Some myths about intellectual property

Intellectual property is a hot-button issue these days, and for good
reason. In the heat of debate, however, it can become easy for dogmatic
assertions to stamp out complex truths. In order to fairly consider
intellectual property, it is important that our discussions not be clouded
by misconceptions; for this reason, a number of false statements about
intellectual property are listed and rebutted at this Web site:

http://www.duke.edu/~eagle/anarchy/docs/ipmyths.html

I would be most interested in hearing people opinions about what is said
here.  I am not the author of the article.

F. Leon


Intellectual property is an ancient principle.

Not true. Intellectual property is an explicitly modern notion, having
made its debut quite recently. The first patent law was enacted in 1623,
and the precursor of modern copyright - the Statute of Anne - came into
being in 1710. These early laws were limited in scope and restricted to
only a few types of information; the broader interperatation of these
principles used today in the western world is quite modern, certain
elements having been added only within the last few years.

Intellectual property is recognized worldwide.

As the US's recent standoff with China demonstrates, intellectual property
is not a concept which has worldwide acceptance. Indeed, a major foreign
policy objective of the United States has been to force other nations to
comply with its own intellectual property agenda - an unwelcome form of
intellectual imperialism which is all too frequently ignored by watchdog
groups.

Without intellectual property, no one will produce original work.

Given that intellectual property law made its debut in 1623, we may
correctly consider any work produced before this time to dispell the myth.
Man created for millenia before the advent of intellectual property; he
will create for many more millenia after it is abandoned.

Intellectual property is necessary to create incentives for the
production of original works.

This intellectual property myth has become the mantra of IP supporters.
Often repeated, never questioned, the idea that creativity depends on a
government granted monopoly needs no justification in the minds of most IP
boosters. Sadly, however, they are mistaken: intellectual property
"rights" are not essential to creation, and in some circumstances even
deter it. Consider, for instance, the software industry. Free for years
from the limitations of intellectual property, the industry flourished,
becoming by all accounts one of the most creative of environments in the
modern world. With the recent introduction of patent law into computing,
however, many individual programmers live in fear of lawsuits from large
corporations who claim "ownership" of techniques such as the
scroll-buffer. Who benefits from this? Certainly not the creator!
Intellectual property law, from its inception, has been about publishers
and other powerful firms as much as it has been about creative
individuals; the latter often find their interests poorly defended by IP.

Even if people DID create works without intellectual property
protections, the quality of these works would be substandard.

Only if "Julius Caesar", Plutarch's "Lives", "The Last Supper", and
Handel's "Messiah" are "substandard"! All of these, including such pivotal
creations as the Bible, the Koran, and the hundreds of Sutras were created
in a world without intellectual property. IP boosters claim that weakening
intellectual property law means giving up great literature, music, and
art; in fact, history shows us that this is not the case.

The "best" creators won't work without intellectual property
protections.

Once again, history proves this to be false. Shakespeare, Plato,
Confucius, Hero, Chaucer, Handel, and many others of the finest names in
world literature, music, art, and invention worked in an environment free
of intellectual property restrictions. Clearly, genius does not require
copyright to produce!

To take away intellectual property rights is to deny creators the
right to profit from their labors.

This myth is based on the idea that the only way to make money off of
creation is to "sell" the ideas which are produced. In fact, this is not
true. Consulting, support, performance, service: these are all ways in
which creators can make money off of their abilities without appealing to
intellectual property rights. Even if there were no copyright, a band
could still make money by charging for live performances, for instance; an
even better example is found in academia, where a great deal of idea
production takes place without the ideas being "sold" to the universities
which sponsor their creators. Removing intellectual property rights would
not deny creators the right to profit from their labors; it would,
however, allow all of society to share in the benefits of their work.

Intellectual property follows directly from the notion of physical
property.

Physical property rights are derived from the basic fact that a physical
object can't be in two places at once. In order to keep people from
squabbling over material objects, we use a system of rights to say "who
gets what". Information, however, differs from physical property in a
number of ways, one of which being that it can be in many places at the
same time. Let's say that Fred gives Barney an apple; after this, Fred no
longer has the apple. If, on the other hand, Fred TELLS Barney about the
apple, Fred STILL knows about the apple. Fred gave the information to
Barney, but Fred still has it! Clearly, then, there is no need for Fred
and Barney to squabble over who "owns" the information about the apple: to
do such would be to try to treat information like an object, an idea which
is clearly flawed.



As the debate of over the future of intellectual property unfolds, it will
be more important than ever for participants, and bystanders, to have good
information concerning the nature of IP. By removing the myths and
misconceptions which surround intellectual property, we can make better
decisions as to its proper status in our society.

This document should be considered public domain -- please distribute
freely.