Eminent Domain For Knowledge

[crich70]

Originally Posted by witeowl

I didn't refuse; I didn't know. How was I supposed to know that there was a notice posted at the Alpha Centuri Planning Department? I didn't even know that there WAS an Alpha Centuri Planning Department!

The plans have been on display at the Alpha Centuri Planning Department for the last 50 years, more than enough time for you to lodge a complaint.

[Hellmark]

Considering how much eminent domain has been abused, I really wouldn't want it to happen anymore than it has.

If it were to be applied to intellectual property, the argument could be made that formulas to make medicine would be for the public interest, and taken. The company that spent millions on researching would not be able to recoup all of their money, let alone profit. After that, why would the company, or others in the field put forth the time, effort, and money, to simply have what they do taken away from them. Now, before you say "but eminent domain is supposed to require that the people who have their property taken are compensated", understand that they rarely get what their full value is. I know from personal experience, after losing my family home this way. The amount I was given was less than half of the market value, because of how they valued it. It was 5 acres and a house in the middle of a city, but the given value was based on what similarly sized homes in the area appraised at. It didn't matter that similar homes in the area were on eighth to quarter acre lots. Even still, when it comes to intellectual property, how can you effectively come up with a price tag? Normally you would take bids, to see what others are willing to pay. You can't really do an appraisal like with real estate. Plus, more often than not anymore, the property isn't held and used by the government after it is taken via eminent domain, but rather used for other companies. For instance, the reason my home was taken, was because a developer needed more land for a sewage system for an office complex they just built. A friend of mine had the building he owned for his store taken, because the city he was in felt that it would be more beneficial to have a large strip mall, than a handful of small stores. In both cases, the cities in question took the land, gave a pittance, and then sold the land to developers. The developers profited, since they were able to get the land for less through the government than if they bought it outright, and also didn't have to worry about people not wanting to sell, since the deal was forced.

[khalleron]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

We can come up with a new term if you like. Eminent domain just sounded reasonable to me, seizure of goods by the state/public for the public good. It would be good for the public to have access to all knowledge yes?

That's why we have libraries.

Move along, nothing to see here.

[Penforhire]

The expiration of patents accomplishes this for medical drugs, when they are allowed to go generic. The expiration of copyright accomplish this for written works. I wouldn't want to see government take any active hand in deciding what materials get put into the public domain early.

Besides, doesn't current "fair use" cover all public need for the usurping of rights you're suggesting?

If you start doing it willy-nilly then you stifle private investment (e.g. drug development). No profit means no incentive to do it, aside fom humanitarian motivations. That and $2.00 gets you a large cup of coffee at Starbucks.

[6charlong]

Your premise is false as regards United States at least. The sole authority granted the government to control books is in Article 1, Section 8: "The congress shall have power...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."

The government lacks authority to take control of intellectual property. Eminent Domain applies to land because all land in every nation since ancient times until the present, all land belongs to the sovereign. Your purchase of land is the purchase of a freehold to develop the land, which you do own, but ownership of the land itself belongs to the sovereign and the sovereign always retains the right to reclaim what is his. (In a democracy the whole people are sovereign.)

In the United State the Bill or Rights expressly forbids the government to interfere with the free speech of the people or with the publishing of ideas. (Yeah, they were pretty well radical those founders.)

Now if you want to argue that the way DRM is presently being used to breech the rights of Authors and Publishers to the benefit of book sellers, then you might be able to make a case. But eminent domain clearly doesn't apply.

[anamardoll]

More to the point, I question the premise that intellectual property laws cover "information" as opposed to, say, the way in which that information is presented.

If a new Sarah Palin expose comes out claiming that, say, Sarah Palin eats kittens for breakfast, I believe it would be within the author's rights to insist that newspapers NOT quote or reproduce the chapter on the kitten eating, nor to print the photographic proof of the kitten eating...

...but just printing the fact that "New Sarah Palin expose contends that the former Alaskan governor eats kittens for breakfast" would not be covered under IP laws. If I understand correctly, the author wouldn't be able to demand that the newspaper not print the claim because "People have to read the book to find that out!"

So, in other words, the government can't seize IP rights in order to keep the public informed because IP rights don't prevent the spread of information. IP rights prevent the spread of CERTAIN FORMATTING of that information -- i.e., the author's exact wording and illustrations.

IANAL, so the above may be laughably wrong.

And, uh, no offense to Ms. Palin.

[Piper_]

Current copyright laws need a serious pruning.

But arguments for axing copyright just poison the well of the efforts to prune copyright. Axing it is a political DOA, and the rhetoric and false analogies are credibility killers.

e.g., There is a continual effort to conflate "knowledge" with "work." (Because it's much easier to argue for "free knowledge" than "free fruits of Joe's labor.")

