Its OK to be a pick-pocket..
A precursor to the post before this, actually written nearly a month ago, but was left unfinished. I didn't want to throw it away, so here it is:
The notion of 'ownership', especially of ideas, of knowledge, is such an entireley capitalist disease; it teems with agendas that, if (of course) we were actually to think for a moment, we might understand, to some degree.
Trenton Russi, has a very accessible - meaning, readable - paper on this, but it is by no means an excuse to not read any other works. I have countless suggestions, if you like scholarly papers. However, here are some ideas for you to chew on:
Information "wants" to be free. However, today's capitalist society seeks information, because it has become a form of currency. Whoever 'owns' the info gets the money, because there is no way to exploit collective knowledge, information that everyone has. In fact, the system (henceforth a delineation for the capitalist principles that dictate our lives) doesnt want people to understand. There are already too many smart people in the world, more would present a threat to the system. You need to pay your respect (if form of royalties, references), be humble and meek to recieve censored or controlled knowledge. Information cannot be free while the world exists as it does today.
Information is a pure and fairly simple collection of thoughts and ideas. It is simple because it exists easily, formed out of nothingness, and can be easily produced and exchanged. But it is how humans manipulate and choose to exchange it that makes information complex and difficult to use sometimes.
"Athough new information technologies can complicate the relation of human beings to each other and the external world, the new technologies rarely, if ever create such problems in the first place. Rather, the problems arise from characteristics of human beings and the external world that existed prior to the introduction of any given device" (see Mark Levinson). Mankind's methods of organization cause these problems. This is why information cannot be free. Society will not let it be.
People often want control over their ideas and research. They want to "own" the information. This is why we have "intellectual property." In an ideal society intellectual property wouldn't exist. Everyone would share information freely and new ideas would be able to flourish because everything would be open and available. Information "wants" to be this way. Levinson thinks though, that while this "utopia is temptingly attractive in its radical romanticism.. it is unrealistic."
Is it unrealistic? Or is it just un-capitalistic, in direct conflict with ideology of greed?
I will refrain from pursing my own discourse by expounding this. Instead, in favor of greater public consensus that problems exist, I ask to following questions:
Does the concept of this ideal ignores those creators who actually care about credit and remuneration and those who wish to maintain control over their compositions? (see Rosenblatt)
Do people always want credit, if nothing else?
Does control over her ideas negatively limit public knowledge, and the proliferation of new ideas?
I think the answers are no, no, and yes, respectively, but its quite so simple.
There are some relevant examples that might be interesting:
First note (as I dont know if there will be others): For the sake of argument, that is, pointing out the problems of "ownership", let's use this term in its natural disposition.
One situation that makes the desire for "ownership" blatantly clear is the court battles between companies and employees over IP. When an employee of a company comes up with something innovative all on their own, one question invariably comes up. Who "owns" the rights to this idea? Does the employee or the company he works for? One such case is that of DSC/Alcatel v. Brown. Harry Goldstein outlines this case and discusses how Evan Brown may have lost his "billion-dollar idea." Brown signed an IP contract when he began work at DSC. The contract basically said that any work done while working for an employer, "belongs" to that employer. But even under our legal codes (a ravenous machine created to "protect" people that instead chew's them up), there are some gray areas. What happens when an employee creates something on her or his own time using background knowledge gained from the company? Who owns an idea that an employee has that is not completely related to the company's business? This is where ownership begins to get complex.
"They are fighting for something that is no more than an abstract concept. Ideas and information have no physical presence. So can anyone really own it? Can a company really lay claim to every miniscule thought that dances through an employee's head? Employers seem to think so, according to Orin Laney, former chair of IEEE-USA's Intellectual Property Committee. "There's an unspoken presumption that if you work for us, your every waking thought is ours, your every sentient conception." Companies fight so hard to own ideas, because it is to their advantage financially and powerfully. But for the same reasons the creators want ownership." (Russi)
Information has evolved over the years. It does not carry the same meaning that it once did. Ideas were expressed as physical entities, or at least they could be. People invented 'things'. Their more abstract ideas were written down on paper. It is easy to patent physical objects. It also used to be easy to copyright written text. J.P. Barlow notes that "copyright worked well because, Gutenberg notwithstanding, it was hard to make a book." However, information today has changed dramatically. It is very easy to copy a book, or least the words, to another medium. Digital technology has allowed information to change into something more abstract than it ever was before.
