Should Intellectual Property exist?

[Plains-Cow]

Yelling at strawmen rather than asking questions seldom encourages others to provide explanations.

As to Crezth's question, that's...a broad and weirdly phrased question; I'm not sure what you're looking for. I'll give some indications that I believe to be relevant, but I may be wrong.

So, beyond the obvious (the state make intellectual properties systems, like any other law), I will begin by pointing out that in almost all forms, copyright, patent and trademark as concept all have their origins long before the rise of the corporate-industrial world order: the concept of a unique identifying mark that identified a good as having been produced by one specific creator emerges at least as far back as medieval artisans; that of an inventor being granted a limited monopoly to the use of their invention likewise (maybe even before), appearing in medieval times; and the concept that the author and publisher of a work should not be undercut by rivals republishing their worl behind them emerges shortly after the Printing Press. Of the three, patents (inventor's monopoly) was codified in law at least by the time of Renaissance Venice, likely earlier; Copyright took legal form over the course of the eighteenth century; and only trademark emerges into law in a firmly industrial-capitalist society dominated by recognizable modern corporations, in the late nineteenth century.

In general, the beneficiaries were, by and large, artisans and creators, since the kind of large investors-centered business ventures with armies of lawyers' we're familiar with were largely still in infancy at this point. It allowed those who took the actual material risks and did the actual work to benefit from their own creations, rather than watching other people who had done very little swoop in and reap the profit on the work these people had done.

What makes these systems different from each other is their purposes and methods. They protect different things (trademark protect symbols, copyright protects works and patents protect ideas), in different manners (trademark generally require a risk of confusion with the trademark owner; copyright prevent copying a substantial part of the work; and patents protect any use of the patented idea), for different periods (trademark is renewable at will, so in theory can be forever; copyright is a one-time protection good for an extended term, and patent is a one-time protection for a limited term), for different reasons (trademark laws aim to prevent impersonation, copyright law to protect an author right to benefit from their work, and patent law to incentivize inventors and researchers to share their ideas with the world while also letting them benefit from their work).

Unrelated, what IS an idea that was squarely created by, and for the benefit of, capitalist corporate interests is the notion that artists, inventors and other creators SHOULDN'T be in it for the money. That their real reward is the satisfaction of creation and monetary rewards are unimportant in comparison, not something they should strive for, unless they want to be sell-outs who care morr about money than artistic integrity. Likewise the glorification of the artist struggling in poverty as the true artist. That is a naked excuse to devalue the work of creators to the benefit of investors.

Consequenrly, so-called opponent of the corporate capitalist approach to art really shouldn't be repeating that one.

I feel like a lot of words are being put in my mouth that I'm not saying. First, I'm not yelling at anyone. Second, I'm not targeting any strawmen. Third, I'm not calling anyone a "sellout" for making money doing what they enjoy. My point is that if the first goal with anything is to make money and then the rest is secondary, say, if designing a new medicine, then eventually the people working on R&D will discover that it's far easier to exploit the current IP system we have and look for ways to consolidate molecular formulas under their "ownership" and then jack up the prices rather than focusing on making better drugs or treatments. Artists who are more worried about making money are going to be more worried about dollar bills than credit. Notice that the attention is always on how much money they're losing out on rather than the manipulation of their message or plagiarism. Abolishing current IP laws will help alleviate creators' fears so they can create without worry about having their money "stolen" since nobody will be able to own thoughts (which is already impossible; we just pretend it isn't via copyright and related IP laws).

 

[Valka D'Ur]

It actually sounds like some here would prefer the Star Trek (Berman era) take on society where Picard lives in his little utopian bubble of no money, nobody cares about material goods, and everyone works for the sole purpose of "bettering" themselves because all their conceivable wants are taken care of. He conveniently forgets that his own CMO has a charge account on the ship and that his original security chief grew up on a colony where the rule of law had broken down and the society reverted to barbarism. It doesn't even occur to him that when he and Ro Laren are posing as a hooker and her customer on a mission, that at some point he has to act like he's paying her. Apparently he believes that they do it to "better" themselves.

This appears to be something that the starship captains of that era are taught to believe, since Sisko and even Jake believe it on Deep Space Nine.

