Nice read. Just part-way through, I have to comment that I'd recommend Richard Stallman's views on "intellectual property" = a gross made-up term we should completely abolish. If a creative person produces something others can use the ideas should become common property. This is how mathematics advances so rapidly, as does free-libre software. What we do is pay people to do the creative work in the first place, which is called employing them. Or, in MMM (modern-money-mechanics, the framework I formerly know as MMT) it can be accomplished with a Job Guarantee = a living decent wage in compensation for working in one's local community.
If people want to give their intellectual property away for free, that should be up to them, but it shouldn't be denied them.
I see some of the benefits of Stallman's vision, but I am a skeptic, because I always ask the question "how can this be weaponized" and one of the things that has happened in tech is that when something is free, the product is you. You are sold to advertisers.
And the other is "how will this be exploited?" and the issue right now is that while companies like Google, Facebook, etc., defend their own intellectual property rights - patents and trade secrets - they deny others their intellectual property rights, or pay them a pittance, due to a legal loophole. When I hear the argument there should be no intellectual property rights, I just think about the fact that people are going to be paid even less for their work, and the winners will be mega companies.
There are all kinds of intellectual property, both technological and engineering innovation and artistic creativity.I think that work, and that risk-taking is every bit of deserving of being compensated for the new value it creates in the world.
Outside of entertainment, whether it's news or science - accurate facts are valuable - and require more work and verification. Opinions are cheap.
There are all sorts of reasons for intellectual property rights. One is to make creativity and innovation worthwhile. But the reality is that for creatives, the work they are capable of doing is the result of years of practice, and years of sacrifice which amount to risk-taking.
The intention of the job guarantee is to provide a bare-bones livable income and benefits, and create a wage standard, but the idea is that it is run as an unemployment insurance program. Yes, people can work the job guarantee but the private sector is still supposed to pay better.
Stallman is far more nuanced. I'll try to do him justice here --- but just think it through clearly and you'll see there is no danger of exploitation. Actual physical engineering is not "intellectual". However, no one should have rights to an idea. That's basic. If you come up with some algorithm, then years later I have the same idea, independently, why do you get patent rights? No! Academic attribution is appropriate, priority, but not property rights over what can be thought. You cannot be allowed to own what I think. People need to be, above all, free to think. Physical build is a totally different story. It requires more energy and resources than just the capacity for thinking (which "only" requires coffee ;-) and creative thinking can always by fairly compensated, you just employ people with a decent living wage. That can't be considered exploitation. Stallman is not against patents, he's against patenting what you are allowed to think.
The patent concepts (of Stallman, I might not do it full justice) is that the creative should have rights to licence fees if there is physical build involved, since that's real resources. But if it's an algorithm, then it can be copied for free, so should not be patented. The creative worker in this case has already been compensated (they've either been employed, or on the unemployment benefit, or better on the JG --- in a decent society). The emphasis is rightly (imho) on use of real resources. Copyright is a whole other issue, and should not be confused and does not come under the topic of patents. "Intellectual property" grossly conflates these, so should not be a term anyone with ethical concerns ever uses (imho).
Is making a profit off someone's freely published idea a bit gross? I cannot see how prima facie. If you can turn a profit from selling physical stuff based on an idea I gave you, then good for you, I'm not exploited. I am exploited if you say you own the idea so that i cannot re-use my own idea. (I like the double use of "own" here! It makes the point well).
If the private sector can employ a creative then of course that's good. The JG is a wage floor, I agree, but the point is a creative person does not have to then beg for a job from a boss. With a JG the risk is entirely removed. It is not a subsistence wage, it is socially inclusive. If a creative needs to consume a megawatt of resources, that's a problem, the state should not have to compensate, and we do not need that sort of excessive "creativity". The latter would be a role for the private sector, no issue with that, but they do not get to do patent trolling. If I have an engineering concept, that's worth a patent. If I have a software concept, that's not patent-worthy, it's just a mathematics theorem, no one should be allowed to own that.
There are no types of "intellectual property". It's a made-up word from the gross legal profession. Listen to Stallman seriously next time. He's got good ethics.
Yes, under current legal frameworks, people with good ideas are being exploited left, right and centre. My point would be let's stop this. I know it's not easy. But that's precisely because of this gross concept of intellectual property. It can be completely removed for all LLC companies by a simple change in Law. LLC is a state offered protection, in return those companies should be required to openly publish their research. If a private company can keep secrets, well, then, fine, but who is being exploited then? The employee? But presumably they're being handsomely compensated. (Or should quit. And can then take their idea public, without lawsuit.) You see the problem! No one should have a lawsuit slapped on them for openly publishing their ideas.
Anyway, I hope some of this is helpful to ponder. I'm far from an expert in the field of patents and copyright, but I just can't see how if I develop a good idea I somehow deserve licence fees from all and sundry! That's not how mathematics advances, it is a stifling effect. Abolishing the licence fees stops the exploitation. If physical build is needed to turn a profit, then that's what is sold, the physical stuff, not the idea. This whole idea people deserve some rights to live partly off preventing others from copying ideas for free, is insanity, it is rentierism to the extreme. And I say "euthanize the rentiers." Copyright, as I said, is a different story. But should be to protect authors/artists, not publishers, and has nothing to do with patents.
