The Death of Intellectual Property

[JCMach1]

One of the things that's clear given the current progress of new technologies is that the 19th century notions of copyright, patent and intellectual property are fast becoming obsolete... de facto.

Recent legal approaches have tended to just defend the system as it was (de jure) and ignore the fact that there has been a significant paradigm shift.

Is intellectual property still a viable concept here in the 21st century? Do legal efforts like SOPA ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act ) actually help, or harm the whole process?

Here is just one current take on the current state of affairs:

..Irrespective of moral and economic dimensions, the deathblow to copyright will likely come from the Internet itself. Due to the nature of the Internet, and anonymizing technologies in particular, the practicality of attempting to enforce a pre-internet copyright regime through the Internet is a road that we as a society should not go down.

Canada has experience with laws that engender widespread violation: Consider prohibition in the 1920s. A law violated so brazenly is more than meaningless — it undermines the effectiveness of the legal system generally.

Over time, the Internet will increasingly expose constraints on text, pictures, and videos for what they are — arbitrary and outmoded. In the meantime, it makes sense for Canada not to pass copyright laws that are more restrictive and invasive... http://questioncopyright.org/the_case_for_the_death_of_copyright

I would also add to what the author says above and say that the lack of privacy on the net also adds to the practical death of intellectual property. Think about it for a moment... Who actually owns someone's Tweet? The author? The article (or tweet) they were responding too? Twitter itself?

So, the question is in this day and age... whither copyright? Patents?

[aletier_v]

1. The big problem with US laws about intellectual property

is that they were written under the assumption that the IP was bound to physical instantiation, ergo enforcement was possible through the physical vessel.

[boppers]

2. Copyright was meant to spur innovation, when innovation was costly.

You don't need a publisher, or a record producer, anymore.

It's a concept based on an era when making a song took more than a few minutes, and writing a story was only granted to the few.

It's all as dead as serfdom, but the kings haven't quite figured that out yet.

[ejpoeta]

4. they are trying to protect their middle man status

that's the way I see it. As far as music goes at least. People can go directly to their audience now. Instead of groveling to some big wig producer they can make their own music and post it online and find their audience that way. How many stars have been made on youtube?

[aletier_v]

5. Not many stars on youtube

There's no monopoly on distribution, so it's harder to create a superstar like Madonna.

[JCMach1]

7. Ray William Johnson

3-4 million people watching your show each week. That's a pretty high Nielson rating methinks.

[JCMach1]

3. Also, even setting aside technology for a minute...

In reality isn't almost every major discovery of the 19th and 20th century based on work that came before?

Should knowledge be a commodity?

[Are_grits_groceries]

6. I have long said that

copyright laws need to be reconsidered in the age of the Internet. As technology advances, it will only get worse.

Trying to police and punish people using old laws and methods is futile. You end up with a brazillion dollar judgement against one individual who can't pay it.

I don't have a ready answer, but those from the fields of technology have to be involved in formulating any new concept. Freedom of the Internet has to be a priority. Using the excuse of protecting 'intellectual property' to police or shut down the Internet is a cover for other actions.

[The2ndWheel]

8. Prisoners of history, slaves to the future

[Lionessa]

9. It's a really good question.

I have a real problem deciding. I totally see both sides of the argument. For my stuff, I just try to make sure anything is pre-paid, and it's watermarked, but not so much that someone couldn't work around it. Then I take a deep breath and let it go. No copyright. Not worth the time and expense to assure it isn't used elsewhere.

[PETRUS]

10. Food for thought.

http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/intellectual_property_2004_09.pdf

http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/ip_2003_11.pdf

[NYC_SKP]

11. I think the historic model was good, but now is unsustainable.

...if for no other reason than the fact that the little guy can't compete in the courtroom.

Witness Tesla v Edison; it wasn't even particularly sustainable 100 years ago.

If protection entails such restrictions of use that we create a population of criminals, I say let's toss protection out the window and invite full freedom of expression and use.

The very concept of "property" and "ownership" becomes more annoying as I grow older.

[starroute]

14. Hollywood came into being to evade Edison's patents

The film industry started on the East Coast -- but fled West to evade Edison's reach. So Hollywood as we know it wouldn't have existed except as a patent-avoidance scheme.

Which makes it particularly ironic that they're now posing as the champions of intellectual property rights.

[CanSocDem]

12. No Copyright equals more Creativity.

Instead of creating for the future, artists will be forced to put everything into the present thereby creating innovation without pretense. A new marketplace fueled on merit, full of fresh new voices, available anywhere in the world at the press of a button.


.

[mythology]

13. But would they be able to profit from their creativity?

In a world without copyright, where I can legally take that which another creates, what ensures that the creator can make a living at creating? In theory, singers and theater actors can earn a living doing performances, but can a painter do the same?

[CanSocDem]

15. I've never been a fan of the "profit" motive.

But I get your drift. IMHO everybody should be able to live a good life ("earn a living)", which would free people to express 'creative' solutions not tied to the marketplace.

"...can a painter do the same?"

Speaking for myself, I always keep on the 'backshelf', the knowledge that if all else fails, I can always go down to the street corner and draw pen&ink caricatures for $5/pop.

Hopefully, as the culture, as we've known it, dissolves and with it our relevance, it might retain a memory or an artifact from the past and give us one last advantage.


.