I don't remember the episode title, but there's a DS9 episode in which Jake is excited that his book was accepted for publication and he'll be a professional author. Nog congratulates him and the conversation breaks down into mutual when Nog asks Jake how much profit he's going to get from his book and Jake is bewildered. "Nothing," he says, as though the idea of being paid for his writing is the most bizarre thing ever. It's equally bizarre to Nog that Jake would not be paid for his book. Apparently adding stories to the sum total of human literature is all the reward Jake could ever want, since the Magic Replicator takes care of all his other needs.

 

[Evie]

Crezth - some interesting points on the ties with capitalists, though I would be remiss not to point out that some scholars think patents can be dated back to the Kingdom of Jerusalem, if not according to some even as far back as Ancient Greece. But assumign the more commonly given 15th century, yes, it is a potential explanation. Of course, correlation and causation and whatnot - that two things happened in roughtly contemporaneous period does not indicate that one happened because of the other! - but there is the potential for a link. I will however note that part of the reason copyright developed when and where it did is the devlopment of the printing industry, which created the problem of mass-produced copies in the first place; that had of course never been an issue in the day of handwritten manuscripts where it would often take almost as long to copy a book as it did to write it.

However, here is the kicker: the copyright provides no value or protection to the artist at all once the Work is sold.

Instead, the copyright now provides protection to the new owner of it. The artist accepted whatever negotiated rate for the production of the art up-front, and in exchange the new rights owner has a monopoly over that art for all their own commercial purposes. This is potentially many-multiple-times more valuable than the cost of producing the art (the wage paid to the artist), and for decades hence is the sole province of the buyer.

Well...not really, no.

It is rare for entire copyrights to be sold as a whole. Generally, if a company hold full copyrights to a work, it is because that work was created as work-for-hire on their behalf by people they hired and directed to create that specific work, not because they purchased the entire copyright of the work. This is true even in the case of a unique physical work: even if you sell the actual painting, you aren't selling the copyright to it, or any right but the ownership of the one physical copy, until and unless that is explicitly included in the contract (likewise, though the original manuscripts of the Lord of the Rings are owned by Marquette University, the copyright of the Lord of the Rings very much remain with the Tolkien estate).

Far more common, when a work is created by an individual creator not working for hire, is that individual rights that make up the copyright will be negotiated separately. The right of publishing in one language, the right of publishing in another language, the right to make a theatrical adaptation, the right to make a video game adaptation, the right to make a televisual adaptation, the right to make a cinematic adaptation, etc. Moreover, beneath those rights there remain the most fundamental right of the author: the right to create further works derived from the original (ie, sequels, prequels, midquels, companion series, etc), and the right to modify the original (write a modified second edition, etc). Sales of those rights, particularly in the same. So, it will be really rare that an artist retain no right based on their copyright.

On top of which, those sales are by contracts, and owning the copyright does give the artist some leeway in being able to pressure for certain clauses in the contract (that are becoming increasingly common as artists are increasingly becoming aware of their rights and increasingly in communication with each other, as often happens), that can grant the artist some degree of continued control or benefits from the work: additional pay per copy sold past a certain threshold is one common example, of course, but increasingly prevalent in modern discussion is the right of reversion, that allow the rights being contracted away to revert back to the artist if the publisher or other right holder fail to actually use them. Other clauses may allow the artists to impose certain limitations or forms of control in other ways on the rights being sold.

 

[Crezth]

Crezth - some interesting points on the ties with capitalists, though I would be remiss not to point out that some scholars think patents can be dated back to the Kingdom of Jerusalem, if not according to some even as far back as Ancient Greece. But assumign the more commonly given 15th century, yes, it is a potential explanation. Of course, correlation and causation and whatnot - that two things happened in roughtly contemporaneous period does not indicate that one happened because of the other! - but there is the potential for a link. I will however note that part of the reason copyright developed when and where it did is the devlopment of the printing industry, which created the problem of mass-produced copies in the first place; that had of course never been an issue in the day of handwritten manuscripts where it would often take almost as long to copy a book as it did to write it.

