StealthyRoid writes "I'm an anarcho-capitalist, and a huge supporter of property rights, both physical and intellectual. At the same time, I find the current trend of increasing penalties for minor violations, criminalizing civil IP matters, anti-consumer technologies like DRM, and abuse of the legal system by the *AA's of the world really disturbing. You'd think that by now, there'd be a reasonable solution to the problem of protecting intellectual property while at the same time maintaining the rights of consumers and protecting individuals from absurd litigation, but I have yet to find one. So, I pose these questions to the/. community:
Do you acknowledge the legitimacy of intellectual property to begin with? That is, do you believe that intellectual property is a valid construct equivalent to physical property, or do you think it's illusory? If not, why?
If so, how would you go about protecting the rights of intellectual property holders in a way that doesn't require unfair usage limitations or resort to predatory abuse of the tort system?
"
This discussion was created for logged-in users only, but now has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Do you consider language an intellectual property? The question is rhetorical and designed to show the all encompassing nature of the propaganda term "intellectual property". Trademark, copyright and patents are very different things with different purposes. Some would add trade secret to that list, but there is no social good to it and patents were specifically created to eliminate them. When you confuse the different kinds of created rights with the term intellectual property, you create the potential
In my opinion intellectual property is the exact equivalent to physical property. You can scan in a picture you drew onto your computer. You have a physical copy as well as a digital one now. The problem is that digital property can be more easily distributed over a vast area. This however does not strip away the legitimacy of the original ownership.
How to protect intellectual property without killing innovation is a difficult balancing act. A company Iâ(TM)m currently interning for has got the r
There is no IP. (Score:1)
Do you consider language an intellectual property? The question is rhetorical and designed to show the all encompassing nature of the propaganda term "intellectual property". Trademark, copyright and patents are very different things with different purposes. Some would add trade secret to that list, but there is no social good to it and patents were specifically created to eliminate them. When you confuse the different kinds of created rights with the term intellectual property, you create the potential
Protect (Score:1)