Against Owning Information

[Nielsio]

(Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVusj2a0pzg )


People say: "You can't copy someone else's idea. That's stealing." ..I want to evaluate that statement.

Stealing means you are taking away something from someone, so that they no longer have it. So copying is not theft of any personal property, as that isn't taken away.

What could next be argued is that copying is the stealing of revenue. In other words, where stealing makes someone worse off right now, copying makes them worse off in the future.

There are other ways of making someone worse off in the future. Consider two producers of similar products. One of them can lower the other's revenue by:
Working harder and producing more, and then selling more at lower prices. Or by.. switching to a completely different kind of product. In the market, money can be spent on all sorts of goods, and more spent one place means less spent in another. Or by.. convincing people to change their habits. You can convince someone of desiring a less luxurious lifestyle for the sake of traveling more or spending more time with their children. Or by.. innovating. Creating products with new features or altogether new products can harm someone else's revenue.

What an entrepreneur does is anticipate future consumer desires, and then he combines and transforms resources in such a way that he expects to gain a higher reward than he incurred in costs. It remains up to consumers to trade with you if they think it benefits them.

The process of taking goods and turning them into more valuable goods is a creative process. It creates a trading opportunity for consumers that did not exist beforehand.

In the market we find information that helps us in this process. We find prices of things we may buy as inputs and we find prices that people are willing to pay for products that we want to compete with. We also see what those things are that people like, in what way they are being sold, and where and when. All this information has come available through the free choice of individuals.

What is valuable to the consumer, what is an innovation in the market, is an improvement on any of the characteristics of the existing product offerings: price, quality, functionality, location, time, format, et cetera.

I want to argue that any information that is voluntarily exposed to the public should be free to copy by others. If you send out information into society then that responsibility is on you. If you don't want that information to be used by others then you should keep it to yourself or treat it like a trade secret. This means that you contract with any person you give the information to that they keep it a secret.

Suppose your product is a book and you treat it as a trade secret. This means that bookstores cannot allow customers to browse through it without signing a highly demanding contract, that buyers cannot allow anyone else to see it and thus have to keep it locked up at all times, and that reviewers cannot talk about the content publicly at all. Such a business model is nonsensical for goods that you are trying to sell in large quantities and are easily copyable.

Entrepreneurship is a process involving unavoidable uncertainty; you cannot know if the profits of tomorrow will equal the profits of today. It is also the rational nature of man to improve his situation of tomorrow as compared with today. For both these reasons entrepreneurs continually try to improve on the cost of their production processes and on the value of their product offerings. It is up to them to find ways of recovering the cost of information intensive products voluntarily in the market, without resorting to the forceful hand of government power to threaten people who are doing nothing but offer consumers a product using information and techniques that were made discoverable voluntarily in society.


---

Here are some ideas on how to provide value in a digital world:

Better Than Free (by Kevin Kelly) - http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2008/01/better_than_fre.php

 

[JS80]

1) stupid arguments
2) what is your point?

 

[rudeguy]

1) stupid arguments
2) what is your point?

did the mods come up with a new rule?

 

[DominionSeraph]

IP protection does serve innovation. If there was no protection there would be far less incentive to put money into research.

If a pharmaceutical company makes a drug available, the information as to what is in that drug is likewise available. All you have to do is analyze the drug, and voilà.
No company is going to spend billions on multiple paths of research just to find the one needle in the haystack if they can't recoup their expenses.

Also, having everyone resort to cloak and dagger is inefficient, and it ends with corporations raising entire armies. This is a major threat to government authority.
It works much better when everything's out in the open with one nonpartisan force to regulate behavior among the parties.

 

[Zebo]

Founding father said it best:

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

 

[JSt0rm]

Piracy is stealing.

 

[BoberFett]

Piracy is stealing.

I'm sure that Life + 75 copyright has convinced John Lennon to create new music as we speak...

 

[DaveSimmons]

If every citizen could legally copy and distribute all books, music, movies, games, software, etc. without payment or consequence then one or both of these would happen:

1. There would be a lot less of the above created, and in general the quality would be lower. Try creating a $100 million dollar movie if you can only count on ticket sales, with no revenue from rentals, DVDs/blu-rays, cable, or network TV.

2. Whatever was available would have DRM that makes Ubisoft seem kindly, and would possibly only run on proprietary hardware (studio-controlled disc players you can only lease and not own, cable company boxes that only connect to cable company TVs?) as part of the arms race to slow down the copying.

 

[Zebo]

I'm sure that Life + 75 copyright has convinced John Lennon to create new music as we speak...

Corporations took over there too with a few well placed bribes. In founders days patents and copyrights were much much shorter.

 

[Tom]

your premise is wrong.

When you steal intellectual property, the owner lost somethng. You as a legal customer.

