Paco Bedejo
Master
What kind of job do you do? Does it have anything to do with providing IP to the market?
I work as a project manager/engineer for a manufacturing-supplier to the trade show industry. Part of my job is creation of designs & build specs for custom constructs assembled mostly from system parts. The systems are thinly-patented, but we & our competitors blatantly copy each other's designs. Competition & innovation run rampant in the industry & the end users are the better for it.
Here's my personal take. There are two types of property - tangible and intellectual (IP). We probably agree that depriving someone of tangible property is theft (assuming all the elements are there). If I am wrong let me know.
Here, we're in total agreement. Tangible theft deprives the rightful owner of their property.
There are two types of IP - IP surrounding design and IP that is desgned to be consumed. Product designs, architectural designs, eletronic design are examples of the first class. Music, and videoare the second. You could conside hardcopy books, DVDs, and CDs a hybrid of the two.
Why do you feel a need to differentiate? I think tangible -vs- intangible is the only differentiation required. Are you merely alluding to copyright -vs- patent?
Intellectual property rights protect the innovator. IP is the crown jewel of any business. I own a dot com and a firearms manufacturing company. My world revolves around my IP. If someone can take what I have spent a lot of time and money creating without exerting the discipline and expense I have they will have an incredible market advantage over me. Why would I innovate? Why not just steal from everyone else?
IMO, patents stifle innovation. If someone in 1920 had patented solid fuel rocket boosters & refused to license their patent, we'd have never gone to the moon. Patents are granted for obvious things too frequently. Torx-head screws are a great example.
You advocate a system that pays one time for a song that can be traded by people that do not pay for it.
That's an inaccurate assumption on your part. I advocate subscription systems like Netflix, Hulu, & Pandora. I gladly support the makers of media who realize their products aren't highly-valuable, tangible items. Subscription & ad-supported media is the way to go...paying for convenient delivery systems. The reality is that producers of digital media must compete with free distribution models (piracy IS unstoppable). Many producers who realize this are doing a great job competing by making their products conveniently available online at reasonable prices. Others, who continue to carry the old baggage of region-coding, DRM, unskippable trailers, or fragile physical media are doing poorly in the market.
There is no way to recover the cost of the production of music, videros, etc when people who are otherwise obligated consume it for free. Hate the music companies all you want but quality music will die without their business model. Why would a producer pay to develop a movie project if everyone just downloads it for free? You advocate actions that would kill these industries if ideals were implemented on a wide scale.
There are a lot of people who pirate all day long...then go out & purchase what they like in order to support the producer. The music industry, for example, refuses to admit that they're essentially peddling street musicians & trying to convince us that each deserves to live in a mansion. People willingly support street musicians they enjoy & people willingly support recorded musicians they enjoy. See Nine Inch Nail's free album downloads for an example of what I'm talking about. (BTW, I'm not a fan, personally)
nin.com [the official nine inch nails website] albums
IP rights aren't about the government picking winners and losers.
Apple Gets Samsung Tab Banned in EU
If you can patent a form-factor as blatantly plain & obvious as the iPad...
They aren't about protecting monopolies or outdated business models. They exist to ensure that people and organizations that create intellectual property are properly compensated for the [STRIKE]output[/STRIKE] use of their work, whether it is for [STRIKE]building or selling a car[/STRIKE], writing a computer program, or producing and selling a song.
In that attempt, a long-term monopoly on ideas, sounds, & images is created. The free market would support the innovators who can also effectively produce & punish those pushing drivel (e.g. much of today's auto-tuned music) or not effectively producing their innovations.
I get that you don't like intellectual property rights - your views are classic anarchist. I think that people are entitled to the wealth of the fruits of their labor.
If the fruits of your labor are freely & infinitely reproducible & you choose to send that product out into the world, you shouldn't expect to be paid every.single.time someone uses/views the product. Those who appreciate your labors will compensate you. You're not entitled to compensation from those who don't appreciate your labor, as long as they're not depriving you of freedom or property. I have great respect for companies who don't tell me how much I must pay for their intangible products, but instead set up a PayPal account & permit me to compensate them commensurate with my level of appreciation for their product.
I think people that steal other people's IP are thieves and should have the s**t beat out of them. They should be bankrupted and should have to pay obsene amounts of restitution for their theft.
I wonder, did you properly license the photo you use as your INGO avatar?