Two people on opposite sides of the world have exactly the same idea at
the same time. Which one of those two people would be most morally
justified in claiming to own the exclusive rights to that idea?
Should it be the first to dash through the doors of the USPTO office,
with a big wad of cash in his hand?
Surely that is merely further rewarding someone for already being
affluent (or quick, or both), rather than rewarding him for having an
original thought.
And how original are anyone's thoughts anyway?
Surely our knowledge is merely the sum of what we have been taught,
rather than some divine gift handed down from God, entitling the bearer
to exclusive privileges. How can anyone claim exclusive rights to that
which has been collected from others, such as authors; teachers; parents
and peers? Are those contributors not equally entitled to attribution
and rights to that knowledge? Are such contributors not also entitled to
benefit from those ideas? Given the scope of where one acquires
knowledge, surely those beneficiaries should encompass all mankind.
This is the essence of Free Software.
Of course innovation is more than just a collection of data, it is
defined by the particular arrangement of that data to form something
unique. But again, the uniqueness of that arrangement can never be
proved conclusively, beyond the documented "proof" of who was the first
to /publicly/ claim uniqueness ... and of course /pay/ for the privilege.
Also consider that the arrangement of data is more an /implementation/
rather than /knowledge/ of something fundamental. Being able to arrange
the pieces of a puzzle in a particular order should not prohibit others
from also doing so, even if those others only discovered /how/ to do so
by learning from someone else. Attempting to prohibit such a thing is an
attempt to prohibit the objective of learning /itself/, which is a gross
violation of academic principles and human endeavour. Those puzzles were
not /created/ by such inventors, they are the fundamental axioms upon
which all knowledge and learning is based. Should we be prohibited from
learning simply because others before us have done so?
To claim ownership of knowledge is like claiming the rights of a God. We
did not create the universe, we merely live in it. It'd be nice to think
that we could do so harmoniously, without trying to claim exclusivity to
every particle of matter or thought in that universe, like a pack of
rabid prospectors rushing murderously, flintlocks and pickaxes in hand,
towards a glint of gold in a rock-face.
Then there is this postulation that innovation is not merely the
formulation of a unique idea, but is actually the /business/ development
of that idea, and that those who invest in such development deserve
special consideration, because without that development society would be
deprived of the benefits of that idea. This justification is somewhat of
a euphemism however, not to mention a false dichotomy, since the
"beneficiary" is more likely to be just a single company, rather than
society as a whole, given the exclusionary nature of this knowledge.
[quote]
Article. I.
Section. 8.
...
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for
limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their
respective Writings and Discoveries.
[/quote]
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html
Essentially this is nothing more than a means of promoting business ...
and a single business at that, rather than some greater altruistic or
academic goal. It seems that the great institution of American democracy
itself is founded upon the principles of racketeering. Is it any wonder
that American culture draws so much criticism, when its most fundamental
tenets are so reprehensible?
America is not unique in this respect, and indeed was not the first to
implement such unethical tenets. That dubious honour goes to England,
which introduced the first Licensing Act three and a half centuries ago
in 1662. However, the ruthlessness with which American businesses, and
their political lackeys, pursue the totalitarian agenda of "securing
exclusive rights" to /everything/, even thought itself, for anyone
greedy (and rich) enough to claim them, is stunning in its scope and
ferocity.
Witness UMG's recent claim that simply /discarding/ a promo CD is a
violation of copyright, for example. Such examples are by no means
uncommon, indeed it seems to be the new business craze sweeping America
("craze" is indeed an appropriate description).
American-based global corporations are even using lobbyists to spread
the disease of Intellectual Monopolies across the rest of world too.
Thanks to pressure exerted on British ISPs, primarily by media moguls
like the BPI (in the name of "Intellectual Property considerations")
many British Internet subscribers have now lost the right to privacy -
one of the most basic civil rights, since British ISPs are being coerced
into monitoring; recording and censoring their customers' Internet
communications (an action that previously required a warrant issued by
the Home Office, on a case by case basis, and depended on an actual due
cause for suspicion that a crime was being committed).
Apparently the entire population of Britain has been declared "guilty",
before and regardless of being proved innocent, of something that should
not even be a crime in the first place, since this is a wholly civil
matter. The /civilians/ who comprise the members of our business
community, are now the lawmakers, it seems.
Using the premise of "business consideration" to justify state-sponsored
racketeering is a very poor excuse to subject mankind to a totalitarian
regime of intellectual slavery. Granting Intellectual Monopoly to
businesses under the premise that they "need" to recover their
investment costs using "royalties", rather than by more ethical means,
is merely further rewarding someone for already being sufficiently
affluent to spend money on a patent applications and research (or more
likely - lobbying), rather than rewarding actual /invention/, which may
have already occurred elsewhere without financial backing, and should in
no way be interpreted as proof or justification of exclusive "ownership".
Indeed, it would be a far more prudent course of action to ensure that
the "right" to such knowledge was /not/ granted exclusively, so that any
number of people could further develop and implement that idea, thus
benefiting /all/ of society ... and much more quickly too, rather than
just a single company and those obligated to be its "customers" (i.e.
slaves to Intellectual Monopoly).
Using exclusive access to knowledge as a business device, presents an
unjustifiably unfair advantage (state aid) to a select few, effectively
creating a monopoly which may be abused to derive profit, to the
exclusion of all competition, even in the absence of a viable product or
service.
Such devices should not be necessary. Surely business development is its
/own/ reward, assuming that development is successful, and if it isn't
then that is hardly anyone's fault but the developers. If they can't
recover their research investment though the sale of actual products and
services based on their inventions, then that is merely an indicator of
their own incompetence, not a queue to indulge in state-sponsored
racketeering. They have my sympathies, I'm sure, but surely the days of
building an empire with the blood of slaves is over.
Business is an /opportunity/, not a "right".
We are not all responsible for the success or failure of others'
business ventures; we have no moral obligation to ensure that others
profit by their inventions, especially when those "inventors" use their
ill-gotten exclusive "rights" as a weapon against us, to prohibit our
pursuit of academic learning.
The principles of Intellectual "Property" transforms business from being
an /opportunity/ to being a "right" that is protected by unethical laws,
with unjustifiable exclusivity. This fictitious and intangible
"property" is then abused to derive profit, to the exclusion of all
competition, and often in the absence of any actual product or service
manifested by the inventor.
Intellectual "Property" is nothing but snake-oil peddled by
carpetbaggers; supported by laws that are instigated by politicians who
are corrupted by bribes from the same carpetbaggers who peddle that
snake oil.
That isn't "innovation", it's racketeering.
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| "Stallman has frequently pointed out, Free Software is by no means
| antithetical to making money: it's just a question of how you make
| money." ~ Glyn Moody: http://tinyurl.com/4wn2l2 (ComputerworldUK)
`----
Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.23.8-63.fc8
02:55:53 up 195 days, 23:31, 2 users, load average: 0.02, 0.09, 0.13
|
|
