Intellectual Property Essay

Started by Ryex, December 02, 2010, 04:06:51 am

Previous topic - Next topic

Ryex

well I just finished an 8 page essay on Intellectual property reform titled "A Call for the Reform of Intellectual Property Law" for my final in my English 111 class. Blizzard requested I send it to him through pm. is there any one else that would like me to do the same?
I no longer keep up with posts in the forum very well. If you have a question or comment, about my work, or in general I welcome PM's. if you make a post in one of my threads and I don't reply with in a day or two feel free to PM me and point it out to me.<br /><br />DropBox, the best free file syncing service there is.<br />

ForeverZer0

I am done scripting for RMXP. I will likely not offer support for even my own scripts anymore, but feel free to ask on the forum, there are plenty of other talented scripters that can help you.

Ryex

if you two wish, you may post comments and criticize my paper here. I can take some heat.
I no longer keep up with posts in the forum very well. If you have a question or comment, about my work, or in general I welcome PM's. if you make a post in one of my threads and I don't reply with in a day or two feel free to PM me and point it out to me.<br /><br />DropBox, the best free file syncing service there is.<br />

ForeverZer0

I personally disagree with about half of it, though I did find it to be well written and I think you did a good job on it.

I do agree with you on the broad point that there is a need for some type of change to the current system, though not to the extent I think your advocating. I totally agree that it is absurd for a man dead to still hold rights (financial) over an idea, and others still need to pay royalties and what not to some heir or trust, whatever it may be. A dead man has no rights, though I'm sure that will invoke a response from some, spouting some meta-philisophical non-sense, it is very true.

My belief is that man does have sole ownership of an idea, more so than anything else in this world. I believe that if his ideas can be used to make money, he is entitled to reap some type of benefit from it, and rightfully should, so long as he draws breath, but no longer. Others can be free to build upon the man's idea, and reap the benefits from it, and so on and so forth.

You seemed to really cast aside the argument of dampering progress, basically saying it is a non-point, as if only the greedy would care so much about wanting to benefit from their own original idea. What other motivation do they have? You can say that they should want to "for the greater good" and "for the betterment of society". These are both great Socialist ideas, that leave the opposition no room to argue, save they sound like a selfish bastard, which is why they are spouted out so often as some end-all argument. I would argue that the best thing a man can do for society would be to be as selfish as possible, so long as it does not take wrongfully from another.

For example, lets say I work to figure out a better way to transport bananas from South America to the United States that will allow them to stay on the shelves a little longer. I come up with some great method of harvesting them that will do just this. Why? For the good of society? No, I did it for personal pride, reward, and to help put food on the table for my 19 kids. Who benefits from my idea. Just me? No, everybody does. Every grocery store in the country and can now save money, since they are not throwing away so many bananas. Hey, look at that! Cost just went down on bananas. Who profits? Society does. The man who came up with the idea didn't do it because he wants to spend a little less on bananas. That was not the force that drove him to come up with this idea. He did it for himself and his loved ones. Does him wanting to be rewarded make him greedy? If he wasn't, or if he knew going in that he would not be, do you think he would have done it in the first place? Maybe he would have, and maybe he wouldn't have, but what would you put bet your money on would be more of a drive?

I know I kinda went off on a tangent a little bit, but in summary I think that ideas should be protected and the creator of the idea should be entitled to benefit from it, though only for the span of his lifetime. You may try to argue that society should have ownership of an idea, but if that is the case, you will soon find that society runs out of ideas.
I am done scripting for RMXP. I will likely not offer support for even my own scripts anymore, but feel free to ask on the forum, there are plenty of other talented scripters that can help you.

Ryex

hmm, thank you. you bring up some valid points that I feel I didn't properly address in the essay.

though I'm concerned that you misunderstood the basic premise of the argument.  I said not that man can't own an idea.  I said he can't control an idea he has published and presented to society. notice I use the word control. the idea has originated from him but as soon as other have said idea they should be free to build apron and modify that idea and if they do the idea is then as much their's as it was the creator's.

debate could go on for centuries to determine if a copyright can expire before man death but I think most can agree that a dead man can have no rights of ownership. and as a published idea has already passed into the possession of society, those rights can't be passed to heirs as the rights of physical property can.
I no longer keep up with posts in the forum very well. If you have a question or comment, about my work, or in general I welcome PM's. if you make a post in one of my threads and I don't reply with in a day or two feel free to PM me and point it out to me.<br /><br />DropBox, the best free file syncing service there is.<br />

winkio

I haven't read the paper, but I'd like to bring up Robert Kearns, because in my opinion, it is very important when considering this debate.

Basically, Kearns invented the intermittent windshield washer, had his idea stolen by major car manufacturers, and lost millions.  He later ended up suing these companies and won back some money, but at the expense of decades of his life.

ForeverZer0

December 04, 2010, 04:46:12 pm #6 Last Edit: December 04, 2010, 04:49:00 pm by ForeverZer0
I don't believe that anyone can, does, or ever has "controlled" an idea. There is no way to stop one from having free thought.  Essentially all ideas and thoughts are nothing more than your own spin on something that has been thought before. I did go slightly off-topic in my little spiel. I was speaking more of the result of your argument, not the actual argument you submitted. I am curious as to how ideas are controlled though. I don't see how a copyright controls a thought. Protects it yes, but I think control is an inappropriate word to use in this context. The creator of an idea has no control over his thoughts in the minds of others, and never has since the beginning of time. One person may devise a way to administer vaccines to an entire country very quickly, while another may take the same idea and use it to spread disease. This is the way it has always has been. A copyright will not change that. Does that mean the original creator didn't come up with his original idea to spread vaccines and should not be credited with it?


