From: Valence (valence10@hotmail.com)
Date: Sat Aug 14 2004 - 07:18:06 BST
Hello Pi, David M., and the other 8 people who voted for this topic but
haven't said a word yet:
Pi
It should be obvious that the pattern of "intellectual prperty" lies in
both intellectual and social levels of static quality.
R
The term "intellectual property" (IP) is often used to refer to both the
body of laws that constitutes copyrights, patents, trademarks, and trade
secrets and also to those expressions, inventions and trade-related images
and secrets that those laws protect; so I think it may be clearer to say the
"intellectual property" refers to different patterns respectively existing
within the social and intellectual levels, depending on how you are using
the term.
Pirsig explicitly places law at the social level ("There's a morality where
social patterns triumph over biology, the 'law'"). And in this sense, where
law is a set of rules, that every citizen must follow, written by the
legislature, enforced by the courts with varying degrees of punishment,
etc., I suppose intellectual property laws are like any other set of laws.
However, Pirsig also says, "...what is meant by 'human rights' is usually
the moral code of intellect-vs.-society, the moral right of intellect to be
free of social control. Freedom of speech; freedom of assembly, of travel;
trial by jury; habeas corpus; government by consent-these 'human rights' are
all intellect-vs.-society issues." Plucked right out of the Bill of Rights,
all six of these are also examples of law. So, at least some laws are a
part of the intellect v. society code instead of the society v. biology
code.
Using Pirsig's definition of the 4th level as ideas, it would seem that the
relationship these 'human rights' have to the 4th level is actually somewhat
indirect. The idea seems to be that these 'human rights' are part of the
intellect v. society code because they protect an individual's right to go
places and meet with people and speak to them (exchange ideas), and share
your ideas about what the evidence proves with a jury of your peers in a
trial, or to share your ideas about why your imprisonment is unjust with a
judge, etc. I think Pirsig sees these kinds of laws protecting ideas by
balancing an individuals' rights to exchange ideas against the power of
government. The connection is indirect, but clear, in order to get the
highest quality ideas, people have to be able to speak openly and honestly
without fear of retribution or censorship. When Pirsig replaced causation
with value he changed 'A causes B' to 'B values A'. So in this case, it's
that high quality thinking(B) values a society where individuals have these
"human rights" against the government (A).
Now, unlike the 'human rights' named by Pirsig, IP laws do not protect an
individual against the government. Rather they balance the individual's
rights against other individuals. As stated above and in my starting post,
their direct purpose is to protect an author's right to profit off of his
own expression (or inventor/invention). To borrow a term from Mark M., we
might think of IP as society's attempt to find a sweet-spot between the
availability of ideas and the incentive to create. But indirectly, the aim
is to promote art and innovation. Like the "human rights" Pirsig names, IP
laws also have an indirect role in improving the quantity and quality of
ideas being produced. Or again, high quality thinking (B) values a society
where individuals have these "IP rights" against other individuals (A).
I actually think that if one uses Sam's Eudemonia as the definition of the
4th level, instead of Pirsig's version, the connection between "human
rights" and "IP rights" becomes clearer. But I'll leave that to Sam to
judge and hopefully, explicate.
Pi
...This is a critical point in
> the life of this product as far as this discussion is concerned. This
> product is now entering the arena of social patterns. It needs to be
> protected from the social forces...
R
It's not "the product" that is being protected from the social level, but
rather, the author's (or inventor's) control over "the product". Moreover,
I really I don't like the word "product" at all because it only seems to
acknowledge the commercial function of IP laws and I think there are reasons
an author might want to protect their ideas from abuse by others that have
nothing to do with commerce. Moreover, I'm note sure what exactly you mean
by social forces. The "human rights" named by Pirsig also indirectly
protect ideas from the "social force" of government. With "IP rights" the
ideas are indirectly protected from the "social force" of other people.
