Intellectual Property

[DropKick Murphys]

Is it real property? Is it worth protecting? Does it drive innovation? Does it stifle innovation? etc.
What do you guys think of it?

 

[Graham]

I do think intellectual property is something which should be considered real property. Intellectual property is something intangible, which is technically work put into a thought or creative idea. Economically speaking, skills/time/effort equal money and thus someone's intellectual property is considered all exclusive for themselves. I also believe that it's worth protecting because someone's creative ideas and one's ability to innovative allows people to progress in the real world and it is a direct reflection of someone's hard work and dedication (in most cases). Intellectual property should be divided into two separate entities though; industrial and copyright. I'm not sure what the ruling is on intellectual property but I know in most cases that industrial and copyright are included in the law.

 

[beta decay]

In America, copyright laws were made for the purpose of promoting science. Somehow it turned into a way for Brittney Spears to become super rich. I'm completely against copyright laws. I think every advancement should be for the public good. I think the incentive to come up with new ideas should be that those new ideas will benefit society. The incentive should be that you can help other people. Some people are greedy capitalists, and see no incentive in helping others.

The fact that I think nothing of people's claim on intellectual property is one of the reasons I like Sythe. We totally ignore the b.s. claim that Jagex has on their "property", because it isn't theirs. It's not real property.

 

[Graham]

I'm completely against copyright laws. I think every advancement should be for the public good. I think the incentive to come up with new ideas should be that those new ideas will benefit society. The incentive should be that you can help other people. Some people are greedy capitalists, and see no incentive in helping others.

The fact that I think nothing of people's claim on intellectual property is one of the reasons I like Sythe. We totally ignore the b.s. claim that Jagex has on their "property", because it isn't theirs. It's not real property.

So you're saying America should turn to socialism/communism, that's basically what it sounds like. So you're saying if you come up with the great invention and someone else, such as your neighbor, sees you using/selling this invention and he recreates it and begins selling the same object, you wouldn't have a problem with that? Incentive isn't just helping people anymore, this is the real world, people steal, kill, etc. I'm sorry but seeing people do something for the benefit of someone else without anything being given anything is a rare sighting. I do like the idea of being rebellious against Jagex, because the amounts of money they make is ridiculous, but I mind it when an avid worker/scientist isn't benefiting from his/her work as much as he/she should have.

 

[Rhett3]

It really depends on what the item would be ... like for a game like runescape probably not but maybe something more important? Not sure what but something... then yes maybe it should be considered as their property.

 

[Jansen]

The patent in copyright systems in America stifle innovation. A lot.

 

[beta decay]

So you're saying America should turn to socialism/communism

Socialism, yes. Communism is ideal but impossible to work well, so no, not communism.

So you're saying if you come up with the great invention and someone else, such as your neighbor, sees you using/selling this invention and he recreates it and begins selling the same object, you wouldn't have a problem with that?

I'm not rich, so I would take advantage of copyright laws to make money and help my family. If I were rich I would take advantage of copyright laws to make more money to help others, since there isn't much for socialism in America. If there were not copyright laws then there would probably be more socialism and I would not be upset about my invention helping others without my profiting.

I do like the idea of being rebellious against Jagex, because the amounts of money they make is ridiculous...

I agree. If Jagex were a small company whose owner was not rich I wouldn't take advantage. But they are filthy rich, so I don't care about their profits.

...but I mind it when an avid worker/scientist isn't benefiting from his/her work as much as he/she should have.

I agree that the worker and scientist should benefit properly. But almost all scientists work for wealthy companies and are not themselves filthy rich. People are getting filthy rich off the work of the scientist and factory worker and many others.

 

[Graham]

Socialism, yes. Communism is ideal but impossible to work well, so no, not communism. I agree that the worker and scientist should benefit properly. But almost all scientists work for wealthy companies and are not themselves filthy rich. People are getting filthy rich off the work of the scientist and factory worker and many others.

