Intellectual Property and the P2P case
In a lot of recent discussion on the recent Supreme Court ruling on the case against certain file sharing software companies, there has been quite a bit of talk concerning IP and how it relates to the Court’s decision. For some, IP is at the heart of the matter. Opponents to the ruling see it as an attack or, at best, an impediment to technology, particularly in the area of P2P. They feel there should be no limits or restrictions on the taking of IP.
However, this case was not really about IP, but about property.
Intellectual property is a hard concept to grasp because of its very nature. It is basically an idea. A way of doing something. Once that method or thought is brought to fruition, it becomes a product, whether it is a lawnmower, a piece of software, or a recorded composition. Laws governing the illegal distribution or taking of property are fairly cut and dry and easy to grasp. Take something that is not yours or give something that is not yours to give and you are breaking the law.
With Intellectual property, it becomes harder to define.
For the most part, IP is taken all the time with no fear of repercussion or illegality. Up to a certain point. Ideas are borrowed, reproduced, and expanded upon all the time. It is an accepted method of invention and innovation. That is why there is not only one kind of car or one kind of operating system. For instance, when Bill Gates saw that first new method of user interaction with a computer, commonly known as the GUI, he took the idea, reproduced and expanded upon it. Apple did the same. When that first motor driven vehicle was first made, there were plenty of would be car makers taking the same idea and reproducing and expanding upon it to produce their own. Again, this is taking someone else’s idea, their Intellectual Property, and using it. It is the way things are done.
So where is the line? It can be, and probably will continue to be, vague. Generally, you can’t reproduce someone else’s work exactly. But it depends largely on the product. For instance, in the skinning community, you can’t use someone’s graphics to make a skin. You can produce a skin from scratch that looks very similar or has the same colors or the same shape buttons, etc. and there is usually not a problem. That is apparent from so many skins looking very similar (Need I mention orbs?). Even functions are reproduced from one software package or product to another with no real fuss. Object Dock, Y’z Dock, and Apple’s product look and act very much the same. The acceptability comes from the methods/coding for each being produced independently without using the original product’s code. Yet the original idea, the IP, was used by all.
The recent Supreme Court dealt with promoting the taking or giving of property that did not belong to the giver or taker. Yes, I know there are some that believe that if they buy a CD or a piece of software, they own it. But that is not the case. I won’t go into licensing, but suffice it to say, that’s the way it is done. The companies involved in the case were shown to have either actively promoted or knowingly abetted the taking of property.
The IP argument is, at best, a red herring.