22 April 2011

More on Private Protection of IP

Just to clarify from an earlier post, my stance on protecting IP is that is wrong for the government to do so, but I have no issue if a private business wants to protect its intellectual creation.  Furthermore, I am not a piracy positivist.  I do not believe that people have a “right” to IP for free.  If they can capture another’s idea for free, more power to them.  If they have to pay, so be it.  No one has a right to information.

In keeping with the above, I would recommend reading this article at Cracked.  To me, this seems like the perfect way to handle IP protection.  Obviously, the government isn’t cracking down like it used to, so businesses have built designed their own protections to ensure that they actually paid when people use their product.

This seems to be the optimal way of handling this issue, especially since IP law has devolved into a massive redistributionist scheme for big business (cf. Apple’s recent lawsuit, Microsoft’s recent lawsuit, Google’s recent lawsuit, etc.)   Why not let people protect their own intellectual “property,” and stop this headache of a legal system?  This system does not seem to make any difference to the big companies and has a tendency to screw over the small time inventers and innovators (ever heard if patent trolls?)

4 comments:

  1. Heck I hope people steal my stuff! It's called advertising.

    ReplyDelete
  2. While not as extreme as Vox Day is on the topic of IP, I am no fan of IP law. It strikes me as commercial interests coopting the power of government to enrich their own pockets; doubly so when IP as employed by RIAA and MPAA is used to prop up their own flawed and failing business models and, to a lesser extent, to exert control over the flow of information.

    Athol's point is well taken...a profit motive is not required to create anything of value. Viz: Beethoven's compositions, Linux, etc. Granted, a profit motive may accelerate creativity, but it is not necessary.

    "devolved into a massive redistributionist scheme for big business"

    Howso?

    (I'm not busting your balls here...merely looking to understand what you had in mind when you wrote that).

    ReplyDelete
  3. @EW- I'm referring to the massive lawsuits that major corporations slap each other with over IP infringement. The sums are usually in the hundreds of millions, if not billions. Basically, corporations use IP to take tons of money from other corporations. I don't think anyone comes out ahead in the long run since everyone wins millions and loses millions at various points. I didn't mean to imply that corporations were robbing little people; rather, I meant to imply that corporations were busy robbing each other. Of course, that's still theft.

    ReplyDelete
  4. @Athol Kay- When I published my book, I decided to go with Scribd and make it available as a free ebook. I figure people will actually read it that way. Plus, from what I can tell, giving product away free upfront generates more in revenue later on, assuming you have quality product.

    As an example, I'm prepared to shell out serious money for either concert tickets or merchandise to The Seams and Blue Chandelier. The only reason I even listened to these bands is due to them giving their albums away for free. If they had merch store, I'd definitely order from it.

    The moral of the story is like you said: it's advertising, and will cause more people to buy more stuff from you, which is the goal.

    ReplyDelete