Intellectual Property (IP) is a modern concept

It's a belief that everything that can be digitized, may be claimed by a rightful owner. It is motivated by a desire to counteract theft. Understandably, the sole purpose for such a belief is to secure virtual property. It could be anything from a video, image, textlog, etc. By securing it, the believer wants to:-

• Avoid the tainting or corrupting of valuable information, all to protect against future market devaluation. Sometimes, also to protect sanctity.
• Punish a party that attempted to make a profit off valuable information.
• Shield valuable information against potential intruders / violators.

Also, note that everything can be digitized if the intended manifestation can be measured and recorded. By that logic, intellectual property boils down to a collection of 1s and 0s. Intellectual property is a piece of thought, manifested, and can be translated digitally.

---

Real question: Is IP all that important?

Like everything else, it depends on your position:-

• The only real advantage of IP is to secure pride or progress / livelihood of the owner.
• The biggest disadvantage of IP is if one's on the wrong side of the law!
• Many more disadvantages, as it leaves one open to the act of criminalization. Check out my post about the problems of criminalization.

The reason why I'm writing this is to show you that intellectual property is on its way to becoming an obsolete, useless concept. There are conundrums and hard truths when it comes to IP.

There's a quiet futility about that concept. Let's explore.

---

Imitating imagination.

Is it wrong, bad, or evil to copy without consent? Is it theft, especially if the copier makes a profit out of doing so? Yes, if you believe in IP, which also necessarily means that you believe in thought-policing (to an extent). There are several ways to breach IP, and there are different copying methods. Ultimately, copying means imitating the imaginations of an originator.

However, these days it's better to say that copying means imitating information that has a rightful owner, who in turn, owns the imaginings of the originator.

---

The originator problem in IP.

Everything starts as a thought, before manifesting into reality. Same goes for every music, movie, and script out there. This is clear, but it gets muddier once we attempt to ascertain the point(s) of origin. Here are some conundrums about the origin of information:-

Fidelity of information -

What counts as IP? Must it be 100% identical in its intended manifestation? For example, is it alright to just apply an image filter on protected images and then make a profit out of it? This is a hard problem for lawmakers. There was a local news a few years ago, about some restaurant owner who modified the styling of the KFC brand. The owner ended up paying fines.

The problem doesn't just end with images. The same goes with any other types of information out there. Every information can be manipulated, corrupted to varying degrees. Plus, consider this - your painting would have been different if you do it tomorrow, not today. There are too many parameters that may change the product. Tomorrow you may be rushed for a lunch date, which causes you to mix the red and blue too much, at that point in time.

In any case, IP laws offer protection, but it only works when there's enough capital or currency to do so. The requirements of information fidelity are usually nebulous, and can be exploited to win a case.

Lack of definition -

IP doesn't mean much if it cannot be digitized and filed to the arbiter of truth. However, it would seem mind-boggling to be able to apply IP on a painting of let's say, a bicycle. Sure, one may attempt to apply IP rights on the painting, protecting it from theft by duplication (or perversion). But what if another person manages to copy the entire painting and file it "officially" before the originator?

And anyway, where's the real originator? To add to the problem, similar copies may exist physically, only verifiable through carbon dating and such. And what if its digitized, and to make matters worse, what if the data is located in fragments, distributed across a network?

If we are all humans trapped in the confines of rooms, devoid of information, it would be fair to say that creative works (and the world at large) would not have progressed at all. Not much. This is quite like death of the imagination.

I believe that every thought is inspired. There's no real originator, only a chain of modified, intertwined states / data / observation / inspiration / convenient originator - whatever you want to call it.

Deniers of this conundrum are believers of zero-knowledge, stroke of genius. Without proof of work on so many aspects, other than the process of materializing thoughts, it really is difficult to define origination. Add this in to the mix: what if profit is derived from donation or sharing?

Artificial intelligence -

This is a unique, coming-of-age conundrum. With AIs on the rise, is it possible to assign their works as intellectual property? And who owns that virtual property? The computer, the piece of code, the programmer, or the programmer's parents? Most state laws would only define the programmer as the originator. But who knows? Court cases can get really bizarre.

