Can Knowledge/Information Be Regarded as Property?

Discuss literature (e.g. books, newspapers), educational studies (getting help or opinions on homework or an essay), and philosophy.

Can Knowledge/Information Be Regarded as Property?

Yes.
8
44%
No.
8
44%
Sometimes.
2
11%
 
Total votes : 18

Can Knowledge/Information Be Regarded as Property?

Unread postby Seven at One Stroke » Thu Mar 06, 2003 3:30 am

With the advent of Intellectual Property and laws that protect intellectual properties, information and knowledge exchange has slowed down considerably. It has become more frequent that an entity can make a lot of money with a particular piece of information. Do you think that knowledge/information can be regarded as property and be protected in manners similar to tangible properties?

(For some reason I feel I've seen this topic before...Anyways...Please post your thoughts.)
Moderation in pursuit of actual work is no vice.
User avatar
Seven at One Stroke
Sei's Slave
 
Posts: 1852
Joined: Wed Oct 02, 2002 4:16 am

Unread postby Jimayo » Thu Mar 06, 2003 3:39 am

You're damn right I do.

My sim is my intellectual property. For the most part, I designed it(with a little help from James and Rob, so I give them part of the rights as well), so I choose what gets done with it and I would never want to give that right up.
98% of the internet population has a Myspace. If you're part of the 2% that isn't an emo bastard, copy and paste this into your sig.
Jimayo
Lord of the Thirteen Hells
 
Posts: 3308
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2002 1:38 am
Location: Nothingness. And that's where I'll be returning in oh, about 15 minutes.

Unread postby CK » Thu Mar 06, 2003 4:40 am

When I first intended to post some of my more credible research papers on the website for debates and criticism, one of my best friend immediately warned me against doing that because of intellectual property rights, not only because its mine and others may use it, but also because someone may sue me. While the possibility is highly unlikely, it nevertheless is a reasonable thought. Also, when one of our RAs wanted to do movie nights and put out posters of "The Emperor's New Groove" for instance, she was so afraid that Disney may sue her for using the trademark and also publicly showing the animation.

Take for another instance the New York Times online. Sometimes, I am so afraid that they would sue me for not buying the newspaper and pasting whole chunk of their editorials on message boards for debating. I do have this guilt at times that I am depriving them of otherwise possible profits but in general, I like the fact that knowledge should be shared. This does not equate non-recognition mind you but while it should be protected, I do hope that the protection wasn't meant to protect the information so as to maximise potential profit. Indeed, I was so disappointed that the race for completely mapping the human genome (I forgot which two companies were racing each other) was due to economic more than scientific/humanitarian reasons.
Truth is always partial

Absense of dream creates nothing but dream creates absense if you do nothing
User avatar
CK
Changshi
 
Posts: 399
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2002 4:30 pm
Location: Singapore

Unread postby Sun jian » Thu Mar 06, 2003 12:42 pm

if it's knowledge i have through experience it's my property but knowledge from books, newspapers, online, etc. is the property of those that created the info in the first place. my experiences can't be bought or sold, newspapers can be. some people choose to sell their knowledge and others don't. plus, some types of knowledge can't be shared, such as being a father. every father has a different experience and not all people become fathers or mothers. nothing replaces experience. advice can be given but the real knowledge is in the possession of the person who was actually there.
User avatar
Sun jian
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 737
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:07 pm

Unread postby Tianshan Zi » Thu Mar 06, 2003 3:03 pm

Yes, or at least the expression of these "ideas" (generic term) can be controlled as property.

However, what I find disturbing (in the USA at least) is that the laws that pertain to intellectual property clearly favor companies, corporations, larger entities, governments, etc. who purchase intellectual property rights over the individuals who actually produce the intellectual property itself. For example, if I were to write a novel, publish, and copyright it, the novel would enter the public domain (and I would lose ownership of its content) many years earlier than if I were a large commercial publisher doing the same thing. (All this information can be found in free goverment publications regarding copyrights, trademarks, patents, etc.)
User avatar
Tianshan Zi
Headless Thompson Gunner
 
Posts: 928
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2002 3:18 pm
Location: Denver, Colorado, USA, Earth, etc.

Unread postby Sun jian » Thu Mar 06, 2003 5:10 pm

Tianshan Zi wrote:Yes, or at least the expression of these "ideas" (generic term) can be controlled as property.

