05-05-2003, 10:52 PM
Hi,
That which is known is free.
Yes. So, there should be (and AFAIK is) nothing preventing me from learning a song and singing it for myself. Other than, perhaps, the pain I would be causing to those around me. But the copy of the song that I might have downloaded from the Internet is not an *idea*, it is not *knowledge*. It is a tangible work, expressed in electrons or magnetic fields or (to get ancient) holes punched on a strip of paper or a card. It is a copy of a string of copies ultimately going back to a tangible medium. And the right to duplicate that medium is something that the purchaser gives up when he buys that medium. So, the question of the possession of knowledge does not enter into this debate, not because it is not a debatable topic but because it is irrelevant.
The question of ownership of *knowledge* has been debated. It is a valid question in the context of scientific discovery, where what one person can learn another can also learn independently. Now, it is mathematically possible (but highly improbable) that the music and lyrics and presentation thereof by one group could be exactly duplicated by another. It is mathematically possible (but equally improbable) that a bunch of monkeys at typewriters would reproduce all of Shakespeare. But, unlike the facts of the human genome which are there waiting for anyone to unearth them, the plays of Shakespeare, the music of Bach, the paintings of Leonardo all require a creative process that is different from that of science.
Which is why the arguments that apply to scientific knowledge are invalid when applied to creative endeavors. The difficult areas, the gray areas, are in things like computer programming. Personally, I think that algorithms should be protected by copyright but that code should not. But that *is* a topic where debate makes sense.
--Pete
That which is known is free.
Yes. So, there should be (and AFAIK is) nothing preventing me from learning a song and singing it for myself. Other than, perhaps, the pain I would be causing to those around me. But the copy of the song that I might have downloaded from the Internet is not an *idea*, it is not *knowledge*. It is a tangible work, expressed in electrons or magnetic fields or (to get ancient) holes punched on a strip of paper or a card. It is a copy of a string of copies ultimately going back to a tangible medium. And the right to duplicate that medium is something that the purchaser gives up when he buys that medium. So, the question of the possession of knowledge does not enter into this debate, not because it is not a debatable topic but because it is irrelevant.
The question of ownership of *knowledge* has been debated. It is a valid question in the context of scientific discovery, where what one person can learn another can also learn independently. Now, it is mathematically possible (but highly improbable) that the music and lyrics and presentation thereof by one group could be exactly duplicated by another. It is mathematically possible (but equally improbable) that a bunch of monkeys at typewriters would reproduce all of Shakespeare. But, unlike the facts of the human genome which are there waiting for anyone to unearth them, the plays of Shakespeare, the music of Bach, the paintings of Leonardo all require a creative process that is different from that of science.
Which is why the arguments that apply to scientific knowledge are invalid when applied to creative endeavors. The difficult areas, the gray areas, are in things like computer programming. Personally, I think that algorithms should be protected by copyright but that code should not. But that *is* a topic where debate makes sense.
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?