Yes, absolutely, and the problem of mass-produced copies on those terms also coincides with the problem of mass book sales! This is the phenomenon that we can identify as proto-capitalist, or perhaps just capitalist, really, albeit the early twinklings of it. No longer simply the purvue of book artisans, it was now possible for a printing press owner to create a publishing company that significantly reduced the need for such artisans. Thus did the balance of power shift away from artisans and towards capitalists, beginning the process that has continued to and resulted in the modern day.

Well...not really, no.

It is rare for entire copyrights to be sold as a whole. Generally, if a company hold full copyrights to a work, it is because that work was created as work-for-hire on their behalf by people they hired and directed to create that specific work, not because they purchased the entire copyright of the work. This is true even in the case of a unique physical work: even if you sell the actual painting, you aren't selling the copyright to it, or any right but the ownership of the one physical copy, until and unless that is explicitly included in the contract (likewise, though the original manuscripts of the Lord of the Rings are owned by Marquette University, the copyright of the Lord of the Rings very much remain with the Tolkien estate).

Far more common, when a work is created by an individual creator not working for hire, is that individual rights that make up the copyright will be negotiated separately. The right of publishing in one language, the right of publishing in another language, the right to make a theatrical adaptation, the right to make a video game adaptation, the right to make a televisual adaptation, the right to make a cinematic adaptation, etc. Moreover, beneath those rights there remain the most fundamental right of the author: the right to create further works derived from the original (ie, sequels, prequels, midquels, companion series, etc), and the right to modify the original (write a modified second edition, etc). Sales of those rights, particularly in the same. So, it will be really rare that an artist retain no right based on their copyright.

On top of which, those sales are by contracts, and owning the copyright does give the artist some leeway in being able to pressure for certain clauses in the contract (that are becoming increasingly common as artists are increasingly becoming aware of their rights and increasingly in communication with each other, as often happens), that can grant the artist some degree of continued control or benefits from the work: additional pay per copy sold past a certain threshold is one common example, of course, but increasingly prevalent in modern discussion is the right of reversion, that allow the rights being contracted away to revert back to the artist if the publisher or other right holder fail to actually use them. Other clauses may allow the artists to impose certain limitations or forms of control in other ways on the rights being sold.

I was speaking generally; of course I understand that in reality, there has been an enormous amount of interrogation on this point of who owns the rights to what. But let's make this point clear: the trend has been for the enrichment of the media conglomerates, not the artists or "creators" in themselves. Residuals, for example, are a hard-fought right that is also very unequally granted to different tiers of creators. The advantage is against the creator from the get, and in favor of the conglomerate which wields the power to actually distribute a media product. This is also not-insignificantly-related to the ongoing strikes of the WGA and the SAG-AFTRA, who are protesting the immensely unequal terms on which creative labor is negotiated in the present economy.

You can always point to a few very successful artists who are inspirational success stories about how this system enriches both media group and creator alike. But these are in the withering minority of actual creators. Most creators, by sheer market logic, will never be able to command enough distinction in labor negotiation to profit off of their own creations. If they could, it wouldn't really be profitable to sell their work; you want the cheapest work you can get that you still think will sell. The creators then are only "profiting" off of their wage, which they would do even if all they were being paid to do was fill in holes with dirt. Even the negotiable rights you point to are really bourgeois rights, not worker rights; they are rights that describe how the property can be used if and only if the property can be distributed to a mass market. The artist is at all points stuck between their dependence on the copyright media industry system, and the bitter irony of having to trade the actual profits just for a handful of soup.

Now of course it's not slavery, but my original point remains that copyright, far from benefiting artists, is really just the sheer minimum to make commercial art possible, the sheer minimum to allow those artists to begin to live off their art, and really exists so that industrial media groups with the means of production as well as distribution can turn art into media products. It is the same with patents and engineering and industrial concerns like pharmaceuticals.

 

[Crezth]

It actually sounds like some here would prefer the Star Trek (Berman era) take on society where Picard lives in his little utopian bubble of no money, nobody cares about material goods, and everyone works for the sole purpose of "bettering" themselves because all their conceivable wants are taken care of. He conveniently forgets that his own CMO has a charge account on the ship and that his original security chief grew up on a colony where the rule of law had broken down and the society reverted to barbarism. It doesn't even occur to him that when he and Ro Laren are posing as a hooker and her customer on a mission, that at some point he has to act like he's paying her. Apparently he believes that they do it to "better" themselves.

