Quote:
Originally Posted by kennyc
If I create something it is my right to do with as I please.
|
You're making an argument on the basis of natural law and directly equating intellectual and real property. Fair enough, I'm sure there are many who would agree with you. I think this is overly simplistic.
Natural law is not solely concerned with the rights of the individual and the situation with regard to intellectual property is far more complex. The fundamental problem here is the relationship between the welfare of the individual and the welfare of the society in which he or she participates. Society benefits from the free flow of ideas, but it has long been recognised that the maintenance of this flow requires the imposition of certain restrictions. Society may be immediately enriched by the liberation of all current IP, but that would be at the expense of its future wealth, as further innovation would be locked away or simply stifled.
The Statute of Anne was the foundation of copyright, and also defined its fundamental purpose, "for the Encouragement of Learned Men to Compose and Write useful Books". Copyright and other IP law is part of the contract between an individual and society rather than an inherent right. Society benefits by encouraging the spread of ideas under conditions in which the author is rewarded, and the author benefits by receiving a greater reward than would have applied if he had not communicated his ideas.
The nature of ideas is also such that it is very difficult to assert categorical ownership. They do not spring into being
de novo, but are the result of a copious interaction. If I plough a field, plant seeds and harvest a crop, then all the labour involved in the crop's production is mine and I can justly claim complete ownership of it (even here I am sidestepping the issue of land ownership). If a child spends years being taught by others at school and university (a process which is massively subsidised in developed economies), becomes an engineer and then develops a new way of building a bridge, is that idea truly his? Would he have produced it without others to teach him to read and write and calculate? Would he have produced it without learning about other ways of building bridges? No. He deserves to be rewarded for his idea in the form of a patent, but the idea is not truly
his, it is a result of his interaction with the rich wealth of ideas that society has built up over time.
Who invented photography? It's estimated that there are around 20 people who have laid claim to that distinction. The truth is that photography was an almost inevitable emergence from the ideas present in Western society in the 1830s. Famously, the scientist William Herschel was able to develop the process himself simply on being informed that it was possible. It would be absurd to suggest that one person could lay claim to ownership of the idea of fixing a projected image on paper. There were plenty of patents granted, but they concerned evolution of the techniques required to render the process commercially useful.
The closest physical analogy for copyright infringement is fare dodging rather than theft. The train will stop at my station whether I board it or not, and it will stop there whether or not I pay my fare. But if I find it useful and don't pay the fare, then sooner or later the train company will look at their books and decide that it's not worth stopping at my station, meaning I'll have to walk. I may gain some immediate benefit from evading the fare, but ultimately I'll be far poorer.