Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Is Intellectual Property a legitimate concept?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Is Intellectual Property a legitimate concept?

    I've lifted this from another thread in an area where I'm not allowed to post.

    Originally posted by GioD View Post
    It depends on your broader view of intellectual property in general, with it being wrong if you accept the existence of intellectual property and it being acceptable if you deny it. I actually avoid downloading free music when the artist doesn't want me to (I'm also a vinyl junkie) but don't see anything wrong with it as I reject IP.
    Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
    I have a hard time accepting this reasoning. Regardless of what one thinks of IP (I reject it as a legitimate concept as well) it is still a fact that downloading copyrighted music is illegal in most countries, personal opinion notwithstanding. I would assert that as long as copyright laws do not go against any teaching of the Bible we as Christians have no right to disregard them, even if we'd reject the concept on which they are based as illegitimate.



    Is Intellectual Property (IP) a legitimate concept? Why or why not?
    I'm not here anymore.

  • #2
    This is a very interesting question, and one that I haven't yet answered for myself.

    Last edited by Zymologist; 02-20-2014, 10:05 AM. Reason: awkward grammar
    I DENOUNCE DONALD J. TRUMP AND ALL HIS IMMORAL ACTS.

    Comment


    • #3
      I believe it is, though I am not versed in all the philosophical jargon that would be necessary to productively participate in this conversation. But in brief, I base this on the principle that people have the right to benefit from the fruits of their labor.
      "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

      Comment


      • #4
        Say a mathematician is the first to prove some important theorem and publish it. Is the proof his property?

        Comment


        • #5
          In effect, yes, since every subsequent researcher needs to provide the proper citation whenever they refer to his proof, or be acccused of plagiarism.
          --------------------------------------------------------

          Nakonec pravda vitezi (In the end the truth wins)

          Nobility Among Us and Beyond the Mist are now on sale worldwide, as is my first poetry collection, Selected Verse - Faith and Family and my second, Selected Verse - Heroes and Wonders

          Explore the Cinematic Superverse

          A Hope That Burns

          Comment


          • #6
            I intend to continue to investigate. I thought I'd put up my first blush to establish a record.


            It seems there is a necessary distinction between intellectual and physical. It seems nonsensical to think one could ever contain the spread of ideas (generally speaking). Scientific studies, mathematical theorems and the like are ideas. Even if some sort of economic gain could result from the use of these studies/theorems, the idea itself is a separate, neutral entity. Further, the media of transmittance is not relevant. Physical property, by and large, seems to be a tangible product either naturally occurring or resulting from physical labor of some sort. The intent of such labor in nearly all cases would be profit of some sort.

            Based on these two separate concepts, I think it's safe to say that ideas themselves are free to all, while the physical productions are owned solely by the producer. That could mean that music itself is free for all, but that physical productions of the music (including digital media) is and should be under the producer's control. I'll use this as my starting point.
            I'm not here anymore.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Paprika View Post
              Say a mathematician is the first to prove some important theorem and publish it. Is the proof his property?
              I think it stands to reason that a mathematician could legitimately withhold said information with the intent to profit from its use. Insofar as the idea is his and his alone, he's allowed to do so. The caveat is two-fold: 1) ideas of this nature may occur first to one individual, but such individuals are merely the first not the only; and 2) The majority of mathematicians and scientists willingly publish their theorems and studies with the intent to further all knowledge and therefore inherently give up any claim to property on said publications.
              I'm not here anymore.

              Comment


              • #8
                I have been particularly frustrated with software licensing.

                At one point, many years ago, we actually bought WordPerfect instead of Word, because WordPerfect only allowed required us to have a copy for each work station, whereas Microsoft Word required us to have licenses for each work station AND a license for the server.

                Borland (Quattro Pro, and many other fine products) pioneered the "like a book" license. You could have their software on as many computers as you used, as long as you used it "like a book".... if I have it on my home computer, my work computer, and my laptop - as long as I only use one at a time, it was allowable.
                "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                  I have been particularly frustrated with software licensing.

                  At one point, many years ago, we actually bought WordPerfect instead of Word, because WordPerfect only allowed required us to have a copy for each work station, whereas Microsoft Word required us to have licenses for each work station AND a license for the server.

                  Borland (Quattro Pro, and many other fine products) pioneered the "like a book" license. You could have their software on as many computers as you used, as long as you used it "like a book".... if I have it on my home computer, my work computer, and my laptop - as long as I only use one at a time, it was allowable.
                  They do that with video games too(PC games seem to be the exception). Especially consoles and handhelds. There are a lot of games out there that I would love to play, but they are either nearly extinct physically(driving up the price massively), or they were never officially translated into English. Then there are a few where the company has gone out of business(I own several games that fall into that category). I wish that they would just change the laws regarding the older games and ROMS, especially since it's untrue that the old cartridges will last long enough to not need a backup copy.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Some of my thoughts:

                    Current IP rules confer three types of benefit to the owner.

                    Firstly, control over using the idea for economic benefit (eg. patenting). Secondly, control of the distribution of the work (eg. copyright of creative works). Thirdly, credit for being the originator of the owner (eg citation for using others' ideas in academia).

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                      They do that with video games too(PC games seem to be the exception). Especially consoles and handhelds. There are a lot of games out there that I would love to play, but they are either nearly extinct physically(driving up the price massively), or they were never officially translated into English. Then there are a few where the company has gone out of business(I own several games that fall into that category). I wish that they would just change the laws regarding the older games and ROMS, especially since it's untrue that the old cartridges will last long enough to not need a backup copy.
                      It would seem that a company going out of business is an abandonment of the protection.
                      "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                        It would seem that a company going out of business is an abandonment of the protection.
                        But what if they passed the rights on to someone else? How would a person even check?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          FYI: it's not the idea that is owned - it's the rights to profit from that unique work. Someone spending the time and effort to produce a novel or a symphony score has the right to profit from their labor. For a period of time, they have exclusive right (this varies between patent and copyright) to profit from that work. The individual can license the use of their work or retain full rights and produce whatever form themselves. They may elect to not produce at all nor allow anyone else to do so (rare but it happens) - doesn't matter, they own the right to profit - or not.

                          Software falls into the same catagory - it's Bob's business if he wants to sit on his copyright until the software is too old for any use. The problem their is how software is licensed - normally, that would go to the publisher/gallery/et al and not to the individual users. Licensing to individuals for use is profitable but has the problem of ending up with things that can't be used as businesses are unwilling or unable to make renewal a possibility. If you ask me, that's the one the consumers need to deal with by putting pressure on companies rather than trying to rewrite the law (law doesn't deal well with things that really haven't been fully vetted - hence tons of useless regulation).

                          "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot


                          "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                          My Personal Blog

                          My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Here ya go, Cere:

                            http://www.copyright.gov/records/

                            "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot


                            "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                            My Personal Blog

                            My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              It would seem that a company going out of business is an abandonment of the protection.
                              No, no, no, no, no and NO!!!!!!

                              A business can go out of business for a variety of reasons having nothing to do with the copyright protection or the product. The copyright holder has every right to take his/her copyright elsewhere or (if owned by the business) to sell or even retain the rights pending reorganization.

                              Abandonment is hard as heck to show and isn't really much of an issue with copyright (trademark has more issues with this).

                              "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot


                              "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                              My Personal Blog

                              My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by Diogenes, 10-10-2020, 08:38 PM
                              15 responses
                              120 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Sparko
                              by Sparko
                               
                              Working...
                              X