Coming across a mention of 3D printers in the latest Charles Stross novel, the following way of framing some of the controversy surrounding intellectual property occurred to me.
Let us imagine a society in which 3D copiers and printers–fabrication machines that can copy or make objects and devices, much like a photocopier makes a copy of a printed page–are common. Now if I owned such a machine, and had a few cows, would I hesitate to use it to duplicate a cow or two? Or firewood, or bananas, etc.? Would anyone grudge me this? I think not. In a land of such devices (a time which may be coming), people would rightly regard this is a boon to society of unparalleled proportions. An age of material abundance even greater than what we now see emerging would be upon us. No one would want for clothes, food, electronics, etc. It is hard to imagine even the staunchest IP advocates strongly objecting to such wealth and bounty. If you have a hammer or an axe, and I need a new one, would you hesitate to loan yours to me for a second for a simple scan, so my fab can churn out a new one for me? If I want for apples, you could sell or loan me one of yours, to be used as a template for my fab to produce an unending supply on request. Etc.
Now in such a world, according to IP advocates, people would be free to to duplicate machines, robots, electronics, food, animals, raw materials, whatever–but not CDs. After all, the CD’s have a “copyrighted” “pattern” imprinted thereon.
Is it really even imaginable that in such a world, any serious efforts would be made to criminalize the duplication of patterns of information possessed by others? That it would be common to duplicate real, tangible things, but not intangible ones?
I say it would not. It would be obvious in such a world that restrictions on duplication of information, if applied consistently, would mean that tangible, ordinary/natural things also could not be duplicated at will. And everyone would rightly reject such a silly restriction.
How artificial, how ridiculous, is it to single out intangible patterns and information as the one thing that people are forcefully prevented from reproducing–i.e., from using information–? It is absurd and manifestly unjust.
{ 52 comments }
← Previous Comments
Sione,
You are so boring. You were unable to think of a single scenario in which free-market copyright would not hold – so now you philosophize (B.S.) about definitions, derivations, premise, proof etc. Unfortunately, you are not capable of understanding that I don’t need that crap: the copyright comes directly form private property rights – which allow any owner to decide how other people can use his property. That’s it. The end.
Sasha
According to your definition, property is that which can be legally owned. I noted that Von Mises considered this an invalid approach to property and the ownership thereof. Since your copyright ideas rely on that somewhat odd definition, they are baseless- hence invalid.
Simple stuff.
No one has to accept your assertions just because you make them. That is why you do need to concern yourself with definition, derivation etc. -you know, all that “crap” you failed to understand.
Sione
← Previous Comments
Comments on this entry are closed.