Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Intellectual property

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Data, which I suppose is the intelligent manipulation of electricity, is still material wealth;

Well yes, but data is not itself material. It is actually infinitely copyable. Electricity is a way to represent data, but the same data is representable in many ways. So, no, it's not the manipulation of electricity. It's non-material. That you need a computer is only to say data doesn't exist as magic, just as needing a brain for concepts doesn't mean concepts are material. So if you write a story as a text file, it is infinitely copyable, as is all the other data you have stored.

Not sure why you keep bringing up material wealth, I mean, IP is supposed to be about production of a value and maintenance of intellectual integrity of a product (that I control all copies of a song I wrote prevents any decay or corruption of that song's production according to my own standards). A song is literally worthless until it's put onto something, and people pay to listen to the song, not for the medium. As far as I see, that's still material wealth since the song isn't just floating in the ether.

The road example was a bad one for me to give, probably.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 685
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

No, we want them because property is created by men. And the men who create it are entitled to it.

I don't know where I've been talking about "trade." It flummoxes me to see these replies to what I've said that... do not appear to speak to what I've written. Or maybe they do in some sidling fashion

First of all, I write this just having read your "obnoxiously long anecdote," so I wanted to remark that I quite enjoyed it, and certainly I find it interesting as a commentary on copying. Thanks for

Every method to make something valuable is unique in its way. Climbing up a tree to grab a banana is also a unique method to obtain a banana. But I don't believe that the first man to do so had any right to prohibit the second from trying. I don't agree that this is just.

A machine to gather bananas is not different in my eyes, or it is different in degree (of complexity, of difficulty, etc.), but not kind. I agree that the inventor of the banana-harvesting machine should reap the benefits of his machine, i.e. the machine that he has built. But I don't believe that gives him any proper authority to prevent others from acting likewise for their own benefit.

Climbing a tree to grab a banana only excludes those physically incapable of climbing the tree.

In For The New Intellectual, page 40, wealth, in the middle ages, was considered a matter of plunder.

In a world of might makes right, the spoils go to the strongest. On page 41, the strength had migrated from brute muscle to the strength of man's mind. Seeing a man climb a tree to grab a banana, another man of similar agility can do the same. On the strength of man's mind, seeing a machine that can gather bananas may enable a man of similar strength of mind to build a comparable machine for himself.

Who has the right to the machine? The man who came up with it, or the man that can copy it without any of the trials and tribulations that had to be overcome by the original innovator?

(The man who climbs a tree to grab a banana, in my mind does have to overcome the same trials and tribulations that the man he saw climb the tree. If you've ever climbed a tree, you'd know.)

Edited by dream_weaver
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure why you keep bringing up material wealth, I mean, IP is supposed to be about production of a value and maintenance of intellectual integrity of a product (that I control all copies of a song I wrote prevents any decay or corruption of that song's production according to my own standards). A song is literally worthless until it's put onto something, and people pay to listen to the song, not for the medium. As far as I see, that's still material wealth since the song isn't just floating in the ether.

What do you mean by "intellectual integrity"?  Suppose someone takes the idea and improves on it, as one of Watt's competitors tried to do.  How is that harming the "intellectual integrity" of the product?  It seems rather obvious that it's to everyone's benefit for that improvement to occur.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But he did have the patent and was allowed to benefit first ;)

I fully expect that at some point the intellectual patent will run out and the  same thing would happen. 

 

That fails to address the point.  Watt increased orders and maintained prices after the expiration of the patent. IOW, he benefited by not having it around.  So did everyone else.  Why was it a good thing to have to wait 32 years for this to happen?

Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you mean by "intellectual integrity"?  Suppose someone takes the idea and improves on it, as one of Watt's competitors tried to do.  How is that harming the "intellectual integrity" of the product?  It seems rather obvious that it's to everyone's benefit for that improvement to occur.

Right, that's possible too, in the same way I can go onto your land and improve it by building a house. Or by putting fertilizer on farmland. But "better" isn't determined here by an absolute standard, it's determined by the owner no matter how stupid the owner is. Integrity just means maintaining the product as the creator wishes. (Given what you had said on Watt, he sounds like to me he didn't deserve his patent and violated what even I think would allow him to claim his IP as his.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, that's possible too, in the same way I can go onto your land and improve it by building a house. Or by putting fertilizer on farmland. But "better" isn't determined here by an absolute standard, it's determined by the owner no matter how stupid the owner is. Integrity just means maintaining the product as the creator wishes. (Given what you had said on Watt, he sounds like to me he didn't deserve his patent and violated what even I think would allow him to claim his IP as his.)

