Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Anon]

I am aware of the current state of thinking on intellectual property (and lack thereof)

However the reality of the situation is that the human mind does not invent anything.  We simply take ideas from the world around us, at best recombining them in some way which helps or pleases us.

Yes in the past we have found it beneficial to give people credit for being the first to recognize the most complex of ideas.  And this system has value - for as long as it works.  

Unfortunately due to the information age that will not be much longer.  Remember when you were a child and you used to bicker with people over who first told a joke?  Do you still wory about such things?  Do you think you actually invented any of the jokes you tell?  Do you cite sources every time you tell a joke now?  The majority of the jokes we tell we heard from someone else or a show on tv.  At best a joke comes from some random situation or statement we obseved which just happened to be funny.  

We don't bicker over this as adults because we matured past claiming ownership for jokes we arent ultimately responsible for anyways after gradeschool.  No human being invented the human mind which finds certain happenings of the world around us ironic or humourous in some other way.  Nor did any human invent the world which contains such happenings.  This world can just as easily inspire a second person with a given idea as it did the first.  Or third or so on...  

Soon it will be time for society as a whole to mature to this point as well.  Free trading of ideas is completely justified and human nature.  It is about time we stopped wasting time suing 12 year olds so movie stars can ride in bigger limos without stagehands taking paycuts, and started reevaluated our beliefs regarding "intellectual property"

[athinkin guy]

Perhaps you should consider the definition of invent - to create or produce for the first time.  By definition people invent things all the time.  I am amused by your analogy, however take some time to consider that inventing something often takes time and research resulting in the need for some form of investment to create it.  This investment is and should be protected so that people will continue to see the value of not only coming up with the idea but actually producing it.  Should you remove this protection it is highly possible that a classist system develops where only those wealthy enough to produce an idea actually invent anything.  Your comment about suing 12 year olds seems baseless as well as providing no clarification to what appears to be a rather weak argument.

[Linton Robinson]

I'd gladly sue some brat to get a limosine, but hadn't realized there was much of that going on.

It's a very specious argument, I'd say...like proving you can't get anywhere without going halfway, ad infinitum.  

For openers,  I think most people would agree that  the lyrics and melody of  "Yesterday", the manuscript of "Gone With the Wind", and the screenplay for "Lord of the Rings"  (much less all the creative production work that went into all three) are not something that ocurred in nature waiting to be found and exploited.   Somebody did the work, people enjoy the results enough to pay to access them, therefore the creators got paid.   Thus giving incentive to others to invest millions of dollars in creating more novels, movies and records for profit.  

It's possible to do business without intellectual protection..the fashion and design industries do it  by the use of secrecy and security measures...but WHY? would anybody not want  to allow artists the price of giving pleasure?