| [Takes a round to Re-focus.]
First off, this isn't meant to be a doom for the OGL thread. Nor is it an IP laws suck thread. I believe IP laws have their place and that the OGL is a great tool. I am simply trying to look forward to guess which ways the web of IP and the OGL might develop. The existing trend is for the strengthening of IP laws, but there is clearly a swell in backlash against that, which might actually result in weaking them. Major changes have occurred in the past and could happen again. From an OGL perspective, the OGL is grounded in the way IP laws work. Changes there could have a major effect on the OGL. Discussing this possibility is what I am after. If Ryan is right and the laws do get tighter and tighter, then the OGL is in an even better position. What happens if the laws get weaker though? Will the OGL be as necessary? How might or should this affect decisions made today? One perspective is that IP laws are messed up for various reasons and are no longer serving their intended purpose. This means changes are not only likely but necessary. Another perspective is that they shouldn't exist at all. I guess you could use China as an example of this view but so many other differences exist socially and economically that separating out any conclusions would be difficult to say the least. This perspective says the OGL is useless, because eventually IP laws will be removed. Yet another perspective is that, everything is fine now so why worry about it? If this is you then don't worry about it. This thread exists for those who do worry, or for those who are curious about the way things evolve, or for those who don't worry but want to see if they can draw some practical use out of speculation about the future. My perspective is that I do NOT advocate IP laws be gotten rid of, but they do need to be cleaned up. Right now they are a muddle and I don't think they will serve their intended purposes in the future if they stay the way they are now. What purpose do IP laws serve? IP laws are intended to stimulate progress, but they are not soley responsible for it. Examining how well they stimulate progress as well as how they might retard it, is the only way to figure out how they should be used. One way is by insuring some revenue potential to those who share information. This potential can serve to preserve the source or enhance it (through profit). The idea is that information sharing and preservation of sources as contributors will increase the rate of progress. The Internet has taken off, because in its own way, it increases the rate at which information is shared. Even the OGL bears similarities. An observation by Greg: >IMHO the penduluum has swung too far in the direction of holders of IP, and many >corporations are over-aggresive in protecting their interests. But that doesn't mean >IP isn't property, or that society doen't generally benefit from IP laws. I agree, but I don't think the laws make entirely clear what is and is not IP in many areas. As to whether society generally benefits or not, that is not something that can be measured if the laws and what they apply to are not well defined. In theory IP laws are a general benefit and in many cases we can point to instances of specific cases where this can be said to be true. From an overall perspective though that might be too sweeping. IP laws are too young to be able to conclusively say that. An observation by Lynn: >Laws are in place to protect and encourage the "market" of intellectual >property. Without that protection, there is no incentive to research or develop >something if others will come along and hijack it. Marketplaces that dont >protect intellectual property do suffer, by the way. Protection is the mechanic by which IP laws hope to stimulate progress but not to ensure it. In fact the danger that they could work in an opposite fashion was recognized. For a long time humanity had no IP laws and progressed just fine. Progress depends on communication. IP laws were created to promote the types of exchange that might not occur unless some immediate benefit accrued to the individuals involved. This leads to more rapid advancement, but the suffering is only in comparison. I.e. the progress might have occured but more slowly. Progress still occurs regardless, unless you get into active repression of communication. Will certain types of progress proceed as quickly, when individuals cannot receive immediate reward for their contributions? Of course not, but that in no way means that such progress will never occur. Only active repression of cooperation and communication can insure that. For instance, Russian and Vietnamese programmers still find ways to produce software and I am sure that there are programmers there who make money. Just because Microsoft can't make money on its own terms in those marketplaces doesn't mean that they aren't being served or progressing, just not as rapidly. There could also be another hundreds reasons why such markets wouldn't generate profitable sales (such as lower PC penetration), besides the lack of IP law enforcement (the fact the laws exist makes no difference). BTW, I assume that the marketplace refered to is any exchange of information and not just one based on monetary profits, even though some of the examples seem to point that way. The Internet is full of things done by people who don't seek a profit. Would they have been done if the ability to make a profit were the sole criterion or even a major one? Insuring revenue streams (profitable or not) is the means by which IP laws work, but is not their purpose. For instance, would IP laws which merely guaranteed cost recovery function just as well? or is curiousity alone not enough to stimulate creative thought exchange? What about laws which simply vigorously protected credit? The OGL is an example of a device which enables protection of credit. If the only IP law there was said you can do whatever you want as long as you credit all previous influence, would that work to promote progress at all or as effectively? -Alex Silva |