It makes no sense to say an "owner" of an idea is the sole determiner of what is "better".  If someone patents an engine, and one of his competitors improves on the design (by obviously objective standards such as improved efficiency, lower cost, etc.), then the opinion of the "owner" is irrelevant.  People are going to prefer his competitor's engine.  How can that improvement be wrong by any rational standard?

Watt did what all owners of a patent monopoly do--he expended a great deal of resources trying to enforce it (instead of working hard to make better engines).  So if he didn't "deserve" a patent, no one does, because as I've demonstrated, patents do NOT promote innovation.  They inhibit it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It makes no sense to say an "owner" of an idea is the sole determiner of what is "better".  If someone patents an engine, and one of his competitors improves on the design (by obviously objective standards such as improved efficiency, lower cost, etc.), then the opinion of the "owner" is irrelevant.  People are going to prefer his competitor's engine.  How can that improvement be wrong by any rational standard?

There is no "better", the only one who can decide such a thing is a creator. So it's more accurate for me to say creator. Better according to whom? If you mean rational according to efficiency alone, and the greatest good, then we already disagree on the moral justification for property anyway.

And no, you didn't go on to induce a principle that -all- patent owners will do what Watt did. Besides, patents aren't the only kind of IP. I went on to talk about songs, as opposed to patents. It's more productive right now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

...
In the absence of a patent system, putting the product on the market is akin to signing the 'Gift Certificate' and is akin to saying to the inventor, this is the thanks you get for coming up with this marvelous work of your mind.

The absence of  patent system doesn't guarantee a loss any more than the presence of one guarantees a full recovery of the time and expense of bringing a new product to market. The only thing accomplished is to establish restitution in advance of any actual crime.

Suppose a patented item is reverse engineered to produce a competing product.  Who will determine if the competitor out sells the originator?  Won't the reward still follow the better product??  Isn't that what we want to see happen???

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no "better", the only one who can decide such a thing is a creator. So it's more accurate for me to say creator. Better according to whom? If you mean rational according to efficiency alone, and the greatest good, then we already disagree on the moral justification for property anyway.

And no, you didn't go on to induce a principle that -all- patent owners will do what Watt did. Besides, patents aren't the only kind of IP. I went on to talk about songs, as opposed to patents. It's more productive right now.

Of course there's such a thing as better.  If the "creator's" competitor improves on the design by making a more efficient, less expensive, more powerful, etc. engine, NO rational person is going to say it's not better.  It uses less fuel, does more work, and saves people money.   People are hardly going to think the guy demanding that they buy the original engine because it maintains the "integrity" of the idea is making any sense.  His only rational recourse is to make still further improvements.  As for the "moral" justification for IP, I've cited research showing that everyone is better off without patents.  Again, that's more moral by any rational standard.

As for everyone not doing what Watt did, what's the point of a patent if no one bothers to enforce it?  So of course the person who demanded a patent will enforce it, even though it's ultimately counterproductive.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As for the "moral" justification for IP, I've cited research showing that everyone is better off without patents.  Again, that's more moral by any rational standard.

I said of property, not IP. You seem to be a utilitarian, primarily, that's why I brought it up. And patents aren't the only kind of IP. So...

I told you earlier why Watt -should- have lost his patent. Enforcement includes denying invalidated claims.

Besides that, I'll read that paper you linked before participating more.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I said of property, not IP. You seem to be a utilitarian, primarily, that's why I brought it up. And patents aren't the only kind of IP. So...

I told you earlier why Watt -should- have lost his patent. Enforcement includes denying invalidated claims.

Besides that, I'll read that paper you linked before participating more.

We're debating whether ideas, inventions, etc. should be considered property, not the moral justification for property.  I believe I've made a strong case that IP is not moral.  It makes everyone worse off.

What was unique about Watt's behavior that would have justified losing his patent?  What was "invalid"  about his actions according to patent law and the principle of IP?

Edited by Robert Romero
Link to post
Share on other sites

I said of property, not IP. You seem to be a utilitarian, primarily, that's why I brought it up.

