Archive of UserLand's first discussion group, started October 5, 1998.

Re: got IP game?

Author:Jim Lyon
Posted:9/21/2000; 4:19:05 PM
Topic:got IP game?
Msg #:21614 (In response to 21612)
Prev/Next:21613 / 21615

Unfortunately folks use the IP term to refer to two mostly unrelated things. The issue of piracy applies to the one not relevant here, which is whether existing material is copied or propagated. We should be discussing only issues involved in the creation of IP, and things that impact that, like patents and other folderol that aim to interfere with the ability of folks to make things at all.

I don't believe that we can easily separate the two issues. The line between copying and creating is by no means clear-cut. I might copy an MP3 while creating a play-list. Or maybe I might copy an MP3 while creating an experience in which the play-list was a component. I might copy a piece of code while creating a different piece of code.

Instead, I start with a few of assumptions / axioms:

  1. The purpose of IP is to encourage creation.
  2. Laws that are widely violated are harmful to the social contract and should be avoided.
  3. Any creation that consists [almost] entirely of information can and will be easily copied.

It's also interesting to note that today, a patent is a reward for telling the world how you did something. It's not a reward for creating; it's a reward for publishing. So there's an interesting tension -- if I figure out how to do something, you can read all about it, but you can't take action based on what you read.

I probably wouldn't throw out the entire system and start from scratch, but I would try to redirect it closer to its original roots. If I were making the rules, then:

  1. Patents would be much harder to get, particularly in information-based areas. I would dramatically raise the obviousness bar. I would consider a limit on the number of patents issued each year -- if your invention isn't one of the 100 most important things created this year, you can't patent it.
  2. Copyrights would only prohibit the systematic (and possibly commercial) copying of the expression of information. People who publish information will just have to get used to the idea that the public will do various amounts of non-commercial, non-systematic copying.
  3. I would consider dramatically shortening the term of both patents and copyrights. Knowing that you can profit from your work for the first 5 years probably does encourage creation, but knowing that you could profit from it for the next 90 years probably adds very little incentive.
It seems clear that lots of information-based industries are going to have their business models upset. Today it's music. Yesterday, it was print. Tomorrow, it will be movies. Software gets it at various times, depending on its size and available copying bandwidth.

There are responses to this message:

This page was archived on 6/13/2001; 4:56:49 PM.

© Copyright 1998-2001 UserLand Software, Inc.