No crack here. Drugs are not of interest to me - I enjoy reality as is. My addiction of choice is practicing breeding. :)
Now to your salient points. First off all, I understand "for a limited time" just fine. In this case, limited time is defined by current law. You liked the time before, apparently, when the time was acceptable to you. Now, the law has been changed, and you don't like it anymore, or at least, you like it a lot less. But it is still "for a limited time." Those works will become available - if the law remains as is - when the newly defined legal interval runs out. You'll have to wait, unless you want to break the law, or you can get the law changed (fat chance on that one, buddy... the US federal legal system is not open to input from citizens, you don't have any input on the laws.)
Now - you state that you "don't agree" with the concept of intellectual property. You put forth as justification that "once you share an idea, you cannot take it back."
Let's look at what this rationalization of yours means. If I do some tangible work for you - let's say that I build you a chair, and twenty years later, you come along to my store and you want to take it away, for free. You won't pay, because you think that "chairs should be free after twenty years." You walk off with it. I'm old and feeble, I can't stop you. Can society take the benefits of that chair away from you without actually re-posssing the chair? As it turns out, the answer is yes. Society can simply destroy your ability to use that chair by imprisoning you, which is society's general solution for thieves, people who take things that society does not endow them with rights to. So as it turns out, I can take your ability to have any benefit from that chair without having to re-posses it, or destroy it. Or society can simply fine you more than it is worth to you to use a chair, which will hopefully deter the next "chairs must be free" guy from the general delusion, without having to imprison you.
Now: Intellectual property enjoys significant protection under law, though how much varies a bit depending on what facets of the intellectual property universe we're talking about. But speaking generally, society can indeed "take back" an idea from you, while not taking it from others, by removing your ability to use that idea, or worse yet, removing your ability to do more than that - take your freedom, take your money, destroy your ability to maintain a normal relationship with your family and friends, or all of the foregoing. Emotional damage is just a side effect, but will be significant for most law-breakers so punished. You get the underlying idea. Society makes life suck for you.
So as it turns out, this concept of "taking back an idea" is not "ridiculous" as you claimed; ideas can definitely be imbued with the characteristics of restricted, and retracted, usability as we can clearly see when we look clearly right at the problem in the existing context instead of through a miasma of confused ideals that don't apply in this society as it stands. Ideas are exactly similar to chairs in this regard.
Next, you say that "you cannot give someone your idea while still having it" as if this bolsters your argument. In fact, it is bewildering - for your argument - that you would even say this. I cannot give you the use of a chair while still being able to use it, but an idea, indeed I can give you while still being able to use it. We can both use an idea, unlike if you're sitting in that chair - that's a one user item. So I assume you got this backwards just in the general upset of being challenged.
Ideas are like any produce that can be shared; if I make heat in Alaska and it is cold, this is of general benefit to multiple people who are cold and in the range of the heat. I can sell this heat to them. I open the door and announce: "I have heat. Ten bucks!" Joe comes to the door, he pays his $10, I let him in, and he is warmed. He survives to breed. He's a smart guy, that Joe. You now come to the door and say that because I already gave the heat to Joe, (and perhaps because I got paid, or not, depends on the variety of "information wants to be free" you espouse, doesn't really matter anyway) my heat no longer has value. I disagree, smiling politely. You, a man of steel-hard principles, go off and freeze to death. Here, we have a situation where the product is tangible, but sharable among many. I set the price, and I control access (I am at the door with a gun, let's say.) What we have established here beyond a shadow of a doubt is that a product that is sharable is not without value, and also that the value is not diminished because it is shared. On the contrary, the value is multiplied. Unless you're really going to be stubborn, of course. In that case, it may be you that is without value, rather than the product, due to your impending reduction below minimum operating temperature. I'll leave that idea as an exercise for the class.
Next, you bring in this as a supporting leg for your position: "ideas are not tangible." So, let's directly address an intangible idea.
If you are reaching for a very hot surface, and I say, "whoa, don't touch that, that thing will burn you - I already touched it", I have transferred an idea from me to you. Pure knowledge. Clearly an intangable. Therefore, apparently, of no value, right? So why is it that you, if you have any brains at all, will pull your hand back? Simple: Because as it turns out, there was value in that idea, wasn't there? Obviously so. So much so, that both you and I know that your next act, if you have any class at all, is to acknowledge your indebtedness, as in: "thanks, I owe you one." Here, we have established that an intangible definitely has value. This is a sharable intangible, too: If you and Jane are both there, you both benefit. You'll both say thanks, if you're not cretins. The idea had the same value to both of you, too: I deserved two equally valuable sets of thanks, you'll note. The lesson here is that the wider the audience the intangible benefits, the more value it obviously has. By taking the pain, and disseminating the gained knowledge, I have entered into a valuable buy now, pay later, transaction. This is almost an exact analogy for inventing something. An inventor - of a drug, a story, a song, a usable analogy for natural law - takes the pain by doing the work, so you don't have to, or in many cases, because you're not competent to. Can you write your own music? Create your own software? Formulate your own drugs? When the inventors give over the benefits of their labors, the fact is, you "owe them one." Clearly, you don't owe them any less if they provided the idea to Jane before they gave it to you. That is because your benefit is not reduced by such sharing.
Let's move back to a more terminal thought experiment. Joe creates an antidote for cancer. You and I both get terminal cancer. Joe has the cure - you do this mental mantra, and it'll bug off. He won't tell what it is, though. You have $10.00. I have $10.00. Joe says, I want $10.00 for the cure. Are you going to stare me in the eye and tell me that Joe's idea, as an intangible, has no value? OK, fine. I shrug, I pay Joe, am cured, and walk away. I won't give the mantra to you, because I believe that the idea had value (I'm planning to go and breed more copies of me, I consider that a valuable ability.) I think that if you want this cure, you need to pay just what the seller demands. Otherwise, you go without.
You, on other hand, won't pay, and you subsequently die, mouthing absurd rationalizations that intangibles have no value to your last moment, I presume.
You know what that is? That is evolution in action - you couldn't understand the concept of abstract ideas having value, and it killed you. Ashes to ashes, simplistic comprehension to dust. I, on the other hand, having a more sophisticated grasp of the abstract, am off still working on breeding more people like me. :)
So here is what we have learned:
- Tangible products can have value. (Chair.)
- Intangible products can have value. (Hot surface.)
- Single-user products can have value (Chair.)
- Multiple-user products can vale value (Heat.)
And, here is how that information abstracts:
Music, stories, drug formulae, software, hardware designs, chairs, heat, food, sex - all these things have value in proportion to what? Need, scarcity and the general idea that if you reward inventor A, then inventor B will see that inventing is fruitful, and will invent instead of digging ditches. More inventors mean, again in general, that there will be more "stuff" for you to benefit from. In addition, since society in general has decided that it wants everyone to benefit from lots of inventors running around inventing things, we know that if you try to buck the system, society will set fire to your thieving ass.
There'll be a quiz next period. I'll give bonus points to ladies that wear thigh highs and garters who also score 90 or above on the test. This is a demonstration of the idea that style has no value without brains. I leave this idea to the public domain as a charitable act. Yes, I know, you're welcome, and you're welcome too. My pleasure, I assure you. Thank you for your time.
[ Parent ]