It’s not a utilitarian argument.  Is the competitor acting for the “good of all”?  Obviously not.  He’s acting in his rational self interest.  The same goes for the people buying his superior engine.  It would be irrational and against their self interest not to buy the superior engine (based on their rational analysis of what’s superior, not someone else’s).  As for the creator, the rent seeking behavior caused by a patent is also against his self interest.  Instead of using energy and resources to make and sell a product, he’s diverting them to maintaining his monopoly.  This causes inefficiency.  Further, as I showed in the case of James Watt, the presence of patents actually inhibits the ability of creators to be innovative, which is hardly in their self interest.  So no, the case against IP is not utilitarian.  Nor, for that matter, is it deontological.  It’s very much in line with Objectivist ethics.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Instead of using energy and resources to make and sell a product, he’s diverting them to maintaining his monopoly.

Err, that's how property works anyway. That you own a house diverts your attention to maintain control over your house! I don't know what you could mean except that either filing for patents is absurdly costly, or the creator uses bribes, neither of which are proper or required for an IP system. If you mean it's not proper to have any control over IP, that's begging the question.

I'm curious about what you'd say about non-patent IP.

Link to post
Share on other sites

...

I'm curious about what you'd say about non-patent IP.

Interesting question...  Isn't that what is commonly referred to as "know how"?  Employers look for problem solving and initiative as valuable skill sets when screening for new employees, so creative ability as IP wouldn't be such a great thing if a particular employee found a useful innovation that immediately prevented all other employees from following suit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Err, that's how property works anyway. That you own a house diverts your attention to maintain control over your house! I don't know what you could mean except that either filing for patents is absurdly costly, or the creator uses bribes, neither of which are proper or required for an IP system. If you mean it's not proper to have any control over IP, that's begging the question.

I'm curious about what you'd say about non-patent IP.

It hasn't been established in this debate that ideas are property, so comparing them to a house is begging the question.  Also, with a house, I spend virtually no energy establishing that it's my property (no burglar would try to claim that he's justified in breaking in because the house doesn't belong to the owner),  With patents, there are lengthy lobbying efforts to establish the monopoly, lengthy and costly efforts to establish who thought up what first (is it really just to deny someone the right to make a product simply because he didn't file for the monopoly first?), how close an idea has to be to be considered "stolen", etc.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well yes, but data is not itself material. It is actually infinitely copyable. Electricity is a way to represent data, but the same data is representable in many ways. So, no, it's not the manipulation of electricity. It's non-material. That you need a computer is only to say data doesn't exist as magic, just as needing a brain for concepts doesn't mean concepts are material. So if you write a story as a text file, it is infinitely copyable, as is all the other data you have stored.

But then this itself answers your question. You had asked, given the role that (I argue) scarcity plays in forming context for the concept of property, how could a road or data be considered property? I answered to demonstrate how it could: that, for instance, I am disallowed from going on your computer and deleting your files, because you are the one who has the right of use/disposal to those files. I am disallowed from blocking your road, or using it without your permission.

But in that "data is not itself material...it is actually infinitely copyable," then that data, in itself and apart from any particular material configuration or implementation (meaning: as a file on a hard drive, or etc.), cannot be "owned." In a sense, our thoughts are data, just as you point out above. Whether it makes sense, strictly, to say that we "own" our brains or not, they are ours. Yet we do not own the thoughts that we have, which are not material, which are infinitely copyable. We do not own them because they are not material, and they are infinitely copyable, which is to say that they are not scarce. However, one's physical position on a given road, or one's use of a specific file on a specific computer, is scarce, which is why those things are properly considered property.

Not sure why you keep bringing up material wealth, I mean, IP is supposed to be about production of a value and maintenance of intellectual integrity of a product (that I control all copies of a song I wrote prevents any decay or corruption of that song's production according to my own standards).

Is that what IP is "supposed to be about"? :) It seems to me that others in this thread are making the case that it's about making money in the marketplace, and "recouping investment," though maybe I'm mistaking their arguments. And I think (though possibly misremember) that Ayn Rand made the case that IP intends to protect the product(s) of "the mind," or something similar. So at least she's appealing to justice, and right, which is the proper idea, even if I disagree with her specific arguments and conclusions.

