I have much to say about Intellectual property. I don’t like the idea of it. It boggles me -or perhaps amuses me- that people bond so much with their ideas via their ego that they cannot stand the sight (or thought) of anyone else taking the opportunity to refine the dented surface of their own construction. There is a reasonable logic behind I made this, therefore I own it, if brought up in the context where one does not work for another, however what logic resides behind I thought of this, therefore I own it, is perhaps not even answerable. An interpretation is that it is a thought pattern that flows through the mind of a child that cannot distinguish between the idea of an invention and the idea of an invention put into physical form. The reasoning follows a pattern where the founder of an idea owns the idea; a pattern similar to I came here first, now I own this place, but applied to non-physical spaces.
Several reasons why I don’t like the idea of this: It is a form of reasoning that occurs in contexts where it naturally shouldn’t be occurring, it is a logical error in the thinking process as it is impossible to know who thought of an idea first. In the instance of eureka, someone else in one of the world’s many dark corners has the same idea. Founder and owner often come hand in hand, but they are not the same. Furthermore, the following citation, which I am more in line with, explains why the founder of an idea cannot be the sole owner of it:
“If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.”
It is believed that creators will not have sufficient incentive to invent unless they are legally entitled to capture the full social value of their inventions. If some intellectual property is desirable because it encourages innovation, they reason, more is better.
Rather, intellectual property can be a disincentive to innovation if the innovation is drastic and well, innovative. Laws around the matter are treated the same as those for material property. The idea of intellectual property could be likened to securely locking all new and innovative ideas in a safe to prevent or limit others from using them. The logic states itself: the more ideas that are protected, the less there is to build from. Reasons behind the intellectual property laws are:
“[T]o give statutory expression to the moral and economic rights of creators in their creations and the rights of the public in access to those creations. The second is to promote, as a deliberate act of Government policy, creativity and the dissemination and application of its results and to encourage fair trading which would contribute to economic and social development.”
Well, this is seemingly fair. The giving of statutory expressions seems all fair and true, but limiting rights to the public and the access of those creations would seem a bit narrow. Once again, I thought of this, therefore I own it. Doesn’t the first reason kind of contradict the other, at least to some degree? In which way does one promote creativity, dissemination and application by limiting the promoting to the founder of the idea? I like being my own manager, but hey, if other people didn’t spread my art around I’d go by unnoticed. When we experience something that we are passionate about, we have a need to express that experience. What better way than to share that experience by directly immerse others in whatever film you saw or song you listened to?
Something that further problematizes the treatment of “intellectual property” is the notion of so-called rival and non-rival goods. A hammer is a durable rival good. Theoretically, one person’s use of the hammer presents a significant barrier to others who desire to use that hammer at the same time. However, the first user does not “use up” the hammer, meaning that some rival goods can still be shared through time. An apple is a nondurable rival good, if one considers it being eaten by a person unwilling to share: once an apple has been eaten, it is “used up” and can no longer be eaten by others, unless it is shared. Non-tangible goods can also be rivalrous, such as radio spectra and domain names.
The non-rival goods may be consumed by one consumer without preventing simultaneous consumption by others. When a consumer turns on a TV set, this does not prevent the TV in another consumer’s house from working. What is rival and non-rival really depends on how complex one makes the model.
Visible art can be seen as durable non-rival good, or anything else that is plain visible for that matter. One person’s listening to music does not present a significant barrier to others who desire to listen to that specific music at the same time. Even using headphones does not fully make the music a rival good, as the headphones can be shared by more than one person. Here, the most ineffective choice would be that each person buys his own album even though they are both going to listen to the same album simultaneously. It would be like the passengers of a car having to pay for the car each time they are offered a ride.
It is economically inefficient to make non-rival, intellectual products -that were previously non-excludable- excludable. As stated earlier, this would rather be a disincentive to innovation as long as a monopoly is held, especially when monopoly profits are less than the overall potential improvements. If someone invents a product that eases the use of some action, but still leaves room for further development, it would seem ineffective to prohibit other inventors to refine that same product as it would further ease the use of it. It does sound unfair, especially if the original inventor does not see where his invention can be improved, or misuses his copyright/patent so as to form a monopoly on the market. If others can improve your product for the better or even spread your ideas, as long as they credit your work/discovery, I see this as an incentive for further invention rather than theft of intellectual property.
If people were to manipulate my art, well, then they have merely taken my art as a base and made it into something of their own. If people publish or print my art and hang it on their walls, I will not charge them for anything or accuse them of theft, since they are merely admiring and promoting my art. Though, I would always prefer it if I were credited for the original idea. Covering a song works the same way. If you cover a song, it seems pointless to play it exactly the way it was originally played, as it would be like reinventing the wheel, unless the playing of the song serves as a statement: this song has a great message that I would like to spread. Though nothing says you can’t improve the song at the same time. This song has heart, but it doesn’t reach its full potential, so I’m lifting it up my own way.
If people claim my original art as their own or earn money on it, well, then I will still know it is a copy, since I own pretty much all originals, and people who know me or my art will know that it is a copy or discredited claim. I would get upset; this is nothing I can deny, but I would get angry if someone stole or, even worse, defaced one of my originals. What I will never do however, is preventing people from seeing or sharing my art unless they pay me unreasonable amounts of money.
Stealing and defacing is one thing, copying and displaying is another. A third is improvement.
thateyelessentity.wordpress.com 