That's the same thing any merchant loses when you take something without paying for it.

 

[Fenixgoon]

your premise is wrong.

When you steal intellectual property, the owner lost somethng. You as a legal customer.

That's the same thing any merchant loses when you take something without paying for it.

the problem is that IP can be duplicated infinitely with no physical loss of goods.

when you steal an item from a store, you are depriving them of a physical good that they no longer have.

im not saying how penalties should/shouldn't be doled out. just that there *is* a difference between regular theft and piracy/IP theft.

 

[Tom]

the problem is that IP can be duplicated infinitely with no physical loss of goods.

when you steal an item from a store, you are depriving them of a physical good that they no longer have.

im not saying how penalties should/shouldn't be doled out. just that there *is* a difference between regular theft and piracy/IP theft.

There isn't any difference. You are looking at this from the wrong direction.

In both cases the loss is what wasn't paid that was supposed to be paid. It's the thief's actions, not the physicality, that defines theft.

You steal a mercant's physical item the loss is the non-payment, not the missing item.

Exactly the same thing with IP. The loss is your payment, the merchant doesn't still have that.

 

[wuliheron]

I'd just like to put it out there that if anyone here is against owning information I'm here to support you. I accept any and all credit card numbers, bank account numbers, passwords, etc.

 

[Doppel]

There isn't any difference. You are looking at this from the wrong direction.

In both cases the loss is what wasn't paid that was supposed to be paid. It's the thief's actions, not the physicality, that defines theft.

You steal a mercant's physical item the loss is the non-payment, not the missing item.

Exactly the same thing with IP. The loss is your payment, the merchant doesn't still have that.

No, they are absolutely not the same thing. Stealing in a classic sense is removing what you have and putting it in my possession. Stealing of IP is not removing anything from you, it is merely placing a copy with me. Whether you receive money or not is another matter. And you cannot pretend I stole money because if, for example, I wasn't going to buy your IP anyway then you've lost nothing. For example, do you truly believe that every piece of stolen software, music, movie would have otherwise been an actual sale? Of course not. Obviously not. Many of them would have been and these can more easily be defined as theft. A piece of information copied by a person who lacked the means or desire to pay for it if copying it wasn't possible represent zero loss to anybody, but rather a net gain (to them), no harm done.

 

[JSt0rm]

yes we have heard this argument many times. If a pirate has access to all media and software ever made at anytime for $0 then they will not spend any money for any of it. Are you saying this person, this zero, would never ever watch a movie, play a game or use software ever in their life?

 

[jackschmittusa]

If the creators of content cannot expect to be compensated for their work, they will all need day jobs to live. Content creation will become a hobby, with hobby class (read: mediocre) material. Compensation scaling with popularity is a powerful incentive to produce quality content.

The exception will be the very rich. They can subsidize content creation to support whatever their agendas are. Since shrinking the pool of contributors will not necessarily see a lower market demand, there may then be a far better chance for wide distribution of such agenda driven content.

 

[jackschmittusa]

Doppel

"A piece of information copied by a person who lacked the means or desire to pay for it if copying it wasn't possible represent zero loss to anybody, but rather a net gain (to them), no harm done."

It might be a loss to another who sells a cheaper product and loses a sale because a competing product was obtained for free.

If I need a car, and decide on buying a Chevy, then find I can get a Mercedes for free, Chevy loses a sale.

Just because someone pirates content they cannot afford to buy does not mean there is not a loss to a competitor who had a product within that person's means.

 

[Doppel]

Doppel

"A piece of information copied by a person who lacked the means or desire to pay for it if copying it wasn't possible represent zero loss to anybody, but rather a net gain (to them), no harm done."

It might be a loss to another who sells a cheaper product and loses a sale because a competing product was obtained for free.

If I need a car, and decide on buying a Chevy, then find I can get a Mercedes for free, Chevy loses a sale.

Just because someone pirates content they cannot afford to buy does not mean there is not a loss to a competitor who had a product within that person's means.

Perhaps in some cases. In others, though, if my budget for movies and music is $0 because I'm flat broke nobody is getting my money, period. I do no harm at all to anybody getting the stuff fro free. If anything, perhaps I realize I like an artist and encourage somebody else to check him out and they buy it.

The point being it's simply not black and white the theft of IP like the theft of a TV or a car is.

 

[Linflas]

It all comes down a misuse of the word "steal" when the correct term is "infringe". Copyright infringement is illegal and should be punished within the period of the copyright. That "steal" has become the defacto term means that the SPA and others have been quite successful in conflating the idea of copyright infringement with the stealing of goods and services when in fact they are quite different.

 

[Linflas]

If the creators of content cannot expect to be compensated for their work, they will all need day jobs to live. Content creation will become a hobby, with hobby class (read: mediocre) material. Compensation scaling with popularity is a powerful incentive to produce quality content.