EDIT: I believe that this case strengthens my point. Do you think him getting the money was unfair? Your theory would make his idea the property of the collective, and therefore free to be stolen by the manufacturer.
I am done scripting for RMXP. I will likely not offer support for even my own scripts anymore, but feel free to ask on the forum, there are plenty of other talented scripters that can help you.

Ryex

I'm saying that government has the right to to grant and enforce copyrights and patents but is under no obligation to as once you publish an idea you have not natural right to control it use passed the publishing. anyone who receive this idea should be able to do whatever they want with it as that IS a natural right.
IF a government choses to grant copyrights or patents in the name of giving authors and scientist instinctive to publish their works that is just fine, but the rights granted should not extend passed the death of said author.


in the case of Robert Kearns, him getting money was not unfair as he was granted a patent on the idea by the United States government which was the right of the government.

@winko would you like to read the paper? I can send you a copy.
I no longer keep up with posts in the forum very well. If you have a question or comment, about my work, or in general I welcome PM's. if you make a post in one of my threads and I don't reply with in a day or two feel free to PM me and point it out to me.<br /><br />DropBox, the best free file syncing service there is.<br />

ForeverZer0

I think I agree with that. I haven't been meaning the creator of an idea or thought being able to control its use. I have merely being taking the side of the said creator, stating that I belief he should be fairly rewarded and credited when his idea is used by another. Speaking in the context of copyrights and patents, this usually refers to monetary rewards, but I don't mean only that. I see it is a no different than here in the RMXP community, where a scripter, yourself included, will list the names of others who helped, or whose scripts inspired a certain method that was used, etc. I don't believe we are too far from seeing eye-to-eye on the issue. I only warn of the inevitable consequences of reforming to the opposite extreme. It, like nearly everything else in life, does not work as it was intended when taken to the extreme, but to keep it from going to the extreme (either way), some sort of authority must be placed over to govern it. In this case, it happens to be the government, which you can make your own opinion on whether or not that is a good thing.
I am done scripting for RMXP. I will likely not offer support for even my own scripts anymore, but feel free to ask on the forum, there are plenty of other talented scripters that can help you.

winkio

Quote from: Ryex on December 04, 2010, 06:50:59 pm
@winko would you like to read the paper? I can send you a copy.


Not really.  I've been an aspiring engineer/inventor since the age of five, and intellectual property is what my future and my life is made of.  I have a really strong personal opinion on this that has developed, partially from personal experience, logic, and research, but mostly from personal values.  To that end, I have already considered many of these arguments, and have already formed my own conclusion, so reading a paper is not of particular interest.  Additionally, this is one topic that I don't actually want to present my opinion on because it really is too personal.

Ryex

Quote from: ForeverZer0 on December 04, 2010, 07:22:56 pm
I think I agree with that. I haven't been meaning the creator of an idea or thought being able to control its use. I have merely being taking the side of the said creator, stating that I belief he should be fairly rewarded and credited when his idea is used by another. Speaking in the context of copyrights and patents, this usually refers to monetary rewards, but I don't mean only that. I see it is a no different than here in the RMXP community, where a scripter, yourself included, will list the names of others who helped, or whose scripts inspired a certain method that was used, etc. I don't believe we are too far from seeing eye-to-eye on the issue. I only warn of the inevitable consequences of reforming to the opposite extreme. It, like nearly everything else in life, does not work as it was intended when taken to the extreme, but to keep it from going to the extreme (either way), some sort of authority must be placed over to govern it. In this case, it happens to be the government, which you can make your own opinion on whether or not that is a good thing.


ah yes I see what your getting at. thats what I'm afraid of too. I'm concerned we are getting too close to a point of no return in the area. I can easily see another copyright act that extends the length of patents and copyrights being brought up in the next 10 years.


Quote from: winkio on December 04, 2010, 08:06:35 pm
Quote from: Ryex on December 04, 2010, 06:50:59 pm
@winko would you like to read the paper? I can send you a copy.


Not really.  I've been an aspiring engineer/inventor since the age of five, and intellectual property is what my future and my life is made of.  I have a really strong personal opinion on this that has developed, partially from personal experience, logic, and research, but mostly from personal values.  To that end, I have already considered many of these arguments, and have already formed my own conclusion, so reading a paper is not of particular interest.  Additionally, this is one topic that I don't actually want to present my opinion on because it really is too personal.


fair enough. we think the same in that regard, most of my ideas about how intellectual property should work have been set too.
I no longer keep up with posts in the forum very well. If you have a question or comment, about my work, or in general I welcome PM's. if you make a post in one of my threads and I don't reply with in a day or two feel free to PM me and point it out to me.<br /><br />DropBox, the best free file syncing service there is.<br />

Blizzard

You guys actually got me thinking again. I definitely agree that a person should have some protection from the government so that they can earn money from their idea, but a lifetime copyright seems slightly out of place for me because it's not really fair towards older people. If I come up with something with 70 years and die one year later, I wouldn't have been able to gain from my idea properly and my descendants won't have any money again. I think that a copyright should be a fixed amount of time. IMHO the original idea of 14 years + 7 years sounded reasonable. Or just 20 years and that's that. Or maybe 10 + 10.
Check out Daygames and our games:

King of Booze 2      King of Booze: Never Ever
Drinking Game for Android      Never have I ever for Android
Drinking Game for iOS      Never have I ever for iOS


Quote from: winkioI do not speak to bricks, either as individuals or in wall form.

Quote from: Barney StinsonWhen I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.

Ryex

I agree, a copyright should have a fixed duration. but a duration that is so long the it could clearly extend long passed death is just too much.
I no longer keep up with posts in the forum very well. If you have a question or comment, about my work, or in general I welcome PM's. if you make a post in one of my threads and I don't reply with in a day or two feel free to PM me and point it out to me.<br /><br />DropBox, the best free file syncing service there is.<br />