From: Paul Hughes (planetp@aci.net)
Date: Sat Dec 19 1998 - 01:08:35 MST
Ok, perhaps I haven't thought about this issue deeply enough, so
I'm bringing it to this forum for some elucidation. Something
has always bothered me about intellectual property rights, as the
notion of owning an "idea" or "meme" strikes me as absurd. This
list and extropians in particular have gone to great lengths to
defend the notion that government enforcement equates to
coercion. However, it seems to be those same extropians who seem
to defend the notion of property rights and the necessary legal
(i.e. government) restrictions and enforcement necessary to
maintain it. I'll *try* to argue my point that defending and
enforcing intellectual property rights can itself be a most
pernicious from of coercion.
I want to say up front, that I understand and empathize with an
intellectual or creative individual wanting to receive just
compensation for their own creation. Despite that, I can't help
but reach some contradictory conclusions about my own feelings
and those of other extropians who have strong and apparent
contradictory feelings themselves.
--------
What would people think if I decided to copyright the english
language? People might immediately say, but you didn't invent it
so you have no right to it either. Ok, what if I decided to
copyright the word "organic" after my multi-billion dollar
company of the same name? I didn't invent the word "organic"
either, yet companies are doing this all the time. Lets say that
my last name is McDonald, and that I can trace back my lineage to
that name further than the original owner of the Multi-billion
dollar fast food chain. And I decided to open a small business
online called "McDonald's Electronics". No doubt, I will be sued
by the fast food chain, and loose in a court of law and then
forced by the strong arm of government to change the name of my
business. Can somebody here tell me how this is *not*
state-sponsored coercion? Is this not coercion to prohibit me
from using my own name and proud lineage, because somebody else
happened to get the government to prohibit anybody else from
using that name before I did? How is this not coercion? This
type of nonsense happens all the time. What about the guy who
opened a couple of vegetarian restaurants called McDharma's? This
wasn't even the same name, but alas he was prohibited from ever
using it again. How is this not coercion?
Ok, so far I have focused on simple trademark law as opposed to
intellectual protection of entire works of art or literature.
The question is, where do we draw the line? At 10 words, at 100
words at 1000 words? And if we were to establish this N number
of words as the minimum words to consider it unique, who not N-1
or N+1? Sounds pretty arbitrary to me. Are we as extropians
hypocrites in advocating #5 of the Extropian Principles 3.0:
(5. Open Society — Supporting social orders that foster freedom
of speech, freedom
of action, and experimentation. Opposing authoritarian social
control and favoring the rule of law and decentralization of
power. Preferring bargaining over battling, and exchange over
compulsion. Openness to improvement rather than a static utopia.)
while conveniently ignoring the non-technological enforcement of
copyright law? Again, in my bones I can't help but feel that
defending strong protection of intellectual property (without
taking personal responsibility for its protection) is very
contradictory to the spirit of what brought me to extropianism in
the first place.
What am I suggesting? Well, as extropians embracing
technological solutions over governmental ones, I propose that it
is more in line with the individualistic self-direction
principles that if your creative work means that much to you,
then it is *you* who must take responsibility to protect your
work from theft or fraud and not resorting to the strong arm of
government to do it for you. And if someone manages to bypass
your copyright protection encryption, then it is your
responsibility to strengthen your encryption.
By the way, nobody invented my genes either, yet companies are
already staking claim to that too. If that is not theft, then
what is? My body is mine and so our my genes. If I want to use
the contents of my genes to create a new miracle drug, then that
is my right and nobody has the right to use government coerced
fantastical notions of "property" to have sole province over my
works. At the very least, since everyone has those genes, then
everyone has ownership of them.
Ok, bring on the arguments, but please no flames! Lets keep this
civil. :-)
Paul Hughes
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:50:03 MST