Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 17th Sep 2012 18:12 UTC
Permalink for comment 535548
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/13/13 14:35 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/11/13 17:07 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/10/13 23:13 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/08/13 14:57 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/07/13 11:40 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/04/13 12:45 UTC
Linked by nfeske on 05/31/13 10:12 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/29/13 16:59 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 17:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2010-03-08
I was just thinking... If speech obeyed the same laws as industrial products, could TED talks still exist ?
After all, what TED speakers do is to take good ideas that have been flowing around in the R&D world for a while, think about them a bit, and put them in a very well-designed package : a talk that's concise, clean, and easy to understand for everyone. When they do so, they generally don't owe people who've been working on these ideas a dime, yet they will take credit for that work : people will often mention their name when they pass the talk's video around, they will have a higher chance to be hired on a job concerning the matter that was discussed, and so on.
Isn't it exactly what current IP law has been designed to prevent ? If the legal system had some coherence, shouldn't ownership of concepts also mean ownership of free speech about these concepts ? Or, on the other side of the fence, should we ditch the whole "intellectual property" thing altogether and work on another legal system that protects creation without being fundamentally based on the ownership of specific ideas and language constructs ?
Edited 2012-09-18 07:32 UTC