But the reason why I keep bringing up material wealth is because I believe that material wealth is (as Rand identified elsewhere, and I have quoted in this thread, and will do so again below) the proper subject of property, and I think that this amounts to a contradiction between her arguments, both in theory and practice. I further believe that her arguments for IP are faulty, do not accord with reason/reality, and lead to injustice when applied.

Out of curiosity, if you believe that you should "control all copies" of a song you wrote, do you think I should be disallowed from singing it... in a nightclub? Walking down the street? In my shower? (So as to prevent "decay or corruption"?) Or do you mean something else by "control all copies"? If so, what?

A song is literally worthless until it's put onto something, and people pay to listen to the song, not for the medium. As far as I see, that's still material wealth since the song isn't just floating in the ether.

People certainly do pay for the medium, which is the thing that allows them to listen to the song, and yes, the medium is material wealth, which is why it is property.

But, Eiuol, since it appears that you have more time for this topic than you had previously imagined, would you mind addressing the example I had raised to you earlier (the knork, or now the SteakSaber 2000, or whatever)?

Climbing a tree to grab a banana only excludes those physically incapable of climbing the tree.

In For The New Intellectual, page 40, wealth, in the middle ages, was considered a matter of plunder.

In a world of might makes right, the spoils go to the strongest. On page 41, the strength had migrated from brute muscle to the strength of man's mind. Seeing a man climb a tree to grab a banana, another man of similar agility can do the same. On the strength of man's mind, seeing a machine that can gather bananas may enable a man of similar strength of mind to build a comparable machine for himself.

Both climbing a tree and building a machine require mental and physical effort. In climbing a tree, a man must grasp not only the mechanics of the ascent, but also the purpose, and weigh that against potential risk, opportunity costs, etc. Men are not zombies, and when they climb a tree to get a banana, it is a mindful act. A slip of focus could mean a literal slip, and possibly death. And building a machine is a physical labor, as well as a mental one, and many potential machines are undone due to physical defect, or poor construction. They require proper materials and steady hands and capable tools, and sweat, and strength, and perseverance, and much expended energy over time. Man is not a ghost, and he cannot achieve material wealth (which is the stuff he needs to survive and thrive) without physical labor.

Every creation of property requires both the mind and the body, and there does not exist material wealth which is not the result of both mental and physical labor.

Who has the right to the machine? The man who came up with it, or the man that can copy it without any of the trials and tribulations that had to be overcome by the original innovator?

In the case of a man who invents a machine, and a second man who observes that machine and then "copies" it (which in reality means to understand the purpose of the machine, and make-up/design, then learn to construct it, then expend the physical effort and whatever resource required to do so--and this process may certainly involve not insignificant "trials and tribulations"), we should observe that there is not one, but two machines. The first machine, constructed by the original innovator, and also the second machine, constructed by "the man who copies." So really, we have two questions: who has the right to Machine A? And who has the right to Machine B?

Here, again, is Rand on property:

Any material element or resource which, in order to become of use or value to men, requires the application of human knowledge and effort, should be private property—by the right of those who apply the knowledge and effort.

"Those who apply." Not those who innovate, but those who apply. This is why the second man to pluck a banana from the tree does not owe his banana to the first man, the man he copied, but owns it himself: he is the the one who applied the requisite knowledge and effort required to secure that banana, to make it "of use or value." It is his labor which has won the second banana, and so he is entitled to the second banana, in the name of justice.

Similarly, with respect to the machine, the innovator who constructs the first machine has the right to that machine. And the man who constructs the second machine has the right to that machine. This is, in fact, what having "property rights" is all about:

Man has to work and produce in order to support his life. He has to support his life by his own effort and by the guidance of his own mind. If he cannot dispose of the product of his effort, he cannot dispose of his effort; if he cannot dispose of his effort, he cannot dispose of his life. Without property rights, no other rights can be practiced.

Man B, "the man who copies," in building Machine B, is no less supporting his life by his own effort and by the guidance of his own mind than the innovator is. And if Man B cannot dispose of the product of his effort--which is Machine B--then his rights have been violated, and his very life has been assaulted.

And now I would like to note a couple of additional things about our example.

We did not specify any specific time frame between the machine's innovation and the second man copying it, or whether it is within or outside of any given assigned length of patent. Which is just as well: all of that kind of detail seems to me to be arbitrary anyway. But I think that "the act of copying" is the same, with respect to morality, in year 19 following the innovation and year 21. Which is to say that it is always moral to apply what you know to create material wealth, for the betterment of your own life, notwithstanding who else might have done something similar first, or when, or where.

