I'm sometimes accused of having a rather inflexible attitude towards freedom, leaning too far towards idealism, and seemingly incapable of accepting pragmatism. The fact is, however, that those who preach pragmatism are mostly hypocrites, who ostensibly extend olive branches of compromise, but with no genuine intention of making concessions, instead continuing their intractable agenda of oppression - unabated. Rarely do I ever see any progress that favours the side of freedom. In reality, pragmatism is nothing more than a euphemism for the oppressed surrendering unconditionally to their oppressors. To perceive it otherwise, is to indulge in denial.

So it is with one particularly virulent strain of oppression called "Intellectual Property", or more accurately "Intellectual Monopoly", the bastard son of the unholy triumvirate - Copyrights; Patents and Trademarks.

My attention was recently drawn to one particularly poignant example of such oppression, on the Creative Labs message boards. A volunteer, who goes by the pseudonym of daniel_k, had succeeded in accomplishing something that Creative Labs (with all their resources) apparently could not - fully functional X-Fi drivers for Windows Vista. This magnificent achievement was subsequently rewarded with a notification to cease and desist, accompanied by the veiled threat of litigation.

Daniel_K:

We are aware that you have been assisting owners of our Creative sound cards for some time now, by providing unofficial driver packages for Vista that deliver more of the original functionality that was found in the equivalent XP packages for those sound cards. In principle we don't have a problem with you helping users in this way, so long as they understand that any driver packages you supply are not supported by Creative. Where we do have a problem is when technology and IP owned by Creative or other companies that Creative has licensed from, are made to run on other products for which they are not intended. We took action to remove your thread because, like you, Creative and its technology partners think it is only fair to be compensated for goods and services. The difference in this case is that we own the rights to the materials that you are distributing. By enabling our technology and IP to run on sound cards for which it was not originally offered or intended, you are in effect, stealing our goods. When you solicit donations for providing packages like this, you are profiting from something that you do not own. If we choose to develop and provide host-based processing features with certain sound cards and not others, that is a business decision that only we have the right to make.

Although you say you have discontinued your practice of distributing unauthorized software packages for Creative sound cards we have seen evidence of them elsewhere along with donation requests from you. We also note in a recent post of yours on these forums, that you appear to be contemplating the release of further packages. To be clear, we are asking you to respect our legal rights in this matter and cease all further unauthorized distribution of our technology and IP. In addition we request that you observe our forum rules and respect our right to enforce those rules. If you are in any doubt as to what we would consider unacceptable then please request clarification through one of our forum moderators before posting.

Phil O'Shaughnessy
VP Corporate Communications
Creative Labs Inc.

http://forums.creative.com/creativelabs/board/message?board.id=soundblas...

Here is one of the more insightful responses:

With this, you've lost another customer, Creative. I've been using this X-Fi in Vista for over a year now, and putting up with the glitches and the badly written software. Because your development team (although I can't imagine you're paying even a single person full-time for what we're seeing) would not work with us, the community was forced to work together to clean up your mess.

You made this mess, Creative. If you think we're going to sit by and do nothing while you ramble on about IP and business decisions, you're out of touch with the internet. Feel free to make your business decisions, right up until you pay the last janitor to clean the building out. If you want to sell a product in a world where you control what you sell, you've been born into the wrong era. Take your hands away from your eyes, and face the truth that hobbyists are doing better things with your hardware than you are willing to. Isn't that shameful?

Smart consumers--the kind that do research, the only kind likely to purchase aftermarket soundcards--are catching wind of this. I guess that's why you're selling assets to make a profit, and focusing on licensing versus actual product. We don't want crippleware. If modifying your software is "wrong", why is making poor software right in the first place? You thought we would just allow it to happen? That some EULA would magically bar the doors and keep people from making your hardware actually useful? Fortunately, the purchasing power and the initiative both belong to the consumer, not the producer. Quit trying to be in control in the marketplace, it doesn't pan out when you don't even invest in R&D.

All I can say is, welcome to the finally-emerging real free market. Where competition (with people who do it because they love it) will either keep you sharp or sink you. Looks like you've made your choice.

Phyltre
Contributor

So much for pragmatism.

When it comes to Intellectual Monopoly, the oppressors only seem willing to court concessions that come from the other side ... compromise is clearly not part of the negotiation strategy. Indeed, even negotiation itself is not part of the agenda at all. Intellectual Monopoly must be enforced, at all costs, even if the result is the worst possible outcome. It seems like a clear case of cutting off one's own nose, to spite one's own face. This is sheer insanity.

So it seems that Creative Labs would rather uphold the principles of oppression, than allow their customers access to working drivers for their products. It would also appear that the lack of any official working drivers for these products is not only due to incompetence, but may also be a matter of policy ... some kind of underhand strategy (if so, then it seems rather nonsensical. Surely Creative would want fully functional drivers for Vista).

But who can fathom the bizarre logic of this sick breed known as Intellectual Monopolists?

And make no mistake, it certainly is a disease, that clouds the senses and poisons the mind, convincing the protagonists that the intangible ether of ideas must be claimed, like a pack of rabid gold prospectors rushing murderously towards the glint of gold in a rock face. But ideas are not lumps of rocks to be carried off and guarded by some crazed; toothless pioneers bearing flintlocks. An idea is like the scent of roses in the air; once released it cannot (and should not) be suppressed. The Intellectual Monopolists have this twisted notion that they should have the right to control who is allowed to perceive reality. Ideas cannot be undone; they cannot be unmade; and they cannot be owned. It's a ridiculous notion.