I think the lines will be blurred to the extremes as AI advances, on its way to surpassing human intelligence. With AIs in mind, let's get to the next section. It will be the ultimatum, the last pillar standing for IP.

---

Procedural generation versus intellectual property

PG means procedural generation. Here's Wikipedia's definition:-

In computing, procedural generation is a method of creating data algorithmically as opposed to manually. In computer graphics, it is also called random generation and is commonly used to create textures and 3D models. In video games it is used to automatically create large amounts of content in a game. Advantages of procedural generation include smaller file sizes, larger amounts of content, and randomness for less predictable gameplay.

This applies to procedural art, music, writing, etc. Every type of information can be generated procedurally. One example is the common fractal. Just supply a seed, and a set of rules, and you're good to go!

Remember that all information are essentially the same. Everything can be abstracted into data, and be represented in consistent ways. Just like the nature of the files in your computer - they can be manifested into mere bits of 1s and 0s, regardless of file-type. With this in mind, lets consider the following conundrums:-

Patterns and irregularities in PG -

In reality, procedural generation produces plenty of gibberish. However, well-thought out procedural algorithms may produce good results, depending on purpose. For example, if you've played games like Daggerfall, Minecraft, Diablo, and other dungeon crawlers - the maps are most likely generated, and made to be different in every new instance.

The most recent ambitious attempt is in a game called No Man's Sky, with its "infinite" procedurally generated universe. The universe in the game is a preset, based on a seed number, but the entire state of the universe is procedurally generated, all to make up for variety. Here's the awesome part, the game is less than 6 Gigabytes in size, and that includes texture files and audio!

Soon I'd imagine there to be a community / marketplace for PG algorithms. Procedurally generate buildings, chairs, rocks, flowers, animals, ecosystems, aircrafts, stories, textures, characters, colour-palettes and everything else!

PG doesn't require plenty of information. It's basically a set of algorithms, powered by mathematical formulas to generate patterns in chaotic fashion. Patterns may change dramatically, depending on the seed / seed number / seed of life / originator. Another set of parameters are the logical rules. All these amounts to relatively tiny amounts of data storage. Simple sets of information can turn into great complexities.

Here's a graphical experimentation showing off the structure of chaos in the orderly world of logic. If everything is governed by logic in the realm of physical interactions, why do things look messy in nature? This is the answer, and this basic understanding will be the engine of content generation in the future. It will eclipse intellectual property. It allows for cooking up massive amounts of content without the actual need for manual handcrafting. The program that generated this image only follows 8 simple instructions, stemming from a single seed, a black cell at the top of the pyramid. You may think that a follow-through of simple logic will only generate a regular image, but take a look at the irregularities after the program has been looped a few hundred times.

Look at the irregularities on the right side. Just want to stress again that doesn't take much information to produce, or store great complexities.

The infinite random sequence -

Imagine a monkey mindlessly typing out on the keyboard for an eternity. Over an infinite amount of time, the monkey will have produced entire writings from Shakespeare to the little notes on the refrigerator found in some random house halfway around the world.

Now let's empower this monkey. Instead of smashing out on the keyboard, this monkey runs all imaginable sets of procedural generation algorithms for an eternity. To refine the operation, let's replace the monkey with a deep-learning AI that doesn't just run PG programs blindly, but with heuristics. Yes, I realized that it may seem to be pointless musing here, but consider the following:-

• Infinite data cannot be kept (or manifested in reality) in a databank that's finite in size.
• Intellectual property is finite, and likely to appeal to certain sets of patterns and irregularities that give rise to its characteristics of intellect and finite lifespan, though some properties may be entirely gibberish to the human mind.
• Hence, intellectual property can conceivably be entirely procedurally generated. The seeds, rules, and depths of generation, however, remains a question mark. What parameters may generate all possible sets of intellectual property in the past, present, and future? What's certain here is that the data storage requirement for doing so is finite, and producible.
  I'm sure I might've gone pretty pseudoscientific here. Please advise if this could be described more accurately!

