Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by Kevin_Kennedy, Nov 8, 2009.
Modern Day Protectionism by Vedad Krehic
Interesting article on intellectual property.
He made a really good point there.. I hate when you BUY a CD and can't make a back-up of it.. Then you HAVE to get online and download the songs. And how many times will I buy the same album, over and over again??
Thank God for the internet..
Intellectual property deserves protection because it is so difficult to protect.
Creating something requires effort, whether it is a jacket or a novel. With a jacket most of the value/cost is in the production and materials, not the design. With a book that is reversed; most of the value is in the data, not the ink and paper.
If people start copying intellectual material because they don't care to pay the individual who owns the copyright then those who create that material will have reduced incentive to create. Say goodbye to new Songs, Novels etc. because no one will be able to afford to produce them.
My personal experience has been that those most dismissive of intellectual property are those who lack the intellect to ever hope to create such work, those who get their books from the comic stand, and those who do not support themselves from their own labor.
The author hasn't thought things out too clearly in some respects. He's confusing ownership over a single item with ownership of the artistic or creative expression embodied in it. That may or may not be the case depending on the rights one owns. Contrary to what the author states, IP doesn't conflict with property law. It's simply another aspect of property law. You can buy the intellectual property along with the tangible property if the owner is willing to sell it to you at an agreed upon price.
If you have a CD, patented screwdriver, or other item, you can sell the specific item you've purchased and you don't have to worry about IP laws. Copying it and selling duplicates would be another story altogether.
The 'moral rights' aspect is newer and has a stronger foundation in Europe. Even if you subscribe to the idea of 'moral rights' in, say, a painting, those rights can be acquired as well. If you don't have them, you're inability to destroy the work doesn't violate your right of ownership of tangible property, it just means you don't fully own it.
That's the point, however. If I buy a cd why am I not free to copy that cd? It's my property isn't it?
No, the physical CD is your property. The songs themselves do not become your property when you buy a CD. If you owned the actual songs of the Beatles just because you buy a Beatles compilation CD - well, I think you can see what a mess that would be (and I imagine the price of CDs would rise).
The songs on that cd should be my property to do with as I please.
So your position is that if you buy a DVD or a CD, then you should own the rights to the underlying songs or movie? I don't see the logic there. You haven't bought the rights. You want something given to you by force of law that you haven't paid for. You can actually buy the rights to the songs or the movie if you can afford them. Otherwise, you only own what you've purchased, which is that physical CD or DVD.
Well I don't agree with intellectual property, so why would I think I had bought the so-called "rights" to anything? If I buy a cd I should be free to do whatever I want with that cd and the music on that cd.
So suppose I'm a musician, and after years of training and a few years of songwriting, shelling out thousands of dollars to get a recording studio, not to mention countless thousands of hours of sweat put into the endeavor, I release a CD and charge $15 for it.
You come along and buy that CD, and despite the fact that you've done nothing whatsoever except shell out $15, you can now copy the CD and start selling it, making a profit off of my work?
Sounds like a socialist point of view to me. You buy the physical CD, and then you decide that all the benefit of my labor now belongs to you.
Separate names with a comma.