SHOULDN'T I BE REIMBURSED FOR LETTING OTHERS USE SOMETHING I'VE CREATED?

Som Tateru Nino skriver på sin blogg idag så verkar ämnet intellectual property (IP) vara glödhett just nu i bloggar, även i SL-bloggar. Jag tror Tina nyligen skrev något i ämnet också.

Hursomhelst kan man gå på en föreläsning i SL ikväll 21:00 svensk tid som handlar om just IP rättigheter. Daniel Voyager skrev om eventet igår. Den inkopierade infon är hämtad från Dwell On It-bloggen.

Klicka på bilden får ni en slurl till The Sojourner Auditorium, Virtual Ability Island men om ni tänker bege er till mötet kan det vara bra att veta att det finns andra väl genomtänkta idéer i ämnet. Det här handlar om värderingar och inte om sanningar.

Läs gärna nedanstående text som jag hämtat från googlegruppen Beginning of Infinity:

"I am generally a libertarian in my philosophy of government, but I'd like to argue here against the idea of intellectual property, that it is a just and good idea. I am not wholly convinced that the strong position I'm taking here is right position, but I find it hard to justify middle-ground positions on consistent principles. I would like to point out that I am not suggesting that the people creating "IP" don't necessarily "deserve" anything for their work--just that they don't in the same sense people deserve control of their physical property. Specifically, I don't think coercion should be used to enforce their claim. (Similarly, I would argue that frequently the poor should be financially helped, but that nobody should ever be coerced to help them in that way.) Anyhow, my arguments:

The concept of "intellectual property" seems to me to be based on a false analogy to physical property. Furthermore, I would suggest that the concept of common law, if taken seriously, invalidates it, at least in its current form.

It seems to me that ownership is an important concept for physical objects, because typically only one person can make use of them at a time, and work invested in that physical object stays with that object. Therefore to deprive people of physical property is basically to deprive them of any benefit of their own time and effort toward that object. In contrast, most ideas and information can be used by multiple people without depriving anyone else of the ability to use that idea or information. Pro-IP people would say, "If the information is shared freely, that's depriving the original author (inventor, etc.) of the right to sell the information," but the author has no such right unless the validity of IP can be established, so to use that as justification for IP is just circular.

The rest of the arguments seem to be appeals to the counter-factual, ends-justify-means type thinking, and subjective claims of personal value, all of which I generally reject as sound ways of arriving at coercive policy.

Some objections to what I've just said:

CAN'T PHYSICAL OBJECTS BE SHARED TOO?

Not for the most part, and certainly not in the sense information can be shared. Only one person can eat any portion of a potato; only one person can farm a spot of land; only one person can drive a car at a time, sleep in a bed, use a computer interface, etc.; many things can only be used once; and *almost every* physical object wears out after a certain amount of use and time, making it limited use.

SHOULDN'T I BE REIMBURSED FOR LETTING OTHERS USE SOMETHING I'VE CREATED?

Conversely, why should you be reimbursed for something that is effectively free to you (the copying of information)? When someone sells a table that they've made, they're reimbursed because they're losing the use of that table, or the ability to sell that table to someone else. When someone sells some IP under IP law, they are deprived of nothing. This creates a distinct asymmetry of contract. (Which I would argue ultimately distorts IP industries to the detriment of all.) If someone knows a secret and wants to keep it a secret until someone pays them, that's fine with me, because that requires no government intervention, but having sold the secret, the person should have no further claim to control over the information, because that's a violation of other people's rights, as I see it. Specifically, their rights to do what they want with their own thoughts and physical property.

And I have a few more problems with this. First, are you really creating the information or just discovering it? The answer to that question seems more or less clear depending on the case. For example, Nintendo seems to hold the patent for the cross-shaped gamepad directional buttons. Sony seems to hold the patent for a trivially different version where plastic is placed across the middle (apparently the only value of which is the ability to circumvent patent law). Are we really supposed to believe that nobody else would have come up with those very simple designs? More can be said on this example, but I would digress.

