| wyldeman007 |
| (Student) |
| 07/05/08 11:41 AM |
|
Re: The ethics of intellectual property rights
|
Quote:
Why are profits a given? If the information is what is valuable, it is possible that once known the expression is worthless if it can not be restricted to one person. i.e. take the mach three razor. What is the point in developing this if you can't keep competitors from stealing the good? The purchaser wouldn't care to invest the money to make it himself, and only mass sales can recoup the costs of development.
It seems unpragmatic to presume some ideas should not be profited from. What are you talking about specifically?
I argue that fabrications which use resources to rectify the final form of the idea are acceptable for profit venture. What I am saying, is that profiting from a product is alright, but profiting from raw sensory input is unethical. With a few exceptions like scientific theories, and engineering innovation, information should have no financial value. Information is worthless until application to the medium, it's like a wave, without a !medium, essentially it's nothing.
In the case of the razor, Mach 3 doesn't sell the idea or information, it sells a product which very well should be protected for profits. Some of the "products" companies will sell for profit, aren't products in the sense the razor is. The only difference is that the razor takes a certain amount of resources to become a product. Music for example consisting solely of information, requires almost no resources to produce one unit.
Quote:
Are you claiming htis idea is contrary to modern IP law in the US? I don't think it is. It's always the expresion of the idea that is protected, not the idea itself, or the raw facts.
His idea should be protected by modern IP laws, I confess to being slightly redundant.
Quote:
You say it shouldn't have such a potential. Why? It would seem the same reasons to protect steam engine designs are sufficient to justify protection of movies. I agree copyright terms are too long in the US presently, but so what specifically are you arguing?
Entertainment and other things of subjective importance, 1. They lack reciprocal value and
2. they exist only as information
I believe that product should be tangible or useful or both. Entertainment can't be either one, therefore should it shouldn't have the same privileges. I disagree about how you claim I say entertainment shouldn't have an infinite potential of value. I only say that entertainment ideas should have a profit ceiling, such a things value is subjective. Interestingly enough, I believe that a songs value would go up if the record company's profits went down.
Quote:
I don't think the profit potential or actual gain should figure in to what is protected.
I agree with that 100%, what I am arguing is that some things like movies, music etc. should have a separate IP law. Not all ideas are created equal! They should not all be treated the same in the first place.
Quote:
How would you change things from, say, the US model of IP law?
I think IP law a pretty good set of principles and faithul laws. I think it is quite just and fair.
I also think that the terms of copyrights are too long, but whatever. I think 30 years should be plenty of time, unless someone can show me why not.
Perhaps an extension as available in much of the IP laws could be sought for ten year periods up to a maximum of 60 years if the owner an demonstrate need, i.e. unrecouped production costs that can be proven, signifigant advances in the art, or continued commercial viability at some fraction of the peak sales for th product at any time in either value or number of units sold, at above a nominal fee of course.s
To recap, all ideas aren't created equal, some have a reciprocal value, some lead to tangible products and some lack both of these traits. Ideas that contain one or both of these traits should apply to modern IP laws. Ideas that are neither of these, should be subject to other laws, for they have a boundless potential from their conception. I'm no lawyer, but the basic principle of the laws applying to nonreciprocal-intangible objects of infinite financial potential, should NEVER allow for the monstrosities of the music industry or media companies. They are undermining the original intent of IP law, they have now become a massive vacuum of consumer resources, very unhealthy for the economy.
So I'm sorry if I didn't answer that, I admit I don't know the first thing about the legal policies regarding lawmaking. It would, I hope encompass the intent of what I said though.