Opinions on Digital and Intellectual Property Rights
-
I have been think about this issue for quite some time now, and Im really at an impass on whether to support or oppose Intellectual Property Rights. Its a difficult subject for me, because it seems that most forms of Intellectual property is owned by large media corporations, who hawkishly defend and lobby those rights; which will at times hinder the artists they sponsor from supporting themselves or profiting from their work.
On one side, the idea that a person can control an idea, story, or song, and how its used has always seemed morally questionable. How can information be a commodity to be bought or sold?
Yet, shouldnt the work someone puts into creating a game, song, or invention be worth something? Is it not his right to create something, and then try to profit off of it? Does that mean he has to be free of someone taking that idea and trying to improve it?
What are your opinions? Im also sorry if this is incorrectly categorized.
-
Salaam AlFajr,
Is copyright theft?
It is a wonderful tool to control and monopolise supply of goods, maintain inflated prices, hold technology back, hold competition back, reduce diversity and get paid again and again for the same work.
Doesn't sound very Islamic.
Firstly they say it is theft to break a rule they have established in the purchase of the copyrighted product, but what have you stolen?
They say you have stolen their sale of that product, or you have made money from an aspect of their copyrighted product, without giving them a share.
Theft To constitute theft there must be a taking without the owner's consent, and it must be unlawful or felonious; every part of the property stolen must be removed, however slightly, from its former position; and it must be, at least momentarily, in the complete possession of the thief. See {Larceny}, and the Note under {Robbery}.
But as you can see under the concept of theft nothing has been stolen when you copy an original, so they redefine it as piracy.
-
The act or crime of a pirate.
-
(Common Law) Robbery on the high seas; the taking of
property from others on the open sea by open violence;
without lawful authority, and with intent to steal; -- a
crime answering to robbery on land.
So they redefine theft and piracy, as nothing has been stolen but the thought that they have not received payment for the copy of the original.
They make obscene profits, but restrict and control the products they generate to make certain they maintain the obscene profits. They use clever marketing to convince people that they need obscene profits to function, but copyright is a legal construct in opposition to common law.
So they redefine theft to mean controlling what others do with their own property, on the premise that it deprives the "originator" of future income.
Intellectual property is the next line of defense, the logical conclusion of "intellectual property" is that it dictates what someone can and cannot do with their own real property; in other words these two types of "properties" are mutually inconsistent. Moreover, why not take "IP" to its logical conclusions the man (and his descendants) who first decided to build his home out of wood should be receiving royalty payments from everyone else. Of course, "IP" advocates will never agree to this, since in order to keep their state granted criminal monopoly privileges they must "draw the line" at some arbitrary point. Finally, the reality of "IP" is definitely usurious, since it is equivalent to selling your shares in a company, but demanding to be paid the dividend, or selling your property but still demanding to receive rents from it. Selling anything is transferring ownership, once the buyer believes he owns the product in question, he is paying for a future stream of income (in the case of assets) or utility in general. The alternative is known as renting, and "IP" advocates purposely confuse these two ideas in order to reap the gains of selling their products, while demanding to have final say over its use. Well you cannot have it both ways, if you want to rent out the use of your products then do so, and you will receive a lower price for it. Don't hide behind implied legalisms and small print.
-
-
Really interesting topic.
Programmers will be well aware of the Open Source efforts online, where people make their coding available to anyone to use and modify. Many of these programmers earn a small amount through voluntary donation. I for one, have freed myself from Microsoft and Apple as much as I can and use Ubuntu and as much open source software as possible. And give donations when I can afford to.
It can be argued that the only reason this is possible is because of proprietary coding - companies who have the funds to invest in innovation which the open source community then benefits from. If that wasn't the case, how many programmers would spend 9 months working on code knowing there probably won't be re-numeration at the end? Profits drive innovation in most cases. And profits can only really come from owning the coding and thus selling it.
In my opinion, music should be free, with voluntary payments. The reason I say this is that artists who wish to make money should focus their efforts on live performances, and leave their music free for download. Their fans will most likely feel happy to pay a small recommended payment for each track. Besides, you can't stop free downloading anyway, so what's the point in having the license and the subsequent law if it can not be enforced? Better to just concede that you will inevitably lose the digital revenue and simply use your music as advertisement for your live shows.
-
Applying property rights to information that can be infinitely reproduced without loss is equal to manufacturing scarcity. The hoarding of ideas and information benefit few and befall many.
In my mind, what we need is new and improved ways to reward creative people who come up with Good Ideas, without restricting other people's access to said Good Ideas.
People are demonstrably willing to pay for data that fulfills their needs and desires, and financially reward ideas that improve their lives. I'd like to think that in a more efficient economic system the same thing can happen, but with the difference that those willing to pay do so not just for their own personal access to data and ideas, but for everybody's. Everybody wins! -
^^ Hear hear.
Then again, I was a big fan of minstrels being paid with bread (or tomatoes if they sucked)...I've changed I think.