But books are works -- not just "knowledge," thoughts, or ideas, effortlessly pulled out of the producer's ear with Dumbledore's wand. They are developed, constructed, and produced, through time and energy. Work.

I too want everyone to be able to read the great works. I'd just much rather achieve that simply and fairly, by limiting the copyright terms and making currently-copyrighted works available in libraries, etc.

[Piper_]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

More to the point, I question the premise that intellectual property laws cover "information" as opposed to, say, the way in which that information is presented.

If a new Sarah Palin expose comes out claiming that, say, Sarah Palin eats kittens for breakfast, I believe it would be within the author's rights to insist that newspapers NOT quote or reproduce the chapter on the kitten eating, nor to print the photographic proof of the kitten eating...

...but just printing the fact that "New Sarah Palin expose contends that the former Alaskan governor eats kittens for breakfast" would not be covered under IP laws. If I understand correctly, the author wouldn't be able to demand that the newspaper not print the claim because "People have to read the book to find that out!"

So, in other words, the government can't seize IP rights in order to keep the public informed because IP rights don't prevent the spread of information. IP rights prevent the spread of CERTAIN FORMATTING of that information -- i.e., the author's exact wording and illustrations.

IANAL, so the above may be laughably wrong.

And, uh, no offense to Ms. Palin.

Exactly. I had written in my post above (phone calls made it take me about 4 hours to finish ).

"Barring a non-disclosure agreements, copyright does not forbid our "sharing the knowledge".

Read a great book, go to a great lecture? Feel free to publish a blog or youtube sharing the knowledge you gleaned from it.

You just can't put up a copy other people's work."

I deleted it for the sake of length and not opening the derivative works can of worms, but I still think "work" vs "knowledge" is a critical distinction.

[anamardoll]

Haha, yes, I also do the 4-hour posts sometimes. Easy for something to distract me from the Quick Reply box.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

So, in other words, the government can't seize IP rights in order to keep the public informed because IP rights don't prevent the spread of information. IP rights prevent the spread of CERTAIN FORMATTING of that information -- i.e., the author's exact wording and illustrations.

Well It does seem that a majority of the united states congress does feel that way, but I question whether congress has thought seriously about what it means to format.

Does a conversion from mobi to epub count as a formatting change? I would argue that it does. You would probably say I am being ridiculous but that is beside the point.

IT FEELS AS THOUGH WE WANT TO SPREAD INFORMATION BUT WE ARE HOLDING OURSELVES BACK FOR SOME UNKNOWN REASON.

[anamardoll]

No. That is classic "Four Terms Fallacy".

The English word "format" has many definitions. I used "format" to mean the exact way in which the author expressed their thoughts: their words, their pictures, and the order in which they are arranged. You used "format" to refer to the means by which that data is stored on a computer.

They are not the same thing.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

No. That is classic "Four Terms Fallacy".

The English word "format" has many definitions. I used "format" to mean the exact way in which the author expressed their thoughts: their words, their pictures, and the order in which they are arranged. You used "format" to refer to the means by which that data is stored on a computer.

They are not the same thing.

There are algorithms that can reword sentences, would sending a book through this algorithm result in a formatting change? Why even bother trying to draw the line at this point?

[crich70]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

No. That is classic "Four Terms Fallacy".

The English word "format" has many definitions. I used "format" to mean the exact way in which the author expressed their thoughts: their words, their pictures, and the order in which they are arranged. You used "format" to refer to the means by which that data is stored on a computer.

They are not the same thing.

Sort of the same distinction between Internet and internet then. Internet refers to the World Wide Web as a whole with all its billions of connections but internet refers to a local network such as within an office building. So my Dr. might go on the Internet to check his mail but on the internet at the clinic to check to see if my lab results have come back yet for example.

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by crich70

Sort of the same distinction between Internet and internet then. Internet refers to the World Wide Web as a whole with all its billions of connections but internet refers to a local network such as within an office building. So my Dr. might go on the Internet to check his mail but on the internet at the clinic to check to see if my lab results have come back yet for example.

Yes. The fallacy would occur if someone said,

The Internet is not secure; there are hackers that could steal patients' data.
Therefore we must stop using the internet.

The argument relies on a bait-and-switch at the end that really only works if the two words are homonyms. If you called Internet "World Wide Web" and internet "LAN", then the argument wouldn't work anymore.

The World Wide Web is not secure; there are hackers that could steal patients' data.
Therefore we must stop using the LAN.

[elcreative]

Local networks within office buildings etc. already have a term - intranet and internet refers to the whole system which includes the WWW but is also Usenet, email and other things such as IRC so the whole "bait'n'switch only works by using terminology incorrectly anyway...