I suppose if you're rich, caring about material goods is nice, but not everyone is rich. They care because they have to, not because it's some awesome privilege.

 

[Evie]

The WGA and SAG strikes, while very important, are only tangentially related to copyright at best (mostly because of the AI writing issue on the WGA side which also raises copyright questions), since SAG members don’t have any copyright claims to movie they’re in (they’re not the creators) and WGA members would generally be considered workers for hire (so no copyright) in this case .

The other IP issue that’s significant to the strikes is right to one own image (in relation to deep fake work), but while there is a relation to IP it’s definitely not copyright.

In short what you’re hearing about those strikes actually had very little applicability to copyright matters. And much of what you’re describing, particularly the use of the term residuals, seem to relate to that industry. Copyright holders would generally be paid royalties, not residuals.

I would prefer, too, a society where basic needs are seen too and people are free to seek whatever reward they prefer - additional comfort, gratitude, self-satisfaction, fame and exposure, what have you - for their work. But absent that society, and given a world where individuals must concern themselves with their basic needs, then some protection of their means of survival are better than none.

And even in that society creators should still be free to share their creations as they will, with who they will, for such rewards, material or spiritual or other, as they will. Not forced to do so, nor mandated to accept specific rewards.

 

[amadeus]

You know that at the end of the day, everyone hand-wringing about copyright in any position of power is simply seeking to extract as much money as possible from the faulty notion that they "own" a thought.

Again, I don’t accept this premise that thoughts are being claimed to ownership. It is the labor, the cost of production, that is being protected.

This ties in to something else: if you, the general you so this applies to everyone, believe that if thoughts can not be “owned,” should we do away with libel and slander laws? This is something that Walter Block talked about in libertarian theory, which I found intriguing: Block argued if I recall correctly that they should be scrapped because one’s reputation is simply the thoughts of other people, and no one has the right to claim someone else’s thoughts as their own.

 

[Evie]

Correct. “Owning a thought” is a simple strawmanny misrepresentation of IP, as previously discussed.

Hard to take seriously

 

[Crezth]

The WGA and SAG strikes, while very important, are only tangentially related to copyright at best (mostly because of the AI writing issue on the WGA side which also raises copyright questions), since SAG members don’t have any copyright claims to movie they’re in (they’re not the creators) and WGA members would generally be considered workers for hire (so no copyright) in this case .

The other IP issue that’s significant to the strikes is right to one own image (in relation to deep fake work), but while there is a relation to IP it’s definitely not copyright.

In short what you’re hearing about those strikes actually had very little applicability to copyright matters. And much of what you’re describing, particularly the use of the term residuals, seem to relate to that industry. Copyright holders would generally be paid royalties, not residuals.

I must insist that it's far more than tangential. Copyright, because of its centrality to commercial art production, is at the core of the contradiction driving this strike onwards. It represents the bone of contention between, yes, your AI art production methods and those of your art workers. The nature of copyright being what it is, you have in the AI art thread right now a body of commenters - some of whom take a pro-IP position in this thread - who are bemoaning the fact that there is no way to protect the collective, ambiguous "art" available on the Internet from that which is being farmed for statistical algorithms, being repurposed in AI-generated art. On the level, copyright law says that this is all and completely fine. Yet, clearly it is only really fine for the major media groups.

This strike represents a crisis within Hollywood that has manifested exactly from the unequal situation of rights as they pertain to both copyright and mass media production. At the end of the day, the question is really "Who deserves to make money for this thing?" Copyright law demonstrates that oftentimes, it is actually not even the creators.

I would prefer, too, a society where basic needs are seen too and people are free to seek whatever reward they prefer - additional comfort, gratitude, self-satisfaction, fame and exposure, what have you - for their work. But absent that society, and given a world where individuals must concern themselves with their basic needs, then some protection of their means of survival are better than none.

Preference has nothing to do with it. I don't think capitalist copyright does all that much to protect the means of creators' survival, and it certainly doesn't do much to prevent their exploitation.

 

[Evie]

I mean, you’re using the abuse by the film industry of people who DO NOT have copyright protection (because they do work for hire, essentially; and also because copyright is at its heart a concept that was coined for work with a limited number of creators ; subdividing copyright into 1/200th of copyright between all the people involved in a film would be wildly impractical) as evidence that copyright does not protect people. Which is pretty meaningless. And the fact that copyright does not protect them does not imply that they would be better off if it didn't exist.

