1) The notion of IP not serving humanity can be rooted in a couple of
political schema, neither of which I am very fond of. One is Marxism, or
any one of its million modern manifestations (see Thompson, Anderson,
Brenner, Waugh....Mao). A second would be most of the derivitives of
Utilitarianism (in a Benthamist sense...Mill was not Utiliarian in a way
that completely jives with this. Even a Nietzschean outlook, sufficiently
altered, would work here. But an underlying belief to this, it seems, is
that what serves society as a whole is a superior paradigm to one which
serves its composite parts best. And, with my fairly libertarian/classic
liberalist bent, I'm definitely in the other camp. My belief is that
Intellectual Property SHOULD be preserved, which, in all likelihood, colors
my impressions of the future of IP. But the idea is having increasing
primacy in our world, and, resultingly, will be even MORE protected. But
remember all the IP lawsuits that have surrounded Intel lately....IP doesn't
just mean calling it "Late Night With David Letterman."
2) Where artistic IP is concerned, we've gotta remember how much the artist
is contributing and WHAT they're contributing. For example, Stevie Wonder
is a great songwriter, writing a load of songs that have been immensely
popular. Also, though, any song submitted to the man that he uses will have
his name added to it, since he feels his interpretation is crucial to the
song, no matter how little arranging he does. But someone like Coltrane or
Miles Davis, despite the amount of arrangement involved, DON'T take writing
credits....even arranging credits. Even in an area as contentious (and
sorted out) as music, IP law isn't particularly clear. I don't interpret
this, though, as a reason to dump it, but as a reason to refine it.
Adam D. Barnhart
adamb@cfmc.com
ydnt85a@prodigy.com