And since it seems to be an important point that the innovator has put in more effort than anyone subsequent (i.e. "trials and tribulations"), I think it important to observe that this is not necessarily so. A genius might quickly and (relatively) effortlessly come up with some process, or here, some machine, whereas another man might struggle for a long amount of time trying to understand and replicate the same; the man who copies may well endure greater "trials and tribulations," in trying to wring his fortune from the earth. But this is just as well. I don't believe that property is, or ought to be, awarded on the basis of suffering, or the amount of effort, per se. But that a person performs the effort necessary for the creation of material wealth is what entitles him to the use/ownership of that resultant material wealth. For you, the effort (mental or physical) involved in creating some instance of material wealth may be small, while for me to do the same thing it might be large, or vice versa, but what matters is that we are both entitled to the fruit of our effort regardless.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It hasn't been established in this debate that ideas are property, so comparing them to a house is begging the question. 

No, all I did was apply your reasoning to a house. The point was you can apply the reasoning to things you say are property already. Lobbying and lengthy/costly efforts are exactly what I meant earlier by a "bad system". How close an idea has to be would be like any legal proceeding to determine where a violation occurs. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's also a degree of "design by nature" that IP tends to dismiss.  Just to take this widely aside for a moment, you may be aware that NASA recently posited the existence of surface water on Mars, which proves what has long been suspected, that the planet once had rivers, lakes, oceans, etc, all of which makes the existence of life a much stronger possibility.  Suppose then some future exploration of Mars not only posits life, but tool-making life that crafted some kind of boat to navigate waterways.  We wouldn't be surprised to discover similar designs to Terran, considering water is essentially water, and presents the same challenges to innovation regardless of where, when or to what species they present themselves.


All of this is just a long way around to demonstrate that at any given moment there are any number of innovators at work addressing a common design issue, e.g., how to improve travel, communication, food production, shelter, etc.  One person breaks ahead of the pack (or his lawyer does) and receives exclusive compensation for his research and effort while all others (some of whom are on the brink of discovery) are stopped in their tracks take a total loss.


So with regard to encouraging innovation, I think the current practice of IP makes a stronger case against it.  It increases the actual risk of failure tenfold, and all to present an artificial reward that otherwise wouldn't be any part of a laissez-faire marketplace.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lobbying and lengthy/costly efforts are exactly what I meant earlier by a "bad system".

The research paper I cited showed that lobbying efforts regarding patents are an inevitable result of their existence.  It also says:

If we look at patent litigation in practice—and as predicted by theories of first-mover competition (Boldrin and Levine 2004, among others)—it takes place when innovation is low. When an industry matures, innovation is no longer encouraged; instead, it is blocked by the ever-increasing appeal to patent protection on part of the insiders.

Also:

The cost of litigating patents is not insubstantial either. Bessen and Meurer (2008) used stock market event studies to estimate the cost of patent litigation: they estimate that during the 1990s such costs rose substantially until, at the end of the period, they constituted nearly 14 percent of total research and development costs.

This shows that the issuing of patents is indeed a bad system.  They should not be supported.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Duplicate.  Happens every time now.

I have come to believe that the Forum, itself, assesses post quality, and duplicates them based on merit. One of my posts was posted no less than five times! I was quite proud. :)

(Whether this amounts to an implicit, metaphorical endorsement of the anti-IP/pro-copying argument, I'll leave for you to decide...)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's do something here:

Bob records a song he originates.  Does he own it?  If no, why not?  If yes, does he own copies of it until they are given away or sold by him?  If no, why not?

I’ll return to the bagel example:  If I make a copy of your bagel, have you lost the use of it?  No, it’s still sitting on your plate.  If someone copies Bob’s song (by singing it, telling friends about it, etc.), has Bob lost the use of the song?  No.  Of course, it can be made a condition of sale that the song not be copied.  If the argument is that copying by third parties would “steal Bob’s profits”, here’s a quote from Against Intellectual Monopoly that counters that:

the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) constantly reminds us on their anti-piracy web site, “The thieves [...] go straight to the top and steal the gold” bringing the recording company to economic ruin. This argument may sound smart and “oh-so-commonsense” right when you hear it the first time – but pause for a minute, and you will realize it makes no business sense. Picking only winners means waiting until it is clear who is a winner. Well, try it: try getting somewhere by imitating the leaders only after you are certain they are the leaders. Try ruining the poor pop star by pirating her tunes only once you are certain they are big hits!  Excuse us, we thought that “being a hit” meant “having sold millions of copies.” Try competing in a real industry by imitating the winners only when they have already won and you have left them plenty of time to make huge profits, establish and consolidate their position – and probably not leaving much of a market for you – the sleek imitator.

