defending the right to innovate
Monopoly corrupts. Absolute monopoly corrupts absolutely.
Copyright Notice: We don't think much of copyright, so you can do what you want with the content on this blog. Of course we are hungry for publicity, so we would be pleased if you avoided plagiarism and gave us credit for what we have written. We encourage you not to impose copyright restrictions on your "derivative" works, but we won't try to stop you. For the legally or statist minded, you can consider yourself subject to a Creative Commons Attribution License.
Over on Freedom to Tinker there is a nice essay about an important discovery in the online game SecondLife. To briefly summarize: people can create and sell objects for "Linden Dollars" which can be traded in the real world for US Dollars. Someone has now built a copybot which can make exact duplicates of any object. It seems the "perfect storm" for the pro-IP crowd: surely the economy will collapse over night. (It does matter quite a bit whether the copybot can operate without or without the permission of the current owner of the object - it isn't clear to me from the essay which way it works.) If you want to know what will happen next, go read the 1958 Ralph Williams science fiction short story "Business As Usual During Alterations."
In the real world permission is pretty insignificant when everyone has replication devices.
In the real world we also have far more effective diffusion devices (file-sharing).
2nd life is supposedly wholly subject to the control of its creators - except that they permit a semblance of liberty to its denizens.
In 2nd life DRM actually works - given its god's will is omnipresent.
Unfortunately, in 2nd life, the ingenious exploitation of even its heavily constrained liberty has become so sophisticated that people have been able to create their own replication devices that automate reverse engineered reconstruction to achieve what the 2nd life DRM chooses not to permit.
This idea that one can both issue an edict that restricts the public's use of technology and actually achieve such a restriction is thus demonstrated to be folly both in the misguided idealism of the virtual world as it is in the real world.
The individual does not have the freedom of choice to suspend the public's liberty - even if you try and kid each member of the public that this freedom of choice is their right.
This is grievous semantic corruption of the meaning of the word 'freedom'.
Freedom from control or freedom to control - you can't superimpose the two together except in a word game.
[Comment at 11/18/2006 09:46 AM by Crosbie Fitch]
Considerably more on the SecondLife copybot from a ?reporter? who specializes in reporting about SecondLife. The copybot doesn't need permission, just physical proximity to the object to be copied. Freedom or not, this was as bad for the economy as theory says it should be.
To clarify: copyright law is about controlling other people's copies. That is, if I bought a copy from you - should you be allowed to tell me what to do with it. We ordinarily imagine that you get to control your own copies. That is, you aren't allowed to sneak into my house in the middle of the night with your copy machine and make copies of my "A Tale of Two Cities."
In SecondLife it appears that you can make copies without anyone's permission - meaning you don't even have the right to control your own copies. This means that the person who creates the original cannot collect anything, except through charity. In this case we really should expect economic collapse - most people will stop making new things. That seems to have happened, followed shortly by the banning of the copybot.
[Comment at 11/18/2006 11:06 AM by David K. Levine]
Don't worry, collective patronage still works even if even 'private' creations are instantaneously available to all.
I would have expected that LL could have enabled players to create things offline and then demonstrate them in isolated sandpits.
And THEN fricking sell the things.
See my comments on Ed Felten's blog: Freedom To Tinker
[Comment at 11/18/2006 04:00 PM by Crosbie Fitch]
Yes - I agree: even without demonstration, reputation alone combined with collective patronage will keep some element of creativity. Collective patronage may yield a pretty small fraction of social surplus if there are a lot of people, meaning that some more marginal (="expensive to design and not so great") creations won't happen. It will be interesting to see how they wind up going.
[Comment at 11/19/2006 03:56 PM by David K. Levine]
Most Recent Comments
IIPA thinks open source equals piracy rerwerwerwer
at 07/08/2019 11:35 PM by WolfLarsen Larsen
IIPA thinks open source equals piracy Thank you for this great
at 06/21/2019 02:13 PM by spam name
Questions and Challenges For Defenders of the Current Copyright Regime Eu acho que os direitos autorais da invenção ou projeto devem ser
at 05/11/2019 09:15 PM by Marcelo
IIPA thinks open source equals piracy https://essaywritingsolutions.co.uk/
at 04/07/2019 11:22 PM by WolfLarsen
at 04/07/2019 11:21 PM by WolfLarsen
IIPA thinks open source equals piracy rwerwewre
at 04/07/2019 11:20 PM by WolfLarsen
at 02/05/2019 07:44 AM by Anonymous
Questions and Challenges For Defenders of the Current Copyright Regime It is one of the finest websites I have stumbled upon. It is not only well developed, but has good
at 06/19/2018 10:36 PM by Michael Jones
Killing people with patents I'm not really commenting the post, but rather asking if this blog is going to make a comeback
at 01/09/2018 03:46 AM by Anonymous
The right to rub smooth using a hardened steel tool with ridges Finally got around to looking at the comments, sorry for delay... Replying to Stephan: I'm sorry
at 05/08/2015 08:35 AM by Dan Dobkin
Let's See: Pallas, Pan, Patents, Persephone, Perses, Poseidon, Prometheus... Seems like a kinda bizarre proposal to me. We just need to abolish the patent system, not replace
at 04/10/2015 10:44 AM by Stephan Kinsella
The right to rub smooth using a hardened steel tool with ridges I'm a bit confused by this--even if "hired to invent" went away, that would just change the default
at 04/10/2015 10:34 AM by Stephan Kinsella
Do we need a law? @ Alexander Baker: So basically, if I copy parts of 'Titus Andronicus' to a webpage without
at 01/08/2015 08:58 PM by Sheogorath
Do we need a law? The issue is whether the crime is punished not who punishes it. If somebody robs our house we do
at 11/17/2014 04:48 AM by David K. Levine
Do we need a law? 1. Plagiarism most certainly is illegal, it is called "copyright infringement". One very famous
at 10/29/2014 10:49 AM by Alexander Baker
Yet another proof of the inutility of copyright. The 9/11 Commission report cost $15,000,000 to produce, not counting the salaries of the authors.
at 09/20/2014 03:19 PM by Alexander Baker
WKRP In Cincinnati - Requiem For A Masterpiece P.S. The link to Amazon's WKRP product page:
at 06/28/2014 10:03 AM by Doris
WKRP In Cincinnati - Requiem For A Masterpiece Hopefully some very good news. Shout! Factory is releasing the entire series of WKRP in Cincinnati,
at 06/28/2014 10:00 AM by Doris
What's copywritable? Go fish in court. @ Anonymous: You misunderstood my intent. I was actually trying to point out a huge but basic
at 05/05/2014 01:03 PM by Sheogorath
Rights Violations Aren't the Only Bads I hear that nonsense from pro-IP people all the
at 04/07/2014 04:47 AM by Dan McCracken