Nate Edel
12-19-2007, 12:48 AM
Kurt Busiek <kurt@busiek.comics> wrote:
> On 2007-12-18 18:33:57 -0800, archmage@sfchat.org (Nate Edel) said:
> > Not necessarily. Again, it depends on what kind of access is required, and
> > how much access is granted.
> Perhaps. But we don't know these things; you're simply assuming
> they're benign.
True, but it's also implicit in the thought experiment - if it requires
criminal trespass or similarly illegal access in today's terms, they're
already covered by existing laws.
> And as noted, you're also depending on the fact that if his sort of thing
> isn't illegal, it's not because it wouldn't be, it's because it's
> fictional.
True. But whether it *ought* to be illegal is exactly the question posed.
> Were it not fictional, copying racehorses and gold bullion and such would
> likely be treated as something qualitatively different from taking
> snapshots.
Gold bullion is somewhat closer to the intent of my initial example than the
race horse specifically because of the intent of my original example in one
sense, because it doesn't have any information content the way a horse's
genes do (even if, unlike plants, those are rarely if ever genes protected
by present day IP laws.)
But it's also lacking in any sense of uniqueness, or manufacturability.
Because it's a raw element and totally interchangeable, one would not need
to scan it; you "just" need to assemble it. So why would it need any kind of
protection? (It becomes a poor surrogate for currency, if that's done, but
it's a artificially enforcing scarcity is a poor idea as an alternative.)
> >> of musical performances in competition with live bands. Recording
> >> those live bands without their permission, and then selling the result
> >> with no right to it would be another matter. Even if you point to the
> >> fact that they still have their instruments, sheet music and bandstand
> >> and say, "Where's the harm?"
> >
> > Except that is now in the realm of intellectual property,
>
> Howard seems less interested in keeping IP issues out of it than you
> do; I was riffing off his example from another post.
My point in keeping IP issues out of it that "copying" is essentially an IP
violation, not theft, and for a great many physical items copying would be
harmless. Artificially creating a monopoly for a limited time is the intent
of most IP (trademarks, only in part) and is neither necessary nor desirable
for other things where physical possession is possible.
--
Nate Edel http://www.cubiclehermit.com/
preferred email |
is "nate" at the | "Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend.
posting domain | Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read." (Groucho)
> On 2007-12-18 18:33:57 -0800, archmage@sfchat.org (Nate Edel) said:
> > Not necessarily. Again, it depends on what kind of access is required, and
> > how much access is granted.
> Perhaps. But we don't know these things; you're simply assuming
> they're benign.
True, but it's also implicit in the thought experiment - if it requires
criminal trespass or similarly illegal access in today's terms, they're
already covered by existing laws.
> And as noted, you're also depending on the fact that if his sort of thing
> isn't illegal, it's not because it wouldn't be, it's because it's
> fictional.
True. But whether it *ought* to be illegal is exactly the question posed.
> Were it not fictional, copying racehorses and gold bullion and such would
> likely be treated as something qualitatively different from taking
> snapshots.
Gold bullion is somewhat closer to the intent of my initial example than the
race horse specifically because of the intent of my original example in one
sense, because it doesn't have any information content the way a horse's
genes do (even if, unlike plants, those are rarely if ever genes protected
by present day IP laws.)
But it's also lacking in any sense of uniqueness, or manufacturability.
Because it's a raw element and totally interchangeable, one would not need
to scan it; you "just" need to assemble it. So why would it need any kind of
protection? (It becomes a poor surrogate for currency, if that's done, but
it's a artificially enforcing scarcity is a poor idea as an alternative.)
> >> of musical performances in competition with live bands. Recording
> >> those live bands without their permission, and then selling the result
> >> with no right to it would be another matter. Even if you point to the
> >> fact that they still have their instruments, sheet music and bandstand
> >> and say, "Where's the harm?"
> >
> > Except that is now in the realm of intellectual property,
>
> Howard seems less interested in keeping IP issues out of it than you
> do; I was riffing off his example from another post.
My point in keeping IP issues out of it that "copying" is essentially an IP
violation, not theft, and for a great many physical items copying would be
harmless. Artificially creating a monopoly for a limited time is the intent
of most IP (trademarks, only in part) and is neither necessary nor desirable
for other things where physical possession is possible.
--
Nate Edel http://www.cubiclehermit.com/
preferred email |
is "nate" at the | "Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend.
posting domain | Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read." (Groucho)