What if every form of IP is already in existence?

Let's say if AIs and humanity are in a race to produce all IPs imaginable, which party do you think will win out? Man, or machine? Let's ponder about that for a second, and assume there's this thing called the fountain of eternal knowledge.

Source: Ghost in the Shell (Mamoru Oshii, 1995)

Let's imagine that every state of imagination possible is actually already in existence, hidden in the ethers of eternity. All we need is to stumble upon these thoughts, and manifest them as intellectual property. What if machines already beat us to it? What if there's a data storage somewhere in this universe that contains every single bit of IP that will ever come into existence? Maybe it'll happen in some supercomputer here on Earth in 2054? Maybe it has already happened in some secret Google lab?

Wouldn't that render IP obsolete?

It would seem like everything has been predetermined. Here's an interesting post that I cooked up a few months ago: Whatever I'm Writing Here Has Been Predetermined. Is this the originator for shorter sets of intellectual property? You be the judge.

---

The End of Intellectual Property?

I don't care much for IP, to be honest. But we operate in social settings, and have to deal with regulations. One good thing about IP law is that it protects underprivileged individuals from exploitation. By having better resources to file and claim IP, exploiters are able to beat someone else to it. Also, consider legal loopholes that may be used to have an advantage over someone else.

However, this is still not universally practical, because again, underprivileged folks simply do not have enough to fight a case, and win it. It can only work 100% of the time if the law is truly blind and just. That's for an ideal world. IP, like most laws, only better work better in favour of the privileged.

Count in the fact there's such a thing called coincidence. Some of us may produce stuff that resembles a protected IP, although most likely in differing fidelity / familiarity.

Thinking about Steemit - yes, we are definitely in the position for IP. The general etiquette is to credit (or avoid) claims as one's own product of labor. The solution is does not necessarily hinge on believing in intellectual property as rule of law, but it's in our best nature to avoid exploitation or theft, especially in light of knowing.

The end may be at some point down the road, but for now, we have the option to live in both worlds. Just like fiat and crypto.

---

Be the change that you want to see in the world.

Open-source projects and communities are a reflection of the times. There's a growing awareness, a counter-culture emerging to co-exist with intellectual property. Thinking about open-source blockchains - no one can stop you from running an exact duplicate, although the state of the network will differ. Perhaps that's it! Information doesn't occupy the same space. Duplicates are in fact, separate entities in their own right.

The only great concerns about the dissolution of IP are its legit use to protect people's livelihood from exploiters, and to secure sensitive data from falling into the hands of those that perpetrate violence. However, I think IP will be a thing of the past. It's something that comes with the end of criminalization, nations, and money in its traditional sense. I will explore deeper into these topic soon.

The best way moving forward is to operate in our own light, through the study of these concepts. I believe systems can be designed to further dissolve traditional concepts, just like what blockchains, and so many other up-and-coming technologies and user interfaces are doing for us.

One of my first posts on Steemit was an attempt to resolve IP ethically in a mashup / remix culture, which is the expressed version of the world we deal with everyday. @piedpier gave a great response:-

It's simple when you discard the whole concept of so-called intellectual property.
If I own my body and tools, then I can use them however I please. You can own storage devices and other such physical objects but you can't own information. As a musician and screenwriter, I understand that I charge for the service of production, performance, and distribution. I 'm not selling property, I'm providing services. As such, I don't concern myself with IP protection whatsoever.

I think it's amazing that we are able to connect the dots and produce masterpieces of our own - to learn, to educate, and to entertain. Intellectual property may advance vested interests, but realize that nobody should be able to own your thoughts, and you don't own yours either. It is when we start to share and participate in open-source projects, perhaps IP would one day become obsolete.

Until then, just keep on creating. Thanks for reading!

---

Images are not my own, unless watermarked. The other images are either transformed, or available for open-use on Pixabay, Wikipedia, and Wikimedia. First image transformed from Bill Day here.

---

Previously: The End of Criminalization: On Free Will, Accountability, and Compassion

---

Follow me @kevinwong