How does this affect copyright?
"Copyright protection is still being used with digital information today, however it is less effective. Copyright cannot be regulated as easily because of the ease of information copying. There are three ways in which copyright can become more effective. Adjust the copyright laws, write new copyright laws, or change the way information is coded and exchanged. Some would argue that none of these methods would be completely successful. These people would argue that copyright should disappear completely, that information should be free. However, as previously discussed this cannot work because of the nature of people. So a working system of protection must be worked out." (Russi)
[This is where any sort of coherent discussion ends; I think I started watching tv and stopped thinking. ]
Ownership. Today, financial motivations sound like greed, and power desires like tyranny.
People, in general, tend to want to do better for themselves and "get ahead" in life. People working for a mutually beneficial life are perfect people that do not have any selfishness.
'What's mine is yours' is the posture of a saint. 'What's yours is mine' is the ideology of a mugger.
Information "wants" to be free simply from its nature; an anthropomorphic view may have some basis, though not necessarily due to the "informational desire." Humans are the ones that create problems; the problem is not inherent within information. People argue over who owns what, and other such questions with no clear answers. Information is without a need for ownership, thats why information "wants" to be free.
SOMETHING DIFFERENT:
The "dis-ordering" of information is supported by (second law of thermodynamics) an unstoppable trend toward randomization. In biology, the only way that complex, organized creatures form is by the randomization of the surroundings. The universe as a whole is becoming more random. The population's attempts to organize information into a system of ownership are only going against the physical laws of the world. Information rests more easily in an unorganized fashion. But once again we must point out, that free information simple might not be possible because of most human desires for ownership.
(What do you think about this...? Weird?)
We must however, be wary of claims of the 'naturalness' of ownership. Ownership is not a natural entity. It is an entirely human concept. People and corporations adjust and tweak ideas of ownership to their liking. Author, or creator of a work has no natural ownership of that work. The author's name has no legal status, nor is it located in the fiction of the work; rather it is located in the break that founds a certain discursive construct and its very particular mode of being. An author's name merely sits on the edge of the work, but is not part of it. The fact that the author's (or owner's) name may even exist is a result of human desire. (See Fouc.)
The notion of 'ownership', especially of ideas, of knowledge, is such an entireley capitalist disease; it teems with agendas that, if (of course) we were actually to think for a moment, we might understand, to some degree.
Trenton Russi, has a very accessible - meaning, readable - paper on this, but it is by no means an excuse to not read any other works. I have countless suggestions, if you like scholarly papers. However, here are some ideas for you to chew on:
Information "wants" to be free. However, today's capitalist society seeks information, because it has become a form of currency. Whoever 'owns' the info gets the money, because there is no way to exploit collective knowledge, information that everyone has. In fact, the system (henceforth a delineation for the capitalist principles that dictate our lives) doesnt want people to understand. There are already too many smart people in the world, more would present a threat to the system. You need to pay your respect (if form of royalties, references), be humble and meek to recieve censored or controlled knowledge. Information cannot be free while the world exists as it does today.
Information is a pure and fairly simple collection of thoughts and ideas. It is simple because it exists easily, formed out of nothingness, and can be easily produced and exchanged. But it is how humans manipulate and choose to exchange it that makes information complex and difficult to use sometimes.
"Athough new information technologies can complicate the relation of human beings to each other and the external world, the new technologies rarely, if ever create such problems in the first place. Rather, the problems arise from characteristics of human beings and the external world that existed prior to the introduction of any given device" (see Mark Levinson). Mankind's methods of organization cause these problems. This is why information cannot be free. Society will not let it be.
People often want control over their ideas and research. They want to "own" the information. This is why we have "intellectual property." In an ideal society intellectual property wouldn't exist. Everyone would share information freely and new ideas would be able to flourish because everything would be open and available. Information "wants" to be this way. Levinson thinks though, that while this "utopia is temptingly attractive in its radical romanticism.. it is unrealistic."
Is it unrealistic? Or is it just un-capitalistic, in direct conflict with ideology of greed?
I will refrain from pursing my own discourse by expounding this. Instead, in favor of greater public consensus that problems exist, I ask to following questions:
Does the concept of this ideal ignores those creators who actually care about credit and remuneration and those who wish to maintain control over their compositions? (see Rosenblatt)
Do people always want credit, if nothing else?
