If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
How do you feel about intellectual property?
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
I don't know if the title is slightly misleading, as I couldn't think of what to write. But the story below prompted me to make a thread about the issues surrounding copyright law / filesharing / illegal use (cracking) of software etc.
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4798059.stm
The two arguments as I see them in a simplistic view - on the one side, market economics prevails. Surely those who do the hard work should be the ones who reap the rewards? Capitalism at it's purest. Game / music producers only invest millions of pounds in projects because they expect to see a significant return. They also want to protect their work, which is more 'information' than anything tangible, from being copied.
However, the other argument is that all knowledge, including music, films, games, software - should be freely accessable to all. That the internet in particular is a fantastic tool for sharing this knowledge, and that in a sense, it does make up part of our freedom.
I feel for both sides though. On the one side, it doesn't 'feel' ethically / morally right for Microsoft to make this incredible program that can make people's lives easier / happier etc. and then charge them through the teeth for it when in actuality the distribution of said program is free. It's like medicines, companies make medicines to make a profit, but this often ends up with the price being hugely inflated - reflecting the demand / need of society rather than the cost to provide it. Meaning a few powerful / clever people get very rich, and the majority lose out. Obviously, medicine is far more crucial than software, but the basic principal is similiar isn't it?
Mind you, without the profit incentive, who really would push software development forward. There's music as well (I don't tend to listen to music much, so don't know much about it
) - if you sing a song and record, it costs practically nothing to share that. But because there is a demand to hear your melodious voice - to make people happy I presume - then you can charge £1 (how much are songs??) and people will pay.
Whilst this works well, there is a gap at the bottom of the rung. What about people who struggle to afford medicines / life enhancing goods which don't cost that much to provide - but since the knowledge is restricted and limited then you have to pay the price. Seems hardly equitible in a society that claims it promotes fairness and equality to all. Surely if that's the case, everyone should be entitled to internet access (because it doesn't cost that much, and is possible - is it N. Korea with ultra fast bb?), everyone should be entitled to medicines at cost, free education etc. etc.
I mean, if you look at our education system - the argument that teachers wouldn't teach because they couldn't charge through the roof seems to be nullified. People don't go into teaching for the money - they go into teaching because they want to teach. Mod creators don't spend hours developing high quality game mods for the money, they do it because it's like their canvas. If you've ever been involved in anything like that you'll know just how much you end up putting into it for no payback. Apart from a little 'donate' page on your website linking to a paypal account that pretty much everyone ignores.
Doctors are pretty well paid in the NHS, but I suspect that some are attracted by the big bucks. If we all co-operated and did the things we loved to do rather than things that made us loads of money, stopped this 'I know how to make this drug that will save your life, you don't, so I'll charge you £20k because to be honest you will pay ANYTHING' then surely everyone would get a fairer deal?
That turned into a little rant there. So yea, are you for freedom of information or protection of intellectual property? I think I lean towards the freedom of information, even though it does have the massive drawback of lack of money incentive.
eta: also, in the article, its about making yourself anonymous on the internet - and whether thats something that should be possible or not. Should people have the right not to reveal who they are? ID Card kinda thing going on there too!
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4798059.stm
The two arguments as I see them in a simplistic view - on the one side, market economics prevails. Surely those who do the hard work should be the ones who reap the rewards? Capitalism at it's purest. Game / music producers only invest millions of pounds in projects because they expect to see a significant return. They also want to protect their work, which is more 'information' than anything tangible, from being copied.
However, the other argument is that all knowledge, including music, films, games, software - should be freely accessable to all. That the internet in particular is a fantastic tool for sharing this knowledge, and that in a sense, it does make up part of our freedom.
I feel for both sides though. On the one side, it doesn't 'feel' ethically / morally right for Microsoft to make this incredible program that can make people's lives easier / happier etc. and then charge them through the teeth for it when in actuality the distribution of said program is free. It's like medicines, companies make medicines to make a profit, but this often ends up with the price being hugely inflated - reflecting the demand / need of society rather than the cost to provide it. Meaning a few powerful / clever people get very rich, and the majority lose out. Obviously, medicine is far more crucial than software, but the basic principal is similiar isn't it?
