|
|
cs_posting@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> cs_posting@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > John Fields wrote:
> >[snip]
>
> Ah, I think I've figured it out. John is unable to comprehend the
> possibility of a system in which ideas are not ownable or treatable as
> virtual property. As a result, when I suggested that recognizing an
> inventor need not include granting them the right to use the invention
> as virtual property, he translated the rules of the ideas-as-property
> system to erroneously conlude that the inventor would not be allowed to
> make _practical use_ of the idea. Wheras the opposite is true - if
> ideas are not ownable property, then anyone can make use of them.
>
> Since there's been a lot of jumping to conclusions, I feel the need to
> point out that I have not recommended a switch to such a system. What
> I have done is tried to point out that ideas as virtual property is a
> recent construct and not the only possibility - to the practical end of
> reminding everyone that these conventions are open to debate, and while
> they are unlikely to be abandoned, they are certain to be modified over
> time.
Thanks for your help on this issue CS. I will go out on a limb still
further, and say that a switch to such a system looks likely and
beneficial. More and more these questions are being brought up in
mainstream press, e.g.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/10/07/opinion/edsmiers.php
http://www.ifla.org/documents/infopol/copyright/ipmyths.htm
Two factors that I see leading to a paradigm shift on this issue:
1) Communication technology. As people are better able to communicate,
those who would try to prevent communication to maintain an IP monopoly
are left with little recourse but to model their business plans in a
more capitalisitic fashion. Unenforceable legislation is doomed.
2) Corruption. As IP laws have grown and changed, the corruption has
also grown. Now, it is easier to see the problem because people are
using the system in more and more detrimental ways. Nobody minds too
much if e.g. publishers can skim a little more profit, but when
corporations don't let you re-plant your seeds or claim to own your
DNA, and when certain prime numbers are illegal, it's clear something
is wrong.
Cheers - shevek
|
|