Nice read. Just part-way through, I have to comment that I'd recommend Richard Stallman's views on "intellectual property" = a gross made-up term we should completely abolish. If a creative person produces something others can use the ideas should become common property. This is how mathematics advances so rapidly, as does free-libre software. What we do is pay people to do the creative work in the first place, which is called employing them. Or, in MMM (modern-money-mechanics, the framework I formerly know as MMT) it can be accomplished with a Job Guarantee = a living decent wage in compensation for working in one's local community.
If people want to give their intellectual property away for free, that should be up to them, but it shouldn't be denied them.
I see some of the benefits of Stallman's vision, but I am a skeptic, because I always ask the question "how can this be weaponized" and one of the things that has happened in tech is that when something is free, the product is you. You are sold to advertisers.
And the other is "how will this be exploited?" and the issue right now is that while companies like Google, Facebook, etc., defend their own intellectual property rights - patents and trade secrets - they deny others their intellectual property rights, or pay them a pittance, due to a legal loophole. When I hear the argument there should be no intellectual property rights, I just think about the fact that people are going to be paid even less for their work, and the winners will be mega companies.
There are all kinds of intellectual property, both technological and engineering innovation and artistic creativity.I think that work, and that risk-taking is every bit of deserving of being compensated for the new value it creates in the world.
Outside of entertainment, whether it's news or science - accurate facts are valuable - and require more work and verification. Opinions are cheap.
There are all sorts of reasons for intellectual property rights. One is to make creativity and innovation worthwhile. But the reality is that for creatives, the work they are capable of doing is the result of years of practice, and years of sacrifice which amount to risk-taking.
The intention of the job guarantee is to provide a bare-bones livable income and benefits, and create a wage standard, but the idea is that it is run as an unemployment insurance program. Yes, people can work the job guarantee but the private sector is still supposed to pay better.
Stallman is far more nuanced. I'll try to do him justice here --- but just think it through clearly and you'll see there is no danger of exploitation. Actual physical engineering is not "intellectual". However, no one should have rights to an idea. That's basic. If you come up with some algorithm, then years later I have the same idea, independently, why do you get patent rights? No! Academic attribution is appropriate, priority, but not property rights over what can be thought. You cannot be allowed to own what I think. People need to be, above all, free to think. Physical build is a totally different story. It requires more energy and resources than just the capacity for thinking (which "only" requires coffee ;-) and creative thinking can always by fairly compensated, you just employ people with a decent living wage. That can't be considered exploitation. Stallman is not against patents, he's against patenting what you are allowed to think.
The patent concepts (of Stallman, I might not do it full justice) is that the creative should have rights to licence fees if there is physical build involved, since that's real resources. But if it's an algorithm, then it can be copied for free, so should not be patented. The creative worker in this case has already been compensated (they've either been employed, or on the unemployment benefit, or better on the JG --- in a decent society). The emphasis is rightly (imho) on use of real resources. Copyright is a whole other issue, and should not be confused and does not come under the topic of patents. "Intellectual property" grossly conflates these, so should not be a term anyone with ethical concerns ever uses (imho).
Is making a profit off someone's freely published idea a bit gross? I cannot see how prima facie. If you can turn a profit from selling physical stuff based on an idea I gave you, then good for you, I'm not exploited. I am exploited if you say you own the idea so that i cannot re-use my own idea. (I like the double use of "own" here! It makes the point well).
If the private sector can employ a creative then of course that's good. The JG is a wage floor, I agree, but the point is a creative person does not have to then beg for a job from a boss. With a JG the risk is entirely removed. It is not a subsistence wage, it is socially inclusive. If a creative needs to consume a megawatt of resources, that's a problem, the state should not have to compensate, and we do not need that sort of excessive "creativity". The latter would be a role for the private sector, no issue with that, but they do not get to do patent trolling. If I have an engineering concept, that's worth a patent. If I have a software concept, that's not patent-worthy, it's just a mathematics theorem, no one should be allowed to own that.
There are no types of "intellectual property". It's a made-up word from the gross legal profession. Listen to Stallman seriously next time. He's got good ethics.
Yes, under current legal frameworks, people with good ideas are being exploited left, right and centre. My point would be let's stop this. I know it's not easy. But that's precisely because of this gross concept of intellectual property. It can be completely removed for all LLC companies by a simple change in Law. LLC is a state offered protection, in return those companies should be required to openly publish their research. If a private company can keep secrets, well, then, fine, but who is being exploited then? The employee? But presumably they're being handsomely compensated. (Or should quit. And can then take their idea public, without lawsuit.) You see the problem! No one should have a lawsuit slapped on them for openly publishing their ideas.
Anyway, I hope some of this is helpful to ponder. I'm far from an expert in the field of patents and copyright, but I just can't see how if I develop a good idea I somehow deserve licence fees from all and sundry! That's not how mathematics advances, it is a stifling effect. Abolishing the licence fees stops the exploitation. If physical build is needed to turn a profit, then that's what is sold, the physical stuff, not the idea. This whole idea people deserve some rights to live partly off preventing others from copying ideas for free, is insanity, it is rentierism to the extreme. And I say "euthanize the rentiers." Copyright, as I said, is a different story. But should be to protect authors/artists, not publishers, and has nothing to do with patents.