There are philosophical connections between copyright and the strike, but nothing being discussed in the context of the strike is illustrative of the workings of copyright, because copyright is not meant to apply to the people striking.

As best as I know (and I know a very fair amount) the question of copyright and AI art is actually far from settled, And legal opinions are far from unanimous in the matter, so saying copyright is powerless in the matter is at best premature. Even if the law as currently written fails to address a new problem - and it is new - that could not have been foreseen when it was written is no indictment.

 

[Plains-Cow]

Again, I don’t accept this premise that thoughts are being claimed to ownership. It is the labor, the cost of production, that is being protected.

This ties in to something else: if you, the general you so this applies to everyone, believe that if thoughts can not be “owned,” should we do away with libel and slander laws? This is something that Walter Block talked about in libertarian theory, which I found intriguing: Block argued if I recall correctly that they should be scrapped because one’s reputation is simply the thoughts of other people, and no one has the right to claim someone else’s thoughts as their own.

Correct. “Owning a thought” is a simple strawmanny misrepresentation of IP, as previously discussed.

Hard to take seriously

That's literally happening, though. That's why corporations can squat on patents and sue you into oblivion for having thought-up something "similar" to their own, even though they may have never even had an iota of interest in bringing around a physical product. Or, they can just copy your product/service with something similar, then sue you for not "defending your copyright" after a few years of marketing "their" IP better than you to the public.

As far as @amadeus asked, no, I don't think that libel or slander laws should all go away. It's good that they're difficult to prove, but if person Y goes around with, say, the explicit intent of spreading information that person X steals money from children, person Y knowing that information is not true, with the sole purpose of harming person X or garnering public support for harming them, then this should be punishable. I'm not saying we should punish people who sincerely believe something that is not true or that is not popular, I'm saying that if the person is maliciously spreading false narratives with the intent to harm while knowing that the narrative is false, they should be punished somehow.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Pay people to live and abolish private ownership.

Socialism + is not any kind of solution. And as far as art goes, one only has to look at what Russia, Korea and China produce to see how bankrupt that model is.

 

[NinjaCow64]

Socialism + is not any kind of solution. And as far as art goes, one only has to look at what Russia, Korea and China produce to see how bankrupt that model is.

Soviet film culture was and is widely considered to be highly innovative. Battleship Potempkin is widely considered one of the best films of all time. This is just factually incorrect.

 

[NinjaCow64]

Tetris!!!

 

[sophie]

To say nothing of the 60s/70s with titans like Tarkovsky and Parajanov, or like, the golden age of Czech animation.

 

[Hygro]

Pay people to live and abolish private ownership. IP is fundamentally at cross-purposes with itself and creates a messed-up relationship between artist and art consumer. Sheeeeit, even the fact we use the term "art consumer" should tell you how trivial art has become. Are we really enjoying "art," or are we just doping ourselves?

Like you're getting excited talking about all the creativity and originality that's gone down in the creative world, about the amazing things record labels and artists have done coming together. About the big shows and fancy lights. But you're not doing a whole lot of talking about publishers knocking artists off the credits for early records; you're not talking about the bitter fight artists have made to start getting the trickles of residuals they're sometimes entitled to now; you're not talking about how much violence Marvel movies do to the very idea of cinema every time they "grace" our theaters.

Make no mistake, art will always be made. But in this case, art exists despite capitalism. It exists because it is a human activity to make art. Regardless of the extent it's been cut, measured, weighed, and pounded, it is not IP that has put the glory of humanity before you, but raw human creativity which is just being filtered through a machine for pigs.

Art doesn’t exist in a vacuum. I use consumers when speaking technically and economically, but I agree with the point more generally, it’s something to be experienced.

There’s a lot I’m not talking about, that is true. I am speaking to try the idea art is somehow separate capitalism. Nothing about art in the USA owes **** to capitalism but none of it is separate either. I use “owe” deliberately.

But regardless, quality and volume of art is up with the size of the industry.

 

[Lexicus]

And as far as art goes, one only has to look at what Russia, Korea and China produce to see how bankrupt that model is.

