>>
>> > *HOW*, in the face of a worldwide digital network, will
>> > intellectual property ownership be maintained or even
>> > strengthened?
>>
>> A better question: How will IP be restructured?
>
>Jesus Christ, I'm just going to stop responding to you until you
>promise to go back and re-read the thread.
>
>Here's what I asked six days ago:
>
>: In the face if the inevitable decline of centralized control of
>: reproduction and distribution of creative works, why would we
>: want to erect structures to try maintain the centralized status
>: quo and combat the inevitable decentralization?
>:
>: [snip]
>:
>: Therefore, what kind of structures do we want *instead of* the
>: status quo?
>
>Sound familiar, Adam?
>
>Sheesh.
But you're missing a main issue here -- you're talking about what kind of
change will take place absent IP. I'm talking about what kind of changes
will take place within the world of IP.
You don't have to talk to me about this, but I've READ the damn thread. I'm
LISTENING. But you're not responding. There's a HUGE difference between
what I've said and what you said.
>> >Physical property IS NOT intellectual property. I won't let
>you
>> >turn this into a discussion of the pros and cons of personal
>> >physical property, because that is a wholly separate issue. IP
>> >can go poof and it won't have to affect physical property.
>>
>> To quote: Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. IP is
>intrinsically tied to
>> physical property.
>
>How?
>
>Ideas are tied to physical technology, in that it requires an
>idea to make the technology real. Legal constructs are only
>arbitrarily tied to the phsyical world, though.
If I have no control over the idea governing the property, the property
itself becomes intractable. There isn't an "arbitrary" connection between
the two, there's a vital connection between the propriety of an idea and the
act of production. How is that "arbitrary?" Because it's changed over time?
>> Virtually everything we touch is a product of
>> technology. Either it is a raw material that's more easily or
>efficiently
>> collected via technology or it's a technological product, based
>on those raw
>> materials.
>
>So what? Ideas, not laws, create technology.
Ideas AND laws engender technology. Ideas come into existence under the
notion of some kind of social contract. Are you suggesting that a social
contract that renders the propriety of ideas irrelevant is going to bring
them to bear at the same rate as under the current system?
>> I know that you're equating IP with the law. And that's just
>> plain wrong.
>
>Why? Give me any rational basis for intellectual property being
>anything other than a legal construct. Hell, give me an
>*irrational* basis; at least that's better than empty assertions
>that I'm "just plain wrong."
I wonder why you didn't quote me quoting your "Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong,
wrong." No matter how many times you say it, the argument's the same. And
I'm guilty, absolutely, in this case. And so are you.
You DON'T believe in a relationship between biology and the social contract,
we've had this dicussion before. If you don't, you won't agree with me, no
matter how hard I blow.
>> >Intellectual property law doesn't control ideas, it controls
>the
>> >process of reproduction and distribution of expressions of
>ideas.
>> >The reason it can control those processes is because they have
>> >always been *physical* processes. Once those processes are no
>> >longer physical there's no reason to assume that the model for
>> >controlling discrete, bounded physical property will work for
>> >controlling information.
>>
>> And THAT'S what we need to focus on it the future. Not a book,
>not a
>> record, not even an e-mail message. We need to focus on the
>IDEA and it's
>> RELATIONSHIP to the physical.
>
>Sigh. Read the last four points of the "IP Executive Summary" I
>posted for four different suggestions on how to change the
>relationship of the idea to the material world.
Wonderful. Your contribution is appreciated.
Adam D. Barnhart
adamb@cfmc.com
ydnt85a@prodigy.com