Instead of listing the reasons that socialism would be a major failure for Americans, I will just refer you to this link: http://sythe.org/showthread.php?t=370752

I'm not referring to just scientists, but I am also referring to the average inventor. Many inventions are made by middle class people with interesting ideas. Companies such as Nike, Gatorade, etc. have their own scientists to invent new apparel and new formulas to entertain the buyers of our economy and I would probably agree that they are paid ridiculously.

 

[beta decay]

Instead of listing the reasons that socialism would be a major failure for Americans, I will just refer you to this link: http://sythe.org/showthread.php?t=370752

Sythe writes: "The reason communism is a fallacy is simple: People cannot jointly own one another." I don't claim that people jointly own one another. I can only assume, without reading 16 pages, that the rest of the thread is full of assumptions of what socialists think. I don't mind if assumptions are made, and they are probably correct assumptions for some socialists. But I can't debate the issue based on false assumptions about what I think.

I'm not referring to just scientists, but I am also referring to the average inventor. Many inventions are made by middle class people with interesting ideas. Companies such as Nike, Gatorade, etc. have their own scientists to invent new apparel and new formulas to entertain the buyers of our economy and I would probably agree that they are paid ridiculously.

Many inventions are made by middle class people. If someone makes a few bucks from their own invention I won't contend against them. My contention is against the profit of those who have far more than they need. When someone has a good idea they might make some money from it, and I won't complain. You seem to have said that the money is the incentive to come up with good ideas. It is an incentive, and an effective one. But when $900 million is the incentive while someone else can't afford to pay rent I see a major problem. I think the extreme ends of the incentive should be at least reduced. I don't think copyright laws are doing something good for society by protecting the "property" of someone that has multi-millions of dollars. You basically said one reason you don't mind being rebellious towards Jagex is that they are rich. Jagex' owners have far, far more than they need to feed their family, and they aren't creating some good for society, so you and I don't care to respect them enough to let their profit continue as Jagex would wish. Jagex will of course continue to make more money, but you and I don't have any desire to help them in that matter.

I think much of any disagreement with socialism would be emotionally centered in presupposition. After presupposition is dealt with properly the real matter of the somewhat impracticality of socialism can be dealt with in an appropriate manner. I do see there are some impracticalities. I'm not arguing that socialism is perfect, or that it is more ideal in every aspect than that which we have at the moment in America. The primary reason is that socialism is not a specific idea, but rather a general idea. One thing thought wrong about it may simply be applied to one generality and not the whole.

Do you think social security is good? If you do then you believe in a form of socialism. Should there be a public library? That's socialism. Public schools, where most kids go, is a socialist idea. Do you think it would be better not to have public schools? Do you think it would be better if only the children of the wealthy went to school? Socialism in America has provided a much better situation for children of the poor. Public schools aren't the best of course, but imagine the extreme ignorance that would permeate society if there were no public school at all. Most children go to public school because their parents can't afford private school. Imagine if all public school children simply didn't attend school at all.

 

[The Disturbed]

I do think intellectual property is something which should be considered real property. Intellectual property is something intangible, which is technically work put into a thought or creative idea. Economically speaking, skills/time/effort equal money and thus someone's intellectual property is considered all exclusive for themselves. I also believe that it's worth protecting because someone's creative ideas and one's ability to innovative allows people to progress in the real world and it is a direct reflection of someone's hard work and dedication (in most cases). Intellectual property should be divided into two separate entities though; industrial and copyright. I'm not sure what the ruling is on intellectual property but I know in most cases that industrial and copyright are included in the law.

Exactly my thoughts.

 

[SwiftSeller]

Is it real property? Is it worth protecting? Does it drive innovation? Does it stifle innovation? etc.
What do you guys think of it?

If one person thinks it, and another thinks it, you cant file a lawsuit for a thought. This "property" is meant to be shared if someone gets the same idea. You cant say "no you cant think that, or no you cant believe that because i thought of it first." you cant restrict a person's thoughts.