The exception will be the very rich. They can subsidize content creation to support whatever their agendas are. Since shrinking the pool of contributors will not necessarily see a lower market demand, there may then be a far better chance for wide distribution of such agenda driven content.

How about network television programming? You have a model set up by the content creators themselves where they broadcast content over "public airwaves" free of charge for anyone with the ability to receive and view the content. They make their money by sharing that time with advertisers and whole new industries grew based on this model and the only real innovation and new source of profit came in the form of syndication rights prior to the development of video recorders affordable to the population at large. At that point they tried to make it illegal to record shows and ultimately lost that fight in the Supreme Court in Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc..

I would argue that they already had plenty of incentive to produce new content as there was an exisiting model they operated under for over 30 years prior to the development of the VCR. What they were seeking was to clamp down on a potential new revenue stream that would come their way by being the exclusive provider of a recorded version of their broadcast content. None of this in anyway entitles me as the end user to record their programming, reproduce it, and sell it. In that case I am profiting from their creative work and definitely infringing their copyright however if I record programming to watch at a later time convenient to me that should always be my right under fair use. These issues are not so black and white, good vs evil as some would like to make them out to be which is why I object to using the term "steal" in place of "infringe" because they are very different concepts.

Here is a link to a pretty good article written back when the Copyright Royalty Board was dealing with internet radio issues in 2007. Copyright Law and the CRB I know I was surprised to learn that prior to 1972 Congress had issued no copyright laws regarding sound recordings and that radio stations were free to play whatever records they wanted without paying royalties. Oddly enough this period is when the recording industry grew into the massively profitable industry it was at the dawn of the digital age.

 

[Tom]

No, they are absolutely not the same thing. Stealing in a classic sense is removing what you have and putting it in my possession. Stealing of IP is not removing anything from you, it is merely placing a copy with me. Whether you receive money or not is another matter. And you cannot pretend I stole money because if, for example, I wasn't going to buy your IP anyway then you've lost nothing. For example, do you truly believe that every piece of stolen software, music, movie would have otherwise been an actual sale? Of course not. Obviously not. Many of them would have been and these can more easily be defined as theft. A piece of information copied by a person who lacked the means or desire to pay for it if copying it wasn't possible represent zero loss to anybody, but rather a net gain (to them), no harm done.

I know what the justifications for stealing IP are. That doesn't change the fact that it's exactly the same as stealing a physical object.

What matters is the lost value to the original owner. Value isn't limited to physical objects.

I don't want to have an endless debate with someone who thinks stealing is ok as long as the thief can't afford it or doesn't want to pay.

That position is never going to get anywhere in any organized society. Debating it is as pointless as discussing legalizing drugs.

 

[ProfJohn]

The OP is an idiot who probably lives in his mothers basement or the back of an old Civic.

Looks to be the classic teenage anarchist who can't afford what he wants so he makes up excuses for his behavior. Read through some of his other posts and get a sense of his idiocy. (democracy = slavery etc)

What we should really do is gather people like him and send them to a country with real anarchy and see how he enjoys it. A few months in Somalia should enlighten him.

 

[Tom]

Perhaps in some cases. In others, though, if my budget for movies and music is $0 because I'm flat broke nobody is getting my money, period. I do no harm at all to anybody getting the stuff fro free. If anything, perhaps I realize I like an artist and encourage somebody else to check him out and they buy it.

The point being it's simply not black and white the theft of IP like the theft of a TV or a car is.

By your theory, stealing a car is fine as long as you give it back..

 

[Linflas]

By your theory, stealing a car is fine as long as you give it back..

I have to ask, if Doppel with his 0 dollars comes to my house and watches a movie on my TV is he "stealing" since you seem to insist on using that term for infringement? See it is not as black and white as you insist on making it with your stealing a car and returning it analogy. In my hypothetical he is within his and my fair use rights to view that DVD with me on my television, if he downloads it from a torrent and watches it on his own TV he is definitely infringing on the content producers copyright but it is in no way analogous to stealing a car and returning it. Note what I am defending here is the notion that in the Constitution Congress was given the power to grant "securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." They didn't consider these things to be mere property such as an automobile the theft of which is covered by common law.

 

[xj0hnx]

I know what the justifications for stealing IP are. That doesn't change the fact that it's exactly the same as stealing a physical object.

What matters is the lost value to the original owner. Value isn't limited to physical objects.

IP and physical items are completely different, and so is the theft of them. The "value to the original owner" of IP is only what he gets from the end user. If an end users was never going to buy a piece of software it has no value. If you write a program, once compiled into a usable executable you can endlessly produce copies of it, at little to no cost, the same can not be said for a CPU, or a TV.