posted on Aug, 22 2004 @ 09:21 PM
Well, first off...
Your primary argument is contradictory:
"Also our current laws are not designed to protect ideas but rather to protect businesses from competition. The idea should be survival of the
fittest and NOT survival of the first."
If government were engineered to protect businesses it would NOT be encouraging a system where the strongest survived. One cannot argue that our
system should be tailored to help businesses and then gripe that businesses are not given enough help by the government... with a straight face, that
Now, Indy, you brought up the issue of intellectual property rights. I hope you realize that these are designed to protect writers, artists,
scholars... and people in similar, intellectual fields. These are the people who produce ideas. Just as a GM factory might turn out cars, writers
and scholars turn out ideas. Now... if you think that some small businessman should be able to steal ideas from their creators at will... then you
also might think it's okay for a car dealer to steal vehicles from the storage lot of a GM factory. After all... it's good for the small
businessman and the consumer, right?
You've also stated that an idea can't be owned and described ideas as things people arrive at 'first'. Well... to be frank... this tells me that
you have no clue when it comes to the creative process. Whitman didn't just write "Leaves of Grass" first... McCartney/Lennon didn't just compose
"Yesterday" first... Those were unique products of the artistic process. Ideas and art are not ineviatble things that are arrived at through a
concentration of capital and work effort... they are products of a variety of intangible currents within the human mind. That being said, a book, an
opera, a poem... are unique things that could NOT have been made by anyone besides their creator. The creator, then, doesn't just have rights to
them because they made them 'first' -- They have rights because they were the only people who could have made such things.. and, in fact, such
creations are the result of THEIR labor.
Now, does the small businessman have the right to steal someone else's product? You have said yes... with the somewhat disturbing assertion that the
needs of small businessmen outweigh the rights of producers and creators. Perhaps you believe that the small businessman is the center of american
society? Well, I hate to tell you this, but the small businessman (or at least the type you have painted for us) is really just a middleman, a
moneychanger. He builds nothing, creates nothing, and adds nothing. His only function is to stand between the producer and the consumer and add his
own charge... for doing nothing. Sorry, but 'pure' merchants are experts at marking up that which other people have created... and they deserve
little or no sympathy.
So... Why should the government worry about the survival of a guy who illegally burns CDs or a publisher who steals manuscripts? Why are they so
important that they should receive protection... and be allowed to take advantage of others' labor?
Also... how many new books, albums, and shows do you think you'll see if some middlemen can just copy and distribute them without punishment? My
guess is that if artists and writers couldn't support themselves the arts in this country would vaporize overnight.
So... why do we have intellectual property right laws? To make sure that this country continues to actually PRODUCE ideas and art.