What Started Me Off

A discussion I had regarding this post on Samizdata.

Me:
Lets say I wrote a blockbusting novel. It sold millions and made me stinking rich. Why should anyone who had nothing to do with the writing of the book make money out of my hard work? Out of my millions I would be considerate enough to leave my children something but not the right to make more money without having to work for it themselves. If artists/writers/musicians etc. saw sense and embraced the technology which is available quite cheaply at the moment the middle men (publishers/record companies/film studios) would very quickly realise that they are not necessary. These parasites make a living out of the work of others, they may have been needed in the past but their usefulness is coming to an end. They know this and it scares the pants off them, hence the thrashing around trying to prop up their swiftly tumbling house of cards.
My IP is just that; MINE. I don’t want anyone else cashing in on it without my express permission, If I’m dead I can’t give that permission so no-one cashes in on it, end of story. Its not theft by anyone because no-one will own it.

Midwesterner (no URL for him unfortunately):
What a friggin communist.

Lets say I built an amusement park. It made millions and made me stinking rich. Why should anyone who had nothing to do with the building of the amusement park make money out of my hard work? Out of my millions I would be considerate enough to leave my children something but not the right to make more money without having to work fo it themselves. If other amusement park owners saw sense and embraced the recreational technology which is available quite cheaply at the moment the middle men (amusement park constructors/maintainers) would very quickly realise that they are not necessary. These parasites make a living out of the work of others, they may have been needed in the past but their usefulness is coming to an end. They know this and it scares the pants off them, hence the thrashing around trying to prop up their swiftly tumbling house of cards.

Me:
A book/peice of music/film is radically different from an amusement park (or my house, which I don’t own btw, not everyone is so lucky). So we’re starting from different premises. You probably could build an amusement park on your own but it would take forever and may not be all that safe. The ‘middle men’ (contractors, safety inspectors, maintenance staff. etc) are a necessity when building an amusement park, So could all claim part ownership of it as it was their work which made it possible. This is coporate property (a form of collectivism btw) Not so with a peice of music, film or book. If you so desired you could do it all on your own. You only have to look at the internet to see it beginning to happen, YouTube, IUMA, and blogging are all evidence of it. These things can exist without the need for a physical form, they are pure ideas.
Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not talking about corporate or industrial IP, I’m talking purely on an individual level. If a company (which is something different to an individual.) ploughs money into R&D, that company should be able to profit from its research as long as it is in existence. This is just as valid when applied to manufactured/constructed property.
However items of art, in their purest form, are ephemeral. Pure ideas, usually the creation of one person’s mind. And so I ask again: Why should someone else profit from what goes on in my head?
No-one owns my thoughts but me. I may wish to sell a physical manifestaion of those thoughts (CD, Ebook, Dead Tree Edition, DVD) but the thoughts are still mine all the buyer can claim ownership of is the medium of transmission, not the thought itself.
PS If I were a communist I’d be saying that no-one should own anything, which I’m patently not. I’d like a retraction please.

Midwesterner:
“Why should anyone who had nothing to do with the writing of the book make money out of my hard work?”

This is not a statement about the legitimacy of IP. It is a flat out statement denying the legitiamacy of unearned property.

“(publishers/record companies/film studios) . . . These parasites make a living out of the work of others”

I’ll let other readers decide whether this is a statement on the legitimacy of IP or a more general anti-bourgeoisie sentiment.

“This is coporate property (a form of collectivism btw)”

I don’t think you understand the difference between voluntary co-operation and collectivism. Those silly East Germans should have just sold their stock in that particular collective enterprise.

“If you so desired you could do it all on your own. You only have to look at the internet to see it beginning to happen, YouTube, IUMA, and blogging are all evidence of it.”

Golly. You’ve got a lot of confidance in my capabilities. If I were to try that, I would still be hung up at the burying cable stage.

“No-one owns my thoughts but me. I may wish to sell a physical manifestaion of those thoughts (CD, Ebook, Dead Tree Edition, DVD) but the thoughts are still mine all the buyer can claim ownership of is the medium of transmission, not the thought itself.”

How can you claim they are your’s and yet also say they are not transferable or bequeathable?

“PS If I were a communist I’d be saying that no-one should own anything, which I’m patently not. I’d like a retraction please.”

Well, I certainly will retract “friggin”. It is irelevant and unproven. As for “communist”, it is relevant, and there certainly appears to be features of your concept of property that would be more at home in some for of communual property system. The contradiction that I can’t work out is how you can “own” it in your mind, but not transfer ownership of it on your own terms. That is the essence of IP. To provide a framework so you can share your thoughts without losing title to them.

Discussion continues here