Pi
...It wasn't born in a social arena and it
> doesn't really belong there, so it needs help to survive. The parent
> level, the intellectual level, provides this help in form of legal
> protection. Social patterns respect that. As this point the "intellectual
> property" is born.
R
I think the protection is provided by the social level, not by the
intellectual level.
Pi
> 5. patent expires: After some time the patent expires and the product
> enters the public domain. This pattern is free from it's intellectual
> protection is free to roam the social realm, in combination to the
> intellectual realm.
R
Yeah, as Tom Robbins said, a big back has a big front. IP laws do promote
innovation, but somewhat at the expense of the free trade in ideas. The
question becomes whether the price we pay is worth what we gain. And how
much protection is really necessary to get the effect. Current copyright
laws grant rights that could last a century if renewed and maintained
properly. I'm not sure I think that much protection is really necessary.
Does anyone doubt that author's would continue to write if they only got
exclusive control for 20 years? Or 10? Or 5?
Pi
> The two thoughts Rick mentioned, 1) authors and inventors should have
> exclusive rights for a short period of time, 2) ideas and inventions
> should eventually enter the public domain. These two may seem disjoint and
> in disagreement with each other, but I think that they are both
> intellectual patterns. They both have the same ulterior motive! They want
> to protect ideas from being destroyed by social patterns.
R
Other than that I think IP laws are social patterns, I agree with your
identification of their similar motive. I think they indirectly protect the
quality of ideas by protecting the incentives that make people want to
innovate.
Pi
> As far as open source software is concerned, it should be quite obvious
> how moq would view this phenomenon. In short, it is an ingenious method to
> legally require the social forces to keep their hands off the idea/product
> all together. So, the author opts for the intellectual innovation by
> completely ignoring the social rewards and problems. No wonder open source
> movement sounds so weird to people who mostly function in a social world.
> It must sound almost hippie-like. :)
R
I find that very little is "obvious" when it comes to the MoQ. Anyway,
you're not the first person to draw the hippie analogy to the open-source
software movement. But really, they're just arguing the other side. Too
much protection and control over ideas and information stifles innovation.
Just think of how much better my piece of shit windows system would work by
now if Bill Gates patent had run out 10 years ago. Has it occurred to
anyone that he might have too much control over his ideas? Hasn't he
already been justly compensated? Would the interests of innovation be
better served if the Windows Source Code was public domain? Yet, not all
businesses/inventions/arts are so successful so fast. Does Pirsig's work on
the MoQ suggest a more dynamic way to strike the balance?
DAVID M.
I'd like to add to this:
The fact that some ideas cost companies a great deal of cost in terms of
research and development,
so that they would not do the research if not protected by copyright.
Some individual inventors of ideas sacrifice many years in low pay to work
on their pet project,
taking the cost now to get the benefit later -dependent on copyright.
R
Agreed 100%.
DM
Copyright rewards people when they have found the time and space to allow DQ
to emerge and
produce/create some new SQ ideas.
R
I think that's a beautiful way to say it.
DM
Copyright is necessary because of inequality. It helps to maintain it, it
links risk and reward, it rewards what may be the arbitrary gift of DQ and
makes out of the recipient another member of one end of the inequality
divide. The linking of reward to DQ/creativity is to make something sacred
(that should be a gift) into something profane (a justification of
inequality). People have a bad attitude to DQ (bringing something new into
being) when they hope that it will help them move from one end of inequality
to the other (poor to rich).
R
You had me until here. This is a bit cynical for my taste. Besides, giving
creators control over their creations arguably helps dissolve inequalities
by providing an avenue for people to reach equal footing by exploiting their
own creations. The society as a whole gets the benefit of enjoying the
fruits of that idea and the creator gets the benefit of enjoying the fruits
of society's consumption... and someday, when the legal protection runs out,
the whole world gets the freedom to benefit from it intellectually and maybe
use it to come up with their own new creations.
take care
rick
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_focus/
MF Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_focus follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/mf/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Aug 14 2004 - 07:33:13 BST