Does control over her ideas negatively limit public knowledge, and the proliferation of new ideas?
I think the answers are no, no, and yes, respectively, but its quite so simple.
There are some relevant examples that might be interesting:
First note (as I dont know if there will be others): For the sake of argument, that is, pointing out the problems of "ownership", let's use this term in its natural disposition.
One situation that makes the desire for "ownership" blatantly clear is the court battles between companies and employees over IP. When an employee of a company comes up with something innovative all on their own, one question invariably comes up. Who "owns" the rights to this idea? Does the employee or the company he works for? One such case is that of DSC/Alcatel v. Brown. Harry Goldstein outlines this case and discusses how Evan Brown may have lost his "billion-dollar idea." Brown signed an IP contract when he began work at DSC. The contract basically said that any work done while working for an employer, "belongs" to that employer. But even under our legal codes (a ravenous machine created to "protect" people that instead chew's them up), there are some gray areas. What happens when an employee creates something on her or his own time using background knowledge gained from the company? Who owns an idea that an employee has that is not completely related to the company's business? This is where ownership begins to get complex.
"They are fighting for something that is no more than an abstract concept. Ideas and information have no physical presence. So can anyone really own it? Can a company really lay claim to every miniscule thought that dances through an employee's head? Employers seem to think so, according to Orin Laney, former chair of IEEE-USA's Intellectual Property Committee. "There's an unspoken presumption that if you work for us, your every waking thought is ours, your every sentient conception." Companies fight so hard to own ideas, because it is to their advantage financially and powerfully. But for the same reasons the creators want ownership." (Russi)
Information has evolved over the years. It does not carry the same meaning that it once did. Ideas were expressed as physical entities, or at least they could be. People invented 'things'. Their more abstract ideas were written down on paper. It is easy to patent physical objects. It also used to be easy to copyright written text. J.P. Barlow notes that "copyright worked well because, Gutenberg notwithstanding, it was hard to make a book." However, information today has changed dramatically. It is very easy to copy a book, or least the words, to another medium. Digital technology has allowed information to change into something more abstract than it ever was before.
How does this affect copyright?
"Copyright protection is still being used with digital information today, however it is less effective. Copyright cannot be regulated as easily because of the ease of information copying. There are three ways in which copyright can become more effective. Adjust the copyright laws, write new copyright laws, or change the way information is coded and exchanged. Some would argue that none of these methods would be completely successful. These people would argue that copyright should disappear completely, that information should be free. However, as previously discussed this cannot work because of the nature of people. So a working system of protection must be worked out." (Russi)
[This is where any sort of coherent discussion ends; I think I started watching tv and stopped thinking. ]
Ownership. Today, financial motivations sound like greed, and power desires like tyranny.
People, in general, tend to want to do better for themselves and "get ahead" in life. People working for a mutually beneficial life are perfect people that do not have any selfishness.
'What's mine is yours' is the posture of a saint. 'What's yours is mine' is the ideology of a mugger.
Information "wants" to be free simply from its nature; an anthropomorphic view may have some basis, though not necessarily due to the "informational desire." Humans are the ones that create problems; the problem is not inherent within information. People argue over who owns what, and other such questions with no clear answers. Information is without a need for ownership, thats why information "wants" to be free.
SOMETHING DIFFERENT:
The "dis-ordering" of information is supported by (second law of thermodynamics) an unstoppable trend toward randomization. In biology, the only way that complex, organized creatures form is by the randomization of the surroundings. The universe as a whole is becoming more random. The population's attempts to organize information into a system of ownership are only going against the physical laws of the world. Information rests more easily in an unorganized fashion. But once again we must point out, that free information simple might not be possible because of most human desires for ownership.
(What do you think about this...? Weird?)
We must however, be wary of claims of the 'naturalness' of ownership. Ownership is not a natural entity. It is an entirely human concept. People and corporations adjust and tweak ideas of ownership to their liking. Author, or creator of a work has no natural ownership of that work. The author's name has no legal status, nor is it located in the fiction of the work; rather it is located in the break that founds a certain discursive construct and its very particular mode of being. An author's name merely sits on the edge of the work, but is not part of it. The fact that the author's (or owner's) name may even exist is a result of human desire. (See Fouc.)