Intellectual Property

[Tricone RC]

Was thinking today about the ideas that underlie intellectual property. Some of the nuttier libertarian fellas argue that IP essentially constitutes a government-mandated monopoly, and thus is unfair. That is one area where I would concievably agree with them. The conventional defence of IP goes that people wouldn't bother to create anything if their creations weren't defended by law. But on this very forum you can see countless people offering their own musics with little realistic expectation of monetary gain (or expecting monetary gain through other means e.g. voluntary purchases, gigs etc). On the whole, I see people putting their own trax up not for money, but because they love it.

So does this community offer proof of the libertarian perspective? Or is it a bit of a bubble where normal rules don't apply?

[eugene]

maybe the music on this forum isn't really intellectual enough to be considered intellectual property?

 

but yeah, there's not a libertarian principle that isn't completely retarded and that has anything to do with how things roll irl.

[Candiru]

IPM

 

Intellectual Property Music

[goDel]

In the context of the pharmaceutical industry (and computer/it for that matter) I do think it's a problem. I see the industry literally building a business model on protecting IP (and tax evasion), rather than actually innovating for the greater good.

When it comes to individual artists, I can imagine IP might present some form of protection against copycats with more resources to release music. But even that argument feels redundant nowadays. As releasing music is as democratic as it has ever been. Everyone can have the equipment (like a computer). And a thing like bandcamp is world wide, instantly. Although some of the logistics can still be a bitch (ask JR about the Kickstarter). But some of that has got to do with ambitions. If your name is Jodey Kendrick and you want to release three compilations. Each volume on a different format (vinyl, tape, cd). .... Yeah that's gotta be a logistic bitch.

 

Back on topic: yeah I think the world would be a better place without IP. It would democratise innovations in various industries. And I seriously doubt whether the creative industry would suffer much, without IP.

[blackdust]

Apprently my company owns my IP in a new contract they gave us this week. I'm a factory worker. Wtf do they think I'm going cone up with??

[chim]

IP is about more than money, even in a free distribution environment, you don't see people laying claims to other peoples' works, and people are quite keen on asking permission to remix etc. The various forms of Creative Commons licenses are a great way to handle the grey areas of sampling and collaborating as well. Anyway, when the originator gives it out for free, that's their choice and it's great, but if the person sells it, that should be respected - it's about supporting the artists and its percieved value - I regularly tell various bandcamp acts they should sell their music instead of giving it away.

 

There are more people than you think around these parts earning a living from their talents in some form or other, and their contributions are equal to providing any other vital service in my book. I'm not a huge fan of rules and stuff but all work should be respected, and there aren't many sensible alternatives when someone like Timbaland decides to steal your hook. However in the pharmaceutical industry, laying claims to strands of DNA or whatever it is they're doing, I think it's absolutely horrendous.

[Candiru]

Patenting molecules and proteins is the only way outta tha hood so you best be on yo grind

[doublename]

They killed my chemistry teacher over dem sour diesel molecules, for real.