCP. Electronics manufacturers and
entertainment companies became some of the most powerful corporations in the
country before the DMCA was passed.

------
SideburnsOfDoom
Title is misleading ;) Intellectual property laws are firmly under control.
Just not ours.

