Linked by David Adams on Mon 16th Aug 2004 17:44 UTC
I read something in one of the comments for an OSNews posting a couple weeks ago that sent me thinking. It wasn't an original or profound thought. In fact, it's a rather commonly-held opinion that happens to be quite misguided. It's an opinion summed up by the "open source = communist" meme that gets thrown around in thousands of flamewars all over the internet. In this essay, I will explore why this idea is wrong and demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of economics.
Permalink for comment
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
First off Mr. Adams used the word enforce in relation to sharing. That doesn't sound like choice to me.
It certainly is! You think that IP owners don't have a right to enforce they're choices on how their IP is licensed? It is entirely their choice wether to enforce it or not.
Secondly an idea is very tangible if it wasn't poeple wouldn't pay for it. A block of wood with out an idea is a stick. With an idea it can become a piece of valued art or a custom peice of furniture. If that peice of furniture is unique enough in function then the design (idea) can be patented.
An idea is completely intangable. Its rediculus to state otherwise. For instance, if I have an idea for a new type of encryption algorithm, what exactly is that idea made of? To be tangible, it must be some form of matter. What would that be? Enlighten me please!
Software is no more tangible then an idea.
In the world today the new wood is 0 and 1's, bits and bytes with out ideas software is just ether.
A very appropriate analogy, as ether in the context you used it in is a non-existant substance. Since when did the concepts of 1 or 0 become tangible? What form of matter is software made from?
Since material goods are of finite quantities on this planet, I would think that people who are truly for the common man would be all for the protection of ideas through intellectual property rights since this is about the easiest and fastest way for a common man to empower himself.
So would I. I guess then that you do not consider yourself a common man? You seem to quite vigorously trample on those rights.
Of course some one should be able to share his idea with the world for what ever value he chooses to place on it. But sharing and enforce are two words that just shouldn't be used together.
Your view of mankind is far too ideal. Im afraid this moral utopia where IP rights need not be enforced does not exist. You may not like enforcment of IP rights, but the right to enforce them exists for a reason, and the nature of mankind leaves little chance that this will ever change.