When it comes to knowledge, "ownership" just doesn't make sense.
~ Cory Doctorow, The Guardian.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/feb/21/intellectual.property

My own take on this strange notion called Intellectual Property, is that it is a state-sponsored protection racket, enforced by laws designed to benefit corrupt corporations and their political lackeys, at the expense of the public, and is in direct contradiction to the principles of the Free Market Economy that defines capitalism. Such monopolistic ideals are staunchly anti-capitalist. It is the new "business" ideology called corporatism, or more bluntly ... corporate fascism. The business world is being remodeled in the form of the Mafia, and not only are governments not lifting a finger to stop this corruption, but by all accounts they are pro-actively encouraging it. Witness, for example, congressmen's sickeningly fawning reactions to Bill Gates' rather unpatriotic proposals, in this video:

http://slated.org/microsoft_sells_out_america

The fatal flaw in Plato's theory of elite rule, is that it makes no concession for the inevitability that the so-called "elite" are (or become) a bunch of insane egomaniacs, corrupted by power, and with an obsession with greed. The harsh reality is that this appears to have already happened, despite the supposed safeguards of democracy.

So what is "Intellectual Property", and what makes its protagonists think it can be "owned", or even defined as property at all? Cue the obligatory "car analogy":

If I steal a car, then I have taken away something tangible that must be replaced at cost by the owner, but if I merely take a photograph of that car, then I have deprived the owner of nothing ... he suffers no loss of any kind. But consider the case where this car owner claims to make a living by selling photographs of his car (bizarre but possible). Now if I take a photo of his car, under copyright law the owner might claim that I violate his exclusive "rights" to take and distribute such photos (this is a purely fictitious example, and I'd hope that copyright law would not extend to such extremes).

On the one hand, the car owner might claim that I am depriving him of exclusivity (his ability to derive an income from photos of his car), but on the other hand, should the "right" to such exclusivity even exist at all? Are we all supposed to walk blindfolded past his driveway, for fear of "infringing" his "rights"? Should anyone have the "right" to own others' perceptions, be it in tangible or intangible form?

Ownership of an original; physical; tangible object is one thing, but claiming "ownership" of (what amounts to) a facsimile of something is quite another.

In many ways, the human mind is like a computer ... it processes information and stores data. Are the memories we have of music; films and books in violation of copyright, because they are stored like computer files in our minds? Should we be legally prohibited from discussing this "content", for fear of being accused of illegally "distributing" copyrighted material?

This is why the idea of Intellectual Property is utter nonsense. We cannot purge our minds of what we already know. That which we can perceive with the senses cannot, and should not, be controlled, but the Intellectual Monopolists plainly think it should. Orwell's predictions have turned out to be startlingly accurate.

Let's further consider the case where all those involved in the creation of an original work have long since died, but that original work is now "owned" by some custodian (for example, a film studio). What right does this film studio have to claim ownership, given that no one currently at that studio played any part in its creation? Again, this is no physical object that was purchased and passed down from generation to generation, it is a supposed "right", known as copyright, that gives this studio the so-called "exclusive" right to control who may be allowed to view this content.

If I buy a house, I pay the property developers in exchange for ownership of that property. Should I be expected to continue paying the descendants of the architect, in perpetuity, for the "right" to continue living in that house?

There is a new business model based on exactly that principle, whose participants are referred to as "Patent Trolls". Such "businesses" exist for only one purpose ... to "claim" ownership of ideas, then extort money from those who (they claim) violate this Patent Trolls' supposed exclusive "right" to use those ideas. It is without question one of the most vile and corrupt forms of business in existence, and yet it is not only tolerated, but indeed positively encouraged by (of all things) the American Constitution:

Article. I.

Section. 8.

...

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

Like Plato's ill-conceived notions of elite rule, the Founding Fathers of America seem to have overlooked the potential for abuse of this principle, which is now exploited by those who operate protection rackets based on the exchange of others' ideas, which are bought and sold like cows in a cattle market, and the originators of those commoditised ideas have long since departed. Such cynical behaviour is only a hair's breadth short of harvesting souls for the Devil. Is this really the society we have become ... soul collectors?

Our ideas are our own ... our private thoughts that define who we are and what we aspire to, but once shared those ideas belong to the world, and cannot be contained - no one may claim "ownership" thereafter. By all means we should recognise invention with appropriate attribution; we should reward people's actual work; and of course we should continue to pay for the products and services that are the manifestation of that work, but to attempt to enforce the ownership and dissemination of the ideas themselves is a perverse concept. This perversion is sweeping throughout both the business and political worlds at an alarming rate, and must be stopped before the human soul - and all that we are - is reduced to nothing more than a commodity to be claimed by corrupt and greedy harvesters.

Meanwhile, Phil O'Shaughnessy may sleep soundly tonight, safe in the knowledge that he successfully "protected" Creative Labs' precious Intellectual Property from actually being put to more constructive use than their paid engineers could muster, and the (now disillusioned) unpaid volunteer who freely gave away his time and skills will never again violate the sanctity of Creative Labs "property". Of course it may turn out that Creative Labs have "protected" this "property" so well, that no one will actually want to buy it, since it patently doesn't work without the contributions of the unpaid volunteers they chased away.

How ironic.

One final thought: In a future where all ideas are corporate property, how worthwhile will ownership of those ideas be, if the rights to use and disseminate them are so restrictive, that it renders them virtually useless?