[00:07] (7.09s)
The mystical city of Ockham is famous
for its college of magic.
[00:13] (13.13s)
Here, genius spellcasters
invent incantations
[00:18] (18.22s)
and publish them in enchanted scrolls
that others can purchase.
[00:23] (23.77s)
As an aspiring wizard, you study
these scrolls to learn from the best.
[00:29] (29.98s)
Specifically, you’re interested in making
mathematical magic—
[00:34] (34.86s)
like spells that conjure complex shapes—
[00:38] (38.12s)
for researchers to study.
[00:40] (40.79s)
Often, you can’t afford the latest scrolls
in your field.
[00:45] (45.58s)
But one day, a friend tells you he's been
using an illegal duplication spell
[00:51] (51.13s)
to copy scrolls,
[00:52] (52.88s)
and, if you’re interested,
[00:54] (54.97s)
you’re welcome to read his collection
free of charge.
[00:59] (59.43s)
So, do you use his counterfeit scrolls
to further your own research?
[01:05] (65.60s)
As a wizard,
[01:06] (66.90s)
you know designing spells requires a lot
of intellectual labor and creativity,
[01:13] (73.69s)
which is why it’s widely agreed that mages
should be able to make a living
[01:18] (78.74s)
selling their work.
[01:20] (80.37s)
And since this system is also
how wizards build their reputation,
[01:25] (85.29s)
most believe it elevates good work
[01:28] (88.00s)
and makes high quality magic
reasonably accessible.
[01:32] (92.00s)
But this system has its problems.
[01:34] (94.84s)
In fact, researchers on our less
magical world are facing similar issues
[01:41] (101.10s)
with how science is published.
[01:43] (103.68s)
That system's issues are far
more complex than Ockham's,
[01:48] (108.65s)
but both share a core
philosophical concern:
[01:53] (113.19s)
intellectual property rights.
[01:56] (116.61s)
While many philosophers agree
[01:58] (118.53s)
that some version of intellectual
property rights make sense,
[02:02] (122.33s)
their justifications vary widely.
[02:05] (125.29s)
For example, some thinkers draw
on English philosopher John Locke,
[02:10] (130.50s)
who argues that if you “mix your labor”
with a plot of wild land,
[02:15] (135.76s)
any crops it produces,
as well as the land itself,
[02:19] (139.76s)
should be under your control.
[02:22] (142.22s)
This makes a certain kind of sense
for farmers,
[02:25] (145.52s)
but are spells, songs, or stories
really like farmland?
[02:32] (152.11s)
For one thing, land is limited—
[02:34] (154.69s)
if one person uses it for farming,
someone else can’t use it for building.
[02:40] (160.91s)
This kind of all or nothing resource
is what some philosophers call
[02:45] (165.24s)
a rivalrous good.
[02:47] (167.16s)
But there’s no limit on how many people
can be inspired by a sunset.
[02:52] (172.71s)
And people can even arrive
at the same idea independently,
[02:56] (176.76s)
whether or not they share an inspiration.
[03:00] (180.05s)
So if we can all have ideas
without interfering with one another,
[03:05] (185.56s)
why assign rights over them at all?
[03:08] (188.85s)
One answer comes from 19th-century
philosopher G.W.F. Hegel.
[03:14] (194.11s)
He argues that control over our
intellectual creations
[03:17] (197.86s)
is crucial to the quest
for personal fulfillment.
[03:21] (201.91s)
For example, musicians making a new
song aren't just mixing their labor
[03:26] (206.95s)
with the world—
[03:28] (208.08s)
they’re expressing themselves.
[03:30] (210.46s)
And Hegel believes creators should
have the right to control
[03:35] (215.00s)
these creative extensions
of their personalities.
[03:38] (218.67s)
By using these ideas without permission
or credit,
[03:42] (222.30s)
we’re reducing a creator’s control
over their life and legacy.
[03:47] (227.26s)
Alternatively, thinkers like
Elizabeth Anderson and Michael Sandel
[03:52] (232.02s)
have argued that commodifying
certain things can debase them.
[03:57] (237.15s)
For example, while you might think it’s
fine to treat a luxury car
[04:01] (241.49s)
as something to be bought and sold,
[04:03] (243.70s)
it feels strange to say the same thing
about a library card.
[04:08] (248.62s)
That attitude feels somehow disrespectful
to the pursuit of knowledge.
[04:13] (253.67s)
And taken to the extreme,
[04:16] (256.08s)
one might conclude that all knowledge
should be completely free.
[04:21] (261.05s)
But even without compensation,
[04:23] (263.13s)
how would you feel if
someone copied your work
[04:26] (266.51s)
and took credit for it as their own?
[04:29] (269.51s)
Outside a world where everyone
abandons ownership over their ideas,
[04:34] (274.64s)
it’s hard not to feel like some injustice
would still be taking place.
[04:40] (280.19s)
That said, it also feels extreme
[04:42] (282.82s)
to say intellectual property
rights should always be respected.
[04:47] (287.74s)
Scottish philosopher David Hume
famously argued that, in times of famine,
[04:53] (293.62s)
the government is justified in forcing
wealthy citizens to open their granaries
[04:58] (298.79s)
to the public.
[05:00] (300.13s)
During the COVID-19 pandemic,
[05:02] (302.42s)
similar reasoning led publishing companies
to temporarily give free access
[05:07] (307.76s)
to journal articles related
to the deadly virus.
[05:11] (311.47s)
In such an emergency,
most agreed it was in everyone’s interest
[05:16] (316.77s)
to prioritize saving lives
over compensation.
[05:21] (321.23s)
But do circumstances need
to be this extreme
[05:25] (325.07s)
to justify ignoring
intellectual property rights?
[05:28] (328.57s)
Or is your pursuit of knowledge enough
for you to deny these mages
[05:33] (333.54s)
their hard-earned coin?
[05:36] (336.08s)
Your friend’s archive is waiting...