 

Edited by Robert Romero
Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's do something here:

Bob records a song he originates.  Does he own it?  If no, why not?  If yes, does he own copies of it until they are given away or sold by him?  If no, why not?

I'll play...

Bob owns credit as the original source and, provided he can prove his claim, can recover damages from anyone who fraudulently presents Bob's composition as their own.

He owns whatever physical copies he makes and can do whatever he wants with them, including profiting from sales of his product, personal performances or any other kind of patronage that comes in appreciation for his own creative ability.  He also can also profit from contracting with anyone who shares his passion for original music.

Beyond that, he remains in competition with every other artist in the profession (including the bad ones), relying on his own unique abilities for further compensation of every future performance of his original song that he chooses to make.  He doesn't get paid for NOT performing, or someone else performing his song (except by contract).

Specifically, he doesn't have a right to force patronage in a free market.  Individuals who enter that marketplace are free to, "Buy American", or "Buy Bob", or tip a street performer,  or obtain a cheap knockoff as a matter of individual preference for any particular source of entertainment.

 

Edited by Devil's Advocate
Link to post
Share on other sites

People certainly do pay for the medium, which is the thing that allows them to listen to the song, and yes, the medium is material wealth, which is why it is property.

Yes, but the value is not the medium, it's the song. You will own the medium if you buy it. Except, most songs only exist now as data, i.e. infinitely copyable. The pattern of bits is what people want. That pattern of bits is a song. In other words, IP is data ownership. Call it data property if you want. If you own IP, you own the means of production, since the data pattern is how you end up with a song - as soon as you implement the pattern, the song exists. It's not enough to have the materials, such as a computer or a vinyl record. The rest of the material is the data, the non-scarce part!

That data is no different than your text documents of stories. You wanted to say you own the data, you weren't saying the -circuit board-. The right to dispose of data, that's what IP is.

one's use of a specific file on a specific computer, is scarce
The file is infinitely copyable, by definition, non-scarce (leaving aside my thoughts on how data might be scarce). In fact, hacking a computer would be fine. After all, hacking doesn't typically prevent you from doing anything, it's the manipulation of infinitely copyable data, and can be used simultaneously.

But, Eiuol, since it appears that you have more time for this topic than you had previously imagined, would you mind addressing the example I had raised to you earlier (the knork, or now the SteakSaber 2000, or whatever)?


My piano thought experiment linked on page 1 addresses it. I looked at your example, I don't see something new for me to say.

Out of curiosity, if you believe that you should "control all copies" of a song you wrote, do you think I should be disallowed from singing it... in a nightclub? Walking down the street? In my shower?

Probably not, it depends on why they were singing. It's probably not an attempt to do anything with the song except knowing the song.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In response to DonAthos,

Out of curiosity, if you believe that you should "control all copies" of a song you wrote, do you think I should be disallowed from singing it... in a nightclub? Walking down the street? In my shower?

Probably not, it depends on why they were singing. It's probably not an attempt to do anything with the song except knowing the song.

So knowing is OK, but profiting from knowing is taboo?  Then knowing and not profiting in most cases represents an immoral sanctioning of coercion.  Excluding cases of breaking and entering, which are a true violation of property, exposing yourself in public doesn't give you the right to demand everyone look the other way or pay you for it.

Here's an example:  A street performer hears your song in passing from a radio he doesn't own.  He then creates a dance and sings your song for tips.  A sign on the brim of the hat says, "The Devil's rendition of Eiuol's wonderful song."

If you want a piece of my action, I want to be compensated for advertising.  "What?!" you say, "I didn't ask you to advertise it!"

I didn't ask you to hear it, or agree to pay for doing so.  Your irresponsible spilling of property doesn't mean I have to clean it up for you.  Let's just call it an even exchange, use for advertising, OK?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...