On 17/06/97, Mike Holderness <mch[_at_]cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > Actually, I think that compensating creators of intellectual property
> > on a similar basis to the creators of farm produce, shorthand and
> > Nike runners is the best way forward.
>
> That'd be $1.50 a day, I suppose. Or <N> Kenyan shillings or 20 Rupees
> or <M> Baht...
My "similar basis" was intended to imply a mechanism, not a value. Still, I really don't see how wage parity implies reduction to the lowest rate.
> I don't think Jeremy's grasped that there are *three* interest groups
> involved.
I don't think Mike's grasped that there are other ways of looking at the world than his.
> (1) Those of us who create news reports, dance tracks, soap operas,
> journal articles...
So: people who make a living assembling ideas instead of motor cars; combining images, observations and experiences instead of flour, water and yeast; weaving pattern of culture, not cotton...
Most white-collar workers are paid by the hour or the year to be creative, to write, to develop new techniques and to invent solutions to problems, and yet they're not credited with producing IP. The magic ingredient is ephemeral indeed. Perhaps Mike can explain the alchemy of IP, so I might better grasp his argument.
> Chris' "souk" metaphor is a good one, so long as you insist on
> buying direct from the farmer/artisan and don't confuse her/him
> with Booker McConnell and News International.
I have considerable difficulty with the metaphor. The real point at issue is not whether the net will facilitate exchange of goods and services--it will, and to a degree which may overwhelm many extant economic institutions--but whether it is appropriate that an 'IP artisan's' produce should obtain a peculiar, unique added value--one which lasts two generations beyond the lifetime of the artisan and prohibits others from making produce the same or similar--beyond the work which went into it.
Most instances of gratuitous plagiarism aside, free use and re-use of ideas, techniques and symbols, of plot, character, meter and melody has always _enriched_ the culture, to the benefit of everyone. The process of artistic, literary, philosophical, spiritual and technical creativity existed for several thousand years before the treasurers of the English crown manufactured the notion of copyright. Much that had, until then, contributed freely to the civilisation suddenly became the exclusive property of single individuals, and the balkanisation of knowledge began.
The "public domain" does not seem to make many claims for ownership. It does not pursue licensing agreements and it's not notably litigious. So it loses; we all lose. The real problem is that a concept invented to manipulate the availability of information for monetary gain has wormed its way so far into the collective psyche that to challenge it is somehow criminal.
But I expect the net to change all that.
CYa,
JEREMY
Jeremy G. Byrne
<jeremy[_at_]midnight.com.au>
Received on Wed Jun 18 1997 - 18:31:42 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:26 GMT