Mind you, without the profit incentive, who really would push software development forward. There's music as well (I don't tend to listen to music much, so don't know much about it
) - if you sing a song and record, it costs practically nothing to share that. But because there is a demand to hear your melodious voice - to make people happy I presume - then you can charge £1 (how much are songs??) and people will pay.Whilst this works well, there is a gap at the bottom of the rung. What about people who struggle to afford medicines / life enhancing goods which don't cost that much to provide - but since the knowledge is restricted and limited then you have to pay the price. Seems hardly equitible in a society that claims it promotes fairness and equality to all. Surely if that's the case, everyone should be entitled to internet access (because it doesn't cost that much, and is possible - is it N. Korea with ultra fast bb?), everyone should be entitled to medicines at cost, free education etc. etc.
I mean, if you look at our education system - the argument that teachers wouldn't teach because they couldn't charge through the roof seems to be nullified. People don't go into teaching for the money - they go into teaching because they want to teach. Mod creators don't spend hours developing high quality game mods for the money, they do it because it's like their canvas. If you've ever been involved in anything like that you'll know just how much you end up putting into it for no payback. Apart from a little 'donate' page on your website linking to a paypal account that pretty much everyone ignores.
Doctors are pretty well paid in the NHS, but I suspect that some are attracted by the big bucks. If we all co-operated and did the things we loved to do rather than things that made us loads of money, stopped this 'I know how to make this drug that will save your life, you don't, so I'll charge you £20k because to be honest you will pay ANYTHING' then surely everyone would get a fairer deal?
That turned into a little rant there. So yea, are you for freedom of information or protection of intellectual property? I think I lean towards the freedom of information, even though it does have the massive drawback of lack of money incentive.
eta: also, in the article, its about making yourself anonymous on the internet - and whether thats something that should be possible or not. Should people have the right not to reveal who they are? ID Card kinda thing going on there too!
0
Comments
What stops you acquiring wood and oil ? (serious question)
So would you agree that labour should be rewarded ?
Regrettably I`ll bite to your personal baiting
I`d say that my question is more relevant than yours.
"I`m with stupid" made a point that tangible things ought to belong to everyone.I was wondering why he made a differentiation.He has since admitted that his own laziness is the thing that stops him acquiring them.Presumably he finds it a lot easier to acquire intangible things?
If you could "get away" without paying for anything that you use,would you ?
Or is it a case that you feel it is out of your control ?
As far as I am aware (and I may be wrong) the human genome has already been 'patented' in that if you develop a drug to use to treat part of the genome (this wont happen for a long time yet, we dont have the technology) then you have to pay the company that discovered that genome royalties. all seems a bit of a farce. surely following that line of thinking, if someone is dying and you resuccitate them, you should pay for the guy who came up with the idea of chest compressions / mouth to mouth?
But the thing is. Look at software. Say someone comes up with a program that can calculate the weather for the next month with perfect accuracy. Seems pretty nifty for those that go on holiday. But then get people who are crossing the atlantic or whatever and it becomes essential. Yet say one licence costs £15,000, and you're not allowed to share it or anything. So this guy goes to climb mount everest
They don't, its about being nice
For example, there is a hypothetical bird that has fell out a tree. You take it in and feed it and nurture it back to health and then let it fly away again. Why did you do this? But the 'net effect' was only good, so surely its a good thing? In my eyes anyway.
I'm not saying that they owe him anything, but the capacity to protect him was there but 'we' (as a race of humans, by our systems of trade and law) chose not to protect him.
The main things that stop me acquiring wood is that if I went into the park behind my flat and started chopping trees down, I'd soon get arrested. Never mind the fact that I don't have a timbermill in my flat.
The main thing that stops me acquiring oil is that I don't have an oil rig.
Got any more daft questions?
Do you? I seem to recall you having a problem with the labour theory of value.
Oh yes, the strong arm of THE LAW .(Someone`s opinion backed by a gun).
Nice link,and my simple answer highlights my "problem". If I subjectively value someone`s labour then I would feel obliged to reward them accordingly.However I could easily see that same labour being value-less to the person next to me.
But it isn`t for the "common" good(whatever that is), it is for hypothetical man`s good.
Here`s a few:
What gives you the idea that it is YOUR flat ?
Why do think that it is yours ?
Why not allow others to use it as they see fit ?
Do you believe that oil rigs exist in nature ?
If not,where did they come from ?
Yes, the law.
You don't really think things through do you?
And? You haven't answered my point.
Well its not my flat, its rented, but that makes it "mine" while I pay my rent.
because I pay my rent
Because I don't want other people in my and my g/f's face.
Got any sensible questions?
How old are you ffs? :rolleyes: