Comments on: Star Trek and Intellectual Property

By: Philip

Philip — Sun, 01 Aug 2010 02:49:04 +0000

Casey, thank you so much for those video links, they are fantastic. Especially the first one. I encourage all of my readers to watch the "Dinosaurs Will Die" video.

By: casey johnson

casey johnson — Sat, 31 Jul 2010 20:07:33 +0000

Nice blog post. Your argument is a BIT underdeveloped. However, I agree with the conclusion. I recommend these three videos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6HMrvRSiO8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yj7UXUS5XRc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zL2FOrx41N0

they’re all worth checking out.

By: dsfaf

dsfaf — Sat, 31 Jul 2010 16:30:04 +0000

If intelleectual property has gone out the window, then what’s up with the Doctor from Voyager and his creator?

By: debra

debra — Sat, 31 Jul 2010 16:17:49 +0000

seems to me people are missing Philip’s point. This isn’t about replicators or a future with or without them. It’s about the potential that is unleashed when we openly share, without fear, everything. I mean EVERYTHING. Thanks Philip! I’ve been thinking this way for about 10 years and am glad to finally find a kindred spirit. Cheers for open source!

By: muffler

muffler — Sat, 31 Jul 2010 15:18:50 +0000

Interesting, but it is the concept of Intellectual Property that began the age of invention. Without it there was little motivation to expand. To eliminate IP ownership across the board is wrong, but the expansion of these IP rights in the last generation is just as wrong and harmful to growth.

By: HollywoodBob

HollywoodBob — Sat, 31 Jul 2010 14:25:45 +0000

I really wish people would learn about the music industry before they cry “Oh those poor artists that you’re stealing from.”

Let’s say you’re a musician, and you get signed by a record company, and that company comes to you and says “we’re going to pay you $1,000,000 to make an album.” You’re probably thinking awesome, I’m rich, but that’s where you’re wrong, you’ve just been given a line of credit from the record company as pre-payment for something you haven’t created yet. You have to use that money to live off of, and pay for the production of your album. So you go and make your album, and it goes out to stores and iTunes, etc.. Your album is a hit and you’re sales are immense.

Here’s the catch.

The ridiculously tiny royalties you get from sales first have to go to paying back that line of credit the record company gave you, as “payment” for creating the album, before you can earn any money from the sales of that album.

But don’t worry, the record company is making a tonne of money from all your hard work, and all they had to do was lend you the money to do it, take almost all of the profits, and lock you into a never ending debt cycle to insure that you’re never able to break free from them.

The only artists that make money from album sales are independent artists that pay out of pocket to produce their albums. Buy their albums to support them, the rest if you’re not going to their concerts and buying t-shirts you’re not supporting them.

Most of the content creation industry, music, movies, TV, books, games, etc. work the same way, the artists are paid prior to said content’s release to the public, so when you download something you’re typically only depriving the mega-corporation that distributes the content from receiving their cut.

That’s all academic anyway because 99.9999% of all people who pirate either purchase the content eventually or wouldn’t have purchased it regardless.

As to the economics of Star Trek, I’d like to point out that the financial incentives for doing anything had long since gone by the wayside before replicators were created.

When first contact occurred and people realized they weren’t alone in the universe, there was a paradigm shift in the way people thought. Acquisition of wealth became a negative aspect of humanity, altruism and a sense of community became the predominant factors in society. People worked for the betterment of society not to gain wealth. Without the false scarcity created by the economics of greed, the resources were there (and ARE THERE NOW) to provide everyone with equal opportunities to thrive in the world.

I’m sure at first there were some who took advantage of the system, people who took more than they needed and didn’t do their part to contribute, but I don’t think they would have lasted very long, as people gained access to more information, better educations, the resources they needed for a good quality of life, those who abused the system likely assimilated to the new way of thinking or simply died out and weren’t replaced.

It’s a society we should be striving for, not mocking as a utopian dream.

By: Soutrik

Soutrik — Sat, 31 Jul 2010 11:31:14 +0000

The problem with your utopian socialist model is that it doesn’t fit in the 21st century. The “replicator” only works with one type of product: digital files. The people who make these files, the artists, can’t simply replicate food and shelter for themselves and their families. Like Luke said, in the 21st century they still need compensation. If artists can’t make a living on their art, they’ll stop doing what they do and become stockbrokers.

You can switch to your utopian socialism only when all necessities are covered by that replicator technology. Then, when the artists are guaranteed a living no matter what, it would be logical to make their art free.

By: Luke

Luke — Sat, 31 Jul 2010 07:28:33 +0000

The problem with filesharing is that it doesn’t replace the economic model that was adopted by the information industry over the past 100 years.

You create some valuable information as a living, you sell it, you feed your family.

The quandary that piratebay etc. present is that there is no compensation.

I agree information should be as free as possible, but I also think that those who create it should be compensated for it.

The key lies in finding an economic model that suits the way information is now being consumed. I think the idea of subscriptions to sites like the pirate bay is a reasonable one, any suggestions?

By: mb

mb — Sat, 31 Jul 2010 06:56:13 +0000

Philip, I would hate to live in your replicating world. I understand that you are an idealist, and I appreciate that, because I believe change is good too. But I am yet to find beauty in a world where everyone is equal. ‘Dare to be different,’ right? Well, when replication like you speak of exists, there is no chance for anyone to be different. And that is really, really unfortunate.
I’m no Charles Darwin, but not all of us were created to have the same opportunities. Did you ever consider that maybe people who are rich, are rich because they worked hard to get there, are talented, and contributed to society? I know that there is a lot of unnecessary wealth out there, but I just thought I’d mention that because it seems you resent the wealthy. Don’t hate them because of their money. A) You sound quite jealous (no, I’m not wealthy. I promise) and B) It takes all the credibility out of everything you have said. If you want people to give up on the dinero, maybe you should too.
I of course feel bad for starving children in third world countries too. I just don’t fid your solution to be solid enough to fix that though. It leaves me wondering in so many ways and it seems like it would create lots of others problems that you refuse to see.
You obviously think you are very smart. I’m sure you are. But if I may, you might be a little smarter if you tried to listen rather than force your ideals on everyone else. You’re really on to something here! Progress and change are fantastic. But you think that you know what’s best for everyone. Take time to moderate your views. But, hey, that’s only my opinion.

Oh… btw, you said that money has not always existed.. It just wasn’t always called money. Barter system, silly!

By: Duncan Ross

Duncan Ross — Sat, 31 Jul 2010 06:53:13 +0000

I’d jut like to say that if we had things like replicators, one would probably find that the technological capabilities of the human race would inevitably speed up, rather than slow.

Why? Simple, right now, if I have a great idea, I need to get funding for this idea, and then I need to put it into practice, I also need this idea to be profitable within a short timespan, or my idea will lose its funding.
However, if I didn’t need funding, and I could simply copy all the materials I needed to produce this great idea, I could do so, and then say to the world, “Look, I have had a great idea, and it works, here you go!”
World wide, people who previously had no possibility of producing their great ideas, suddenly do. We would have a sudden influx of information and technology, things like a moon colony would likely become a reality within a very very short space of time. If suddenly there is no cost, and anyone who wants to, can do something, then it will be done.