Verily I say unto thee, that Kelsey Bjarnason spake thusly:
> On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 12:16:28 +0100, Homer wrote:
>>> Right, because, of course, every business developing new ideas
>>> should be mandated to hand over those ideas immediately
>>
>> Those ideas are not those companies' property to "hand over" in the
>> first place, objectively speaking. In law - yes, but not
>> intrinsically.
>
> Right, because *they* didn't spend millions or billions developing
> the ideas. Oh, wait, they did.
You're completely stuck on this idea that the act of simply "spending
money" should give someone an intrinsic "right" to do something immoral,
like make unsupportable claims of "owning" knowledge. It doesn't.
> But of course, *you* should have free access to them all
Correct. I am not responsible for companies misguidedly investing in
unethical business methods.
> because you contributed... er... sorry, what was your contribution
> again? Nothing? Ah, yes, that explains why you should have free
> reign over their ideas.
Assuming you could prove that I had in no way ever contributed to the
sum total of all knowledge, from which this hypothetical company
benefits (and thus derives their so-called "IP"), how would you propose
proving the same for the other several trillion people to have ever
walked and breathed on planet earth?
Can you wake the dead?
> Do you folks ever stop to actually think about what you're posting?
Yes, in fact the problem of Intellectual Monopoly is pretty much all I
do think about, currently, and I have plenty of time on my hands since
retiring.
> And yet it's precisely because my company spent the money that the
> idea got developed, turned into something useful, where it wasn't
> before.
Good.
I'm only too happy to /pay/ for the tangible manifestations of others'
work. And if I were an employer, I'd also be happy to pay for their labour.
What has any of this got to do with the immoral premise of "owning" ideas?
> But let's ignore that, and ignore the money required to do that, and
> just whine that the idea should be free to everyone, everyone who
> contributed absolutely nothing to developing the idea
You can never prove that. Indeed it's grossly arrogant to even make that
assumption. How can you possibly know the true origins of all knowledge?
> just cuz, neener, neener. Yes, makes perfect sense.
Well I suppose it wouldn't really make any sense, if you reduced my
wholly accurate observations down to the level of an adolescent taunt.
>>> because this, obviously, is the best possible thing for its
>>> future, its workers, its shareholders. None of that silly-ass
>>> stuff about, oh, actually making money matters.
>>
>> It matters, but there is more than the false dichotomy of just this
>> one way of "making money". I'm sure it also "matters" to bank
>> robbers that they be successful, should that mean we support their
>> endeavours?
>
> Why does it figure someone defending thievery would defend thieves?
I'm not the one defending thieves though, you are. It's the false claim
of "Intellectual Property" that's theft, not my assertion that it should
never have been stolen to begin with.
>>> Tell you what, Skippy, how about you toss that notion out to
>>> 1,000 random companies pouring millions - or billions - into R&D
>>> and see how well that notion goes over.
>>
>> If the extent of this activity somehow lends credence to its
>> justification, then presumably you also support the idea that
>> copyright "piracy" is equally justified, since by all accounts it
>> is a global epidemic.
>
> Again, nice defence of thieving.
But again, this is /your/ defence, not mine.
You're claiming that because "everybody does it" then it's justified.
Well, according to that same line of reasoning - /your/ logic - the same
must be said of copyright infringement.
> Also, nice complete ignoring of the bit about contributing.
It's laughably ironic that you should accuse /me/ of ignoring others'
contribution, when /you're/ defending the right to claim exclusive
ownership of knowledge accumulated from countless unnamed contributors.
> You remember, the company contributed money to developing the idea
That's not a contribution, it's their business risk, and a risk taken on
the back of contributors who aren't even deemed worthy enough to even be
attributed by this company, much less compensated. Not that it's
possible to attribute every person, living or dead, who may have
conceived any of the many ideas this company claims exclusive "rights" to.
> the thief simply takes it? If the thief wants the ideas
The society which contributed this knowledge is not the "thief", the
Intellectual Monopolists are.