However, what I find disturbing (in the USA at least) is that the laws that pertain to intellectual property clearly favor companies, corporations, larger entities, governments, etc. who purchase intellectual property rights over the individuals who actually produce the intellectual property itself. For example, if I were to write a novel, publish, and copyright it, the novel would enter the public domain (and I would lose ownership of its content) many years earlier than if I were a large commercial publisher doing the same thing. (All this information can be found in free goverment publications regarding copyrights, trademarks, patents, etc.)


i agree. where did the corporations, governments, etc. get their information to begin with? from individuals but of course, the individual doesn't get credit for what he\she did, the company does. i believe that is wrong and those who contribute should get credit where credit's due.
User avatar
Sun jian
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 737
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:07 pm

Unread postby James » Fri Mar 07, 2003 4:45 am

Just a quick clarification on copyright laws. Information and facts cannot be copyrighted. You can’t, for example, discover a new scientific fact and register it under copyright. Copyright law, however, does cover original writings, works of art, or basically anything else that was created by a person. For example, even though any given history book is copyrighted, the actual information inside is not. You could make a new book about that information and nobody could do a thing about it.
Kongming’s Archives – Romance of the Three Kingdoms Novel, History and Games
“ They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
  — Ben Franklin
User avatar
James
Sausaged Fish
Sausaged Fish
 
Posts: 17999
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2002 3:21 pm
Location: Happy Valley, UT

Unread postby Tianshan Zi » Fri Mar 07, 2003 4:51 am

James wrote:Just a quick clarification on copyright laws. Information and facts cannot be copyrighted. You can’t, for example, discover a new scientific fact and register it under copyright. Copyright law, however, does cover original writings, works of art, or basically anything else that was created by a person. For example, even though any given history book is copyrighted, the actual information inside is not. You could make a new book about that information and nobody could do a thing about it.

Right. For example, the knowledge that carbon bonds with many combinations of other elements cannot be protected by intellectual property laws; however, a chemical formula using carbon to create, say, a drug for medical purposes can be patented. Once again, though, in the USA the time-frames for patents and the cost to patent such a formula definitely favors larger entities (corporations, governments, etc.) over individual persons. :?

Trademark laws are just as interesting. For example, if you, James, wanted to register a trademark for "The Scholars of Shen Zhou" for educational and Web purposes, you would have to pay for those rights; however, if I decided to purchase a registered trademark for "The Scholars of Shen Zhou" in order to label my new brand of spark-plugs or motor oil, then I would be able to do so and purchase entirely separate rights from the ones that you would own! :lol:
User avatar
Tianshan Zi
Headless Thompson Gunner
 
Posts: 928
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2002 3:18 pm
Location: Denver, Colorado, USA, Earth, etc.

Unread postby Rhiannon » Sun Mar 30, 2003 4:14 am

I see intellectual property and creative property as two seperate entities, with different rules.

Intellectual property, to me, is any knowledge or thing known -- that anyone could have discovered given the proper means. While the person(s) who discovered it should certainly be given credit, as they are, they do not own that information. I feel that includes miracle forumlas, drugs, etc. Any and all knowledge should be free to public access.

However, I see creative property as some seperate thing -- creative property being anything made by creative means. Things like books, articles, poetry, art, music, characters, games, inventions, etc -- anything that required a particular person's creative process to make that unique object should belong to that person, to set certain rights over it as they see fit. I do believe that there should be a common copyright law to cover these items, but I also believe a person should be able to set a legal copyright with whatever terms they so choose on that item, with the government.

Some creative artists are very open about their copy right, or have different copy rights for different situations. For instance, I'll be damned if someone copies my writing without my permission, but the free crochet patterns I put up on the internet, I don't even mind if they get stolen (I'd be mad, but it wouldn't really matter to me), and anyone can do anything they want with those. Of course, the patterns I place on the internet are there because I feel they require limited creativity; if I created something immense and gorgeous, I'd be getting it published.
"For us to have self-esteem is truly an act of revolution and our revolution is long overdue."
— Margaret Cho
User avatar
Rhiannon
Joy & Oblivion
Joy & Oblivion
 
Posts: 5268
Joined: Sat Nov 23, 2002 10:10 pm

Unread postby Evil Azn Chris » Sun Mar 30, 2003 6:21 am

In my opinion, knowledge should be regarded as property. Property is something that can be owned, and knowledge is something that people own, therefore knowledge is property :D
When you've done things right, people wont be sure you've done things at all...
User avatar
Evil Azn Chris
Sage
 
Posts: 294
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2003 11:36 am
Location: in between heaven and hell

Next

Return to Literature, Academics, and Philosophy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

Copyright © 2002–2008 Kongming’s Archives. All Rights Reserved