Related to the idea of a "freedom zone" is that of a university "bubble," where the institution's endowment and funding allows the needs and interests of research to ignore what's beyond its walls. But while scientists may want to publish in Nature so they can get offered good faculty positions, and while the bubble may make it easy for them to exercise freedom in research, I think a lot of them are seeing and believing in the benefits of open publications, if not yet open data. The success of the arxiv and PLoS as well as the NIH's new rule of delayed public paper release are exemplary of the trend toward open academic publications.
"Open Access" - all academic papers available for free on the web - is very hot right now. To the point that many national funding agencies require it as a precondition for funding research.
Additionally, researchers in some fields did already make (most of) their papers available, either centralized (arXiv, eprint.iacr.org - math, physics, cryptography) or on their own web pages.
If there were no intellectual property, companies producing software, music and the like could enforce their rights with contracts and laws against the receiving of stolen property. You still would not have the right to distribute someone else's work.
Well, it would work that way in a world that respects contracts. Not sure about 21st century America where people don't even read them.
Patents are another matter though. Would I not have the right to make a thing and sell it without your consent, especially if I've never signed any contract with you restricting such rights? I think I would. We would have to use bounties like the X Prize and I see no reason why that wouldn't work.
There have to be mechanisms where by innovators are paid for innovating. If we don't have them in the US, innovators will go to they exist. Innovation would still happen, but not the really expensive, inherently non-protectable kind. And no, I do not mean one-click ordering!
Your first paragraph is incorrect. Ideas are not property, except through "intellectual property" law. There's a similar but separate issue - you wouldn't have the right to sell someone else's work and claim it as your own - this would be misleading and deceptive trade.
There have to be mechanisms where by innovators are
paid for innovating
There are already. I build software because it helps my company function in a way that allows them to make money.
Innovation would still happen, but not the really
expensive, inherently non-protectable kind.
It totally would. Further, you need to consider the opportunity cost we suffer at the moment: the things we're stifling in the name of protecting operations that dependend on the government crimping everyone else's rights for their gain.
Ironically, the freedom zones these days are often in third world countries that turn a blind eye to indiscresions by the sort of smart foreigners they want to attract - the likes of China and Indochina. Those countries don't care if you're breaking copyright or patents, and probably won't act to retrict your personal liberty much either so long as you're helping them towards their economic goals.
A fallen city like Detroit or Buffalo could look to give themselves edge by making themselves into a freedom zone - seeking to get an exemption from the laws as a reserach exercise.
Of you could do one in Mexico or Canada, and try to benefit to proximity to the labour you want to attract.
Update: I've been looking at maps. That region of southern Canada around Detroit, London and Buffalo is screaming out for someone to put in a special economic zone. It's surrounded by rustbelt, has amazing infrastructure, good connectivity to the east coast and Toronto. English speaking, cheap labour, good infrastructure, connectivity.
I'm having trouble grasping what you're trying to say, and read your sentences as contradicting one other in two separate places.
I read back through your first posting, and can't understand how you can be on the one hand saying that people can defend IP through stolen property laws, yet not claiming that ideas are property.
I genuinely don't understand your point. As they say in the text adventures, 'perhaps you could rephrase what you've written and try to say the same thing a different way'.
Thread's probably dead now, but if you want to have another go I'll be around for it.
Ideas are not considered property under copyright law. Only the expression of an idea can be copyrighted.
But I do see your point. Yes, in order for EXPRESSIONS of ideas to be protected, they have to be considered property. A contract a buyer signs may restrict him, but third parties haven't agreed to it. A single buyer could violate the contract and then the whole world would have access.
The only way third parties could be prevented from getting it is if the law recognized this as property being stolen.
I think in your first comment you merged the idea contract and property into a single idea - and were calling that thing property.
To put my position another way, while you can have a contract to exchange property, not all things exchanged through contract are property.
A single buyer could violate the contract and
then the whole world would have access.
OK. So the scenario you describe is party A has produced a book. Parties X, Y and Z sign a contract with A to get access to the book with. The contract restricts them - it says that may not redistribute. In this case, if X redistributes, then perhaps A could sue for damages.
The only way third parties could be prevented from
getting it is if the law recognized this as property
being stolen.
I see. And in a sense you're right. However, it's important to remember that creating that legal structure impedes other forms of innovation. For example, lots of music derives from other music. There are remixes, that are often illegal. A lot Handel's work is arrangements of existing music he had lying around. Handel rearranged it in a way that has survived the test of time better than the originals.
The only way third parties could be prevented from
getting it is if the law recognized this as property
being stolen.
There are other mechanisms. Consider the Steam games network. That's a mechanism of protecting ideas that doesn't leverage copyright law. Another one was the way the 911 report was distributed. They sold right-of-first-access to that in an auction (for a large amount), and later released it free.
A lot of IP is created in a way that is incidental: music for movie soundtracks, code to make businesses work better, books so that teachers can teach their students.
The existence of copyright empowers people who are connected to the legal system. Musicians don't make good money off their music, the parasitic recording industry does. Authors don't make good money from textbooks, the parasitic textbook industry does. Copyright interests are particularly well-connected to lobbyists. The incentives argument doesn't hold up. People wade through rivers of shit to have creative expression, often in contradiction to their commercial interest, and are often frustrated in that goal by copyright-backed cartels that want to keep channels locked up.
I don't know if I'd call the textbook publishers parasites. Books with small audiences are more expensive to print.
Isn't a parasite something that takes resources against the host's will while providing nothing in return? How is that true here?
As with music, authors that appeal to large numbers of people have the most leverage. When distribution is very costly per copy, the take home for the producer will be reduced. Distribution is a real activity that needs to be performed. There's nothing parasitic about it.
Food — enjoying foodstuffs grown in less developed places with lower wages, driving up prices of food and farmland in those places.
Cheap electronics — enjoying access to devices assembled in places with less worker rights, creating pressure to keep workforce prices down, thus limiting the access of said workforce to gadgets you yourself enjoy.
This is a way of expressing what Kant said about lying and morality. A liar presumes the existence and practice of a moral rule against lying, but makes an exception of themself -- that is the only way their action makes sense and is profitable.
IP is a priori immoral because it fails moral universalisation. If we all shared what we produced freely, we would all gain (a thousandfold, a millionfold ...), and at no cost to each other. If we all had to be equally bound by restrictions and payments and legal action, we would all lose.
The only way IP, as a principle rather than pragmatically, can make sense is as an immoral intention.
(This is the funny thing about 'natural rights' arguments for IP: they all fail universalisation, trivially and obviously. It is odd they get much respect at all.)
And the actual practice does seem to follow the morality. Just as the article describes, where groups have power to choose, they tend to waive the rules for themselves, and just enforce them for everyone else.
I'd guess you've been voted you down because you're talking in philosophy and not connecting it to practical matters.
For what it's worth, I'd recommend you do this: find a way to make your case in a practical way. Then explain that this situation is an analogy to what Kant said and give people clear links to that. Then explain the philosophical issue.
