Intellectual Property and pink socks
p2pnet news view Freedom | P2P:- Freedom of speech means you should be able to say or publish anything at any time without physical restraint or interference, eg censorship.
Liberty means there are repercussions for certain speech, especially authoritative publication, eg malicious falsehood, violations of privacy, threats to life.
Thus if you publish the knowledge (obtained by a tip-off from a burglar who snuck into Fred Smith`s bedroom via a poorly secured window and peeked into their sock drawer) that Fred Smith has pink socks, then this is to compound the burglar`s privacy violation.
Fred Smith own`s the colour of his socks, but the colour of his socks is not intellectual property, ie it can`t be transferred because it is not identifiable as a distinct/independent work and thus can`t comprise property. However, his socks can be transferred of course, as material and intellectual property, given the sock represents both a material as well as an intellectual work. The colour of the socks comprises part of the intellectual work that the socks represent (their shape, design, weave, fibre, pattern, colour, etc).
If the burglar had taken a photo of the socks then this would constitute IP theft, since the image of the sock captures a large part of the intellectual work the sock comprises, and is also able to identify the intellectual work.
However, no-one has a natural right to a monopoly, whether in the material design of the sock or its visual appearance. Once you`ve bought Fred Smith`s socks (if he wanted to sell them) you can naturally copy them to your heart`s content and are also as a consequence able to publicise the fact that Fred sold you some pink socks (if you don`t think your reputation will suffer for such an indiscretion). Then again, if by some coincidence you unwittingly produced a pair of socks that were indistinguishable from Fred`s, well, that`s fine too (however you won`t necessarily know that Fred has a pair just like them).
This is how intellectual property works without monopoly. There are still laws against copying intellectual work, it`s just that they`re restored in alignment with natural law, ie you can copy what you privately possess, but not that which someone else privately possesses. Your freedom is not unethically constrained by being prohibited from invading or violating another`s privacy.
But most importantly, your freedom is not constrained due to the granting of unnatural monopolies of copyright and patent to mass producers of copies and devices. Such monopolies are unethical and should be abolished.
Without monopoly, intellectual property is natural, along with natural intellectual property rights.
Crosbie Fitch – Digital Productions
[Fitch says he's researching and developing revenue mechanisms and business models for producers of digital art and in the process, 'has discovered that copyright is not only an ineffective anachronism, but is unethical and unconstitutional'.]
April, 2009
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It`s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