With more complex things, like novels, etc., it seems more reasonable to say that someone created it, rather than discovered it. Yet, let's not accept that notion so uncritically. For thousands of years prior to the invention of intellectual property, it was not uncommon for the authors of great works to invoke divine inspiration, from Homer to Milton, not to mention a great body of holy texts. The very word "genius" originally meant a divine being that would provide inspiration. Now it is reasonable to ask how serious the authors were in attribtuting their work to muses and the like, but it is clear that there is some quality of creative work that lends itself to the concept of inspiration. I believe that it is this: for most physical products, the process by which they are produced is known and understood beforehand by the producer. A farmer or craftsman generally starts out to produce a known product via a known process--all that is needed is materials and labor. I think there is no similar process for creative thinking. When a person sets out to solve a problem (and they may not even set out to do so), to write a novel, write a song, or even to code software, they don't typically know exactly what they're going to end up with in the end, how good it's going to be, or even whether they'll succeed or finish. This seems to me to make the whole process more like a process of discovery.

There are further analogies to discovery. A second hammer built by a craftsman still has value even though he may have already produced one exactly like it. In contrast, the same place or idea does not value when discovered a second time, nor does an "IP" have value when "created" a second time. Similarly, although I question the real relevance, there's only a finite number of possible distinct chord, word, or computer-instruction combinations that can be created within a reasonable length (ie. the length that a human can reasonably produce). While the number of possible combinations may be so huge as to render this point meaningless, it is interesting that, especially in music, poetry, and prose, composition is frequently (always) accompanied by trial and error as the author "looks" for pleasing combinations.

Returning to the question above, there is no "author" alive today that isn't making use of someone else's invention in their work, without paying any royalties. Disney makes big money off of Snow White without paying anything to the original author, yet if someone else wanted to utilize Disney's Snow White in another creative form, they would be stopped by Disney, or at least have to pay. Musicians didn't invent the instruments or music theory they use. It has been widely noted that there are ultimately only a few truly different plots. The introduction and expansion of copyright law at specific times in history creates an inequality in this way. See this interesting article for an example of this: http://www.austinkleon.com/2011/03/30/how-to-steal-like-an-artist-and-9-other-things-nobody-told-me/

Both of these issues ultimately come down to the question of: Where does the government draw the line? Ultimately at a point that is to the benefit of some and the detriment of others. This seems unjust to me.

"PIRATING" MAY NOT DEPRIVE ME OF THE USE OF MY IDEA, BUT IT DEPRIVES ME OF THE REVENUE I WOULD HAVE GAINED FROM ITS SALE.

This is just the circular reasoning I mentioned before. This is like saying every time I sell a potato I should be paid $1 a month for the rest of my life by the person who bought the potato because if they don't they're depriving me of the revenue I would have earned by them paying me $1 monthly. The revenue is conjured out of thin air by "bootstrap" reasoning. Such reasoning is only valid if IP is valid, and therefore cannot be used to justify IP.


WITHOUT THE CONCEPT OF IP, THERE WOULD BE NO INCENTIVE TO INNOVATE.

This is not true, an incentive still remains. If information is valuable enough to be sold, that means that it is considered desirable to have for some reason other than the ability to sell it, which means people have incentive to create it just so they will possess it. The fact that IP law increases the incentive for new ideas is immaterial, because the exact same reasoning could be used without limit. Why not give everyone who comes up with a new idea tax immunity for life? That would also increase the incentive to come up with new ideas. You see what I'm saying? I am saying there should be no artificial incentive to "create" new ideas.

Also, in psychology there is something known as the overjustification effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overjustification_effect). By providing an external incentive for "creating" we may be a) motivating the wrong people to create, and b) demotivating those most qualified. I would like to point out this very interesting video that talks about how motivation differs between traditional work and "intellectual work". I think this suggests that there's something fundamentally different going on between the two:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc

A FINAL THOUGHT

I also wonder, based largely on intuition, if there's a connection between IP law and a preponderance of advertising. I wonder if the fact that information can be duplicated basically for free and sold at 100% profit after the fixed initial expense basically turns IP markets into giant lotteries, where advertising corresponds roughly with the "tickets" you buy. I think this would explain the fact which I've read that big computer-game developers spend approximately 1.5 times the development budget on advertising. At the very least, that "fact" seems to put a lie to the claim that IP law exists to allow people to recoup *development* costs. The IP-advertising-lottery would also explain the widely held belief that the most highly paid and successful musicians are not the most talented or creative, but are to varying degrees products of the music industry, while a lot of equally or greater talented musicians can barely pay their bills.

There is much more that could be said on this whole subject, like a critique of the modern IP industries versus pre-IP law equivalents, but I think I've said enough for now."

Abraham Lewis