Coming to campus: E-books with expiration dates

TalkBack 35 of 40:

Next »

« Previous

• Thread View
• Flat View

"Intellectual Property" and the like

To begin with: "Intellectual Property" is a misleading term. It generally lumps together three disparate issues (copyright, patent, and trademarks), which is confusing enough. To further confuse the issue, it equates these things with "property", which they are really not. It's not like a bike, and copying is not anything which can be equated with theft.

I am going to presume you mean "copyright" as the main topic here, and use that term as the proper replacement for "intellectual property". The proper replacement for "theft" will be "copying", and the proper replacement for "anti-social" will be "social" (an anti-social person, by definition, is not interested in sharing with others, which is exactly what allowing copying is! Therefore, we cannot be talking about someone who's anti-social.)

Now, let's get down to why what you've said is really wrong.

A creator of copyrighted material who places locks on that material is not "defending" him/herself from aggression-he or she is the aggressor. You are placing a lock on what MY property (my computer, my DVD player, whatever) should be able to do. Computers and DVD players are property. They are real, they are tangible, and they are not replicable without more material. A computer can be stolen, because, as the definition of theft, sommeone else gains it WHILE (and this is the important part!) the original owner is deprived of it.

Copying fails the second part of the definition for theft. Someone else gains a copy, true, but the owner of the original does not lose it.

Now, let's go back to the original idea of copyright. A good place to start will be the United States Constitution, I believe, since that's what gives authority for any type of copyright law whatsoever.

Firstly, let's show that the Constitution never regards copyrights as either an intrinsic right of authors, or, even if granted, as property. For example, it clearly states that you may not be deprived of private property for public use without just compensation. Ever. Yet, it clearly states that copyrights and patents MUST be only for "a limited time".

This is not an inadvertent self-contradiction by the Founding Fathers. They do not intend (and clearly state that it is not permissible) for an idea to be a piece of property with rights extending to the "owner" perpetually.

Now why is this?

Because it's not about the author's rights (or publisher's, let's be realistic here, authors rarely hold their own rights). Here is the intent of copyright.

The Congress shall have Power...

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited
Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings
and Discoveries;

The interest being promoted here is the public's. The promotion of the interests of authors, inventors, etc., is incidental, and permitted ONLY if such consideration does good overall to science and art. It is NOT a primary consideration, only the public's interest is.

However, here is the trouble with the current copyright situation. At the time the Constitution was written, the average person did not have the -ability- to copy effectively. Nothing was being taken from them by copyright. Only those intending to do business as publishers were affected, and they went into the business fully knowing what was involved. Copyright didn't affect the daily life of Joe Citizen one bit.

The personal computer changed that. Suddenly, Joe Citizen has the ability to copy, perfectly and indefinitely, whatever can be placed into digital form. Ultimately, allowing him to is superior to restricting-copying is already a prevalent practice, yet the revenues of publishers, music producers, movie houses, and software developers are not down. As we've seen here, many will still purchase the paper book (which they are NOT capable of copying or producing on their own), just because it is more aesthetically pleasing and far easier to read. I am one of those.

On the other hand, allowing the public unrestricted access to information will ALWAYS be better for science and art then restricting its flow. You should NEVER, for example, be prohibited from purchasing something, then taking it apart to figure out how it works-yet the DMCA does just this. Nor should you be prohibited from publishing and discussing what you find out. Yet the DMCA does this as well, in blatant, breathtakingly audacious violation of the First Amendment-the taking away of REAL rights (free speech, right to use your property as you choose) in the defense of an artificial construct which is NOT a right (copyright).

The locks you propose should never be permitted, nor personal sharing prohibited. Only commercial exploitation in violation of copyright should be punishable. Copyright was NEVER, ever, intended as a restriction on individual activity, only on largescale commercial exploitation.

Oh-and you're right, copy protection can NEVER work. It violates the principles of basic cryptography.

Posted by: 20075880200550981536805084989909-zdavis   Posted on: 08/21/05 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

• Building the Virtualized Enterprise with VMware Infrastructure VMware VMware virtualization software has been adopted by over 120,000 enterprise ... Download Now
• Virtualization: Architectural Considerations And Other Evaluation Criteria VMware Of the many approaches to x86 systems virtualization available in the ... Download Now
• Cost-Effective IT Platform Is a Welcome Guest at Upscale and Luxury Hotel Chain Dell Wyndham International is a hotel chain renowned for offering personalized ... Download Now