I don't even understand how someone can think that "pay people to live and abolish private ownership" even remotely describes Russia, Korea, or China. Like, seriously, it's Kellyanne Conway-level alternative facts.

 

[Evie]

That's literally happening, though. That's why corporations can squat on patents and sue you into oblivion for having thought-up something "similar" to their own, even though they may have never even had an iota of interest in bringing around a physical product.

You're essentialy describg patent trolls, except forgetting the key fact that let patent trolls do what they do: their patents usually are *not* valid, or at least not nearly as broad as they claim, precisely because patents very narrowly protect only a specific solution to a specific problem, or a specific way of doing something, and then only if that way or doing something is new (or only thenpat of theprocess that are new).

The problem with those trolls isn't the patents, it's the fact that the legal system lack effective means to shut down abusive lawsuits and make it almost universally cheaper and easier to setle with an abusive lawsuit rather than fight it in court even if the facts are on your side. The same problem as with SLAPP lawsuits, and a wide variety of other similar suit that twist the law beyond recognition because theynknow people would rather settle than go to court.

Or, they can just copy your product/service with something similar, then sue you for not "defending your copyright" after a few years of marketing "their" IP better than you to the public.

No. This is again conflating the various forms of intelectual property.

The intelectual property you lose if you don't defend is *trademak*. This is because the whole point of trademark is that it's a mark or symbol that represent you and exclusively you. If you let other people use it regularly for extended periods, then *it isn't that anymore*, and it no longer meet the basic criteria for trademark. Of course, that does NOT prevent you from continuing to use the symbol, and anyone trying to trademark it after you would fail - because there is ample evidence that someone them used that trademark before them.

Copyright can only pretty much be lost by positive action: that is, you have to actually carry out a deliberate, conscious act to lose your cooyright. Otherwise, no matter how long other people illegally violate it, they can come back and reuse it. No amount of not using it will cause you to lose it in copyright.

There is NO intelectual property that allows someone to seize control of it simply by violating it without being sued, then turning around and suing the original holder. You do not, as a rule, gain intelectual property that way.

 

[Lexicus]

But regardless, quality and volume of art is up with the size of the industry.

In terms of visual art, the cave paintings have not yet been surpassed. Music from those times hasn't been recorded but I doubt it's been meaningfully improved on either.

 

[Crezth]

Art doesn’t exist in a vacuum. I use consumers when speaking technically and economically, but I agree with the point more generally, it’s something to be experienced.

There’s a lot I’m not talking about, that is true. I am speaking to try the idea art is somehow separate capitalism. Nothing about art in the USA owes **** to capitalism but none of it is separate either. I use “owe” deliberately.

No, but, we also owe a whole lot to capitalism, right? Including all of industrial civilization. It's undeniably a crucial part of our society and existence and, yes, that will include with the production of art. The questions being raised are about how sustainable this is, and what the broader pathologies it has created are. And it is my firm belief that we are producing art in spite of capitalism, and capitalism only happens to be able to spin it into some kind of gold.

And also, the way in which it has encouraged us to associate with art are probably not strictly better than all the historical avenues of doing so, however, and it really does merit consideration whether a music CD is worth the loss of a lot of people's autonomy. Is the rights of 10% of society to enjoy good art more important than the 90% required to toil and make it happen?

But regardless, quality and volume of art is up with the size of the industry.

"Quality" (a subjective matter of taste and tradition) is up with iteration, socialization, and expertise. Volume is up with the size of the population. Besides, everything is up. The industry is inevitably large because the population is large. I bet it would be even larger if it were not beholden to capitalist production. Instead, how many great artists instead slave in the bowels of the machine? How many would-be artists never had the chance to begin cultivating their skills because they were consigned instead to the ratrace?

The accomplishments the system allows to happen in spite of the self-evident waste of the vast bulk of human potential, should not be mistaken for the greatest possible productive capacity with the best possible externalities. Industrial civilization is vast, but it is not efficient.

Socialism + is not any kind of solution. And as far as art goes, one only has to look at what Russia, Korea and China produce to see how bankrupt that model is.

This is incredibly chauvinistic. What else about foreign cultures do you look down upon? Maybe the lesser amounts of money they have? What peasants! Oooohohohohoho!