> there's a simple way to do it: contribute.
I already do. Everyone with a mind to think with already does.
> Did *you* put millions into the development of the idea?
If I had a company, then I'd rather develop tangible products. That
other "development" you speak of is simply part of that process, and one
which is already paid for by the sale of those aforementioned tangible
products. If it /isn't/, then it seems that company needs to review its
business strategy. If you think such a thing is impossible, then perhaps
you'd care to explain how anything was ever developed /before/ the
advent of patents?
I'd no more consider that I "own" some "idea" than I'd believe I "own"
the sunlight which illuminates my desk, and enables me to see my work,
even if I'd done the "hard work" of opening the blinds covering the
window.
> No? Until you do, how about you let the grown-ups who actually *do*
> the work
For which those "grown-ups" already get paid, in wages.
> *put in* the money
A business investment is merely an opportunity, and does not in and of
itself grant any guarantees of remuneration. More importantly, it
/should/ not be guaranteed, since that is tantamount to legalised
racketeering (state aid). Given what is being invested /in/ (making
false claims of ownership), I'd say that such unethical activity
actually deserves to fail.
> *contribute* the effort
Ah, more of this "hard work" ... for which one gets paid twice, once for
the actual work, and once again (in perpetuity) for the memory of that
day's "hard work", in the form of "IP" claims to knowledge accumulated
from the pool of mankind's thoughts, past and present, published and
unpublished.
It must be very, very "hard work" indeed, to warrant such overpayment.
> actually decide whether or not they might want to be compensated for
> that.
Workers get paid for their labour. Company's get paid for the tangible
products they sell.
Who isn't being compensated?
Well, there is one group of people ... the rest of humanity who also
conceive those same ideas, which this company claims "ownership" of.
> If *they* choose to give it away
It's not their property to give, or sell, or do anything else with
/exclusively/.
> I'm all for it, bully for them. Some whiny little freeloader
So you're claiming I never pay for anything?
Ever?
Nothing at all?
And this has absolutely nothing to do with principles, such as the
principle that all published knowledge is, and should be, in the public
domain, since it is that /public/ which conceived it in the first place
(published or otherwise)? Or at least, it can never be proved otherwise,
and therefore any claims of exclusive "ownership" are unsupportable.
> trying to insist the give it away
How can they "give it away" when they are not the legitimate "owners"?
> just because he's too cheap
Raving hyperbole, and demonstrably wrong even using your own standards.
Do you use GNU/Linux because it's "cheap", or because it's "open"?
Why should open access to knowledge be any different, and in what way
would that preclude consumers paying for actual products and services
manifesting from development of that knowledge?
> or lazy
Well again, if one looks at the analogy of Free Software development,
would you claim that these developers are "lazy", simply because they
build upon the work of others?
And if the results of that work are then sold (e.g. RHEL), does that
then represent unethical exploitation of the contributors, indicating
"laziness" on the part of the vendor?
Or is it perhaps that the open development model is simply more
effective, benefits a greater number of people, has intrinsically
greater benefits for those who work on it *and* those who use the
resulting "products", and represents a fairer and more efficient
method of utilising knowledge for all concerned?
Does any of this sound at all familiar?
> to merit access to the idea
To merit access to ideas, one only needs to be born.
This is no different than, say, our right to breath air.
Neither air nor knowledge is the exclusive "property" of any one of us.
> however, just doesn't cut it.
Certainly not for the Intellectual Monopolists.
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| "The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep's throat, for which
| the sheep thanks the shepherd as his liberator, while the wolf
| denounces him for the same act, as the destroyer of liberty.
| Plainly the sheep and the wolf are not agreed upon a definition of
| the word liberty; and precisely the same difference prevails today
| among human creatures." ~ Abraham Lincoln
`----
Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.26.8-57.fc8
02:29:05 up 31 days, 6:27, 5 users, load average: 7.06, 5.82, 6.07
|
|
