I'm an
infoanarchist, which means I'm opposed to
copyrights, patents, and so forth.
I anticipate (and I've already seen) a "wtf have you created, and don't you want to be compensated?" argument. I'll handle that first, since it'll be the first argument used against me.
1. I'm a novelist, so I am engaged in a field where I live by the sweat of my TextEdit and create things that are easily "stolen." It's tough enough for me to make a living writing without book piracy, which is admittedly far more complex than music or software piracy or patent infringement.
2. It's an invalid argument that gets you nowhere. Just because I've created a substantial work and don't mind distributing it freely doesn't necessitate my belief in the freedom of all works. For instance, Apple develops open-source software, but they also distribute commercial software.
3. Even if I'm not Stephen King or Lucent (which I'm not), it doesn't mean I am not entitled to have an opinion. Many people do things for free -- work tech support on MacRumors, volunteer at soup kitchens, or perform sexual favors for fratboys. Things that can be distributed digitally are generally easier to duplicate than things requiring real labor, but the concept is the same.
4. Not everyone is a capitalist. I am, but I believe in a social market economy like the one we have, rather than a
laissez-faire economy like the one I deeply fear. I also prioritize concepts of justice, ethics, and need above the concept of property rights.
So with that in mind, I'll actually answer
your questions. Keep in mind that what I'm saying is not a "this is right" position but rather a "this is what I believe" position. I'm not speaking for anyone else but myself.
Very few people will argue with the concept of justice you just expressed. A creator deserves control over the fruits of his labor. It's a basic concept of capitalism and socialism, although the two schools begin to argue shortly thereafter. My goal is to increase the level of justice in the world, so I would be acting immorally according to my own compass if I did not justly reward software developers, programmers, musicians, novelists, and so forth.
My argument against patents, copyrights, and DRM is that they restrict the flow of beneficial things. I believe that a beautiful work of art should be available to all. Software that enables efficient and effective gene therapy in the United States should be available to researchers in China. Malaria vaccines developed in the US should be freely exchanged with Kenya, Nigeria, Columbia, and so forth. In short, I disagree with the concept of intellectual property because it interferes with the "marketplace of ideas" and sustains the existence of human/animal/deific unhappiness.
The natural shortcoming of this is that creators cannot exercise complete control over the fruits of their labor. What I suggest is that we rely upon morality and ethics rather than upon uneffective and inevitably-circumvented technologies. People violate copyright every day. People break DRM every day. As for software patents, they restrict the free market, making it difficult for fair and efficient competition between suppliers and thus hurting all consumers.
As you said: If someone cannot create a patented technology and benefit from it, why create? Again, I see it as a matter of ethics and value. If Dell came out tomorrow with Dellfruits, little Mac clones that cost half as much, include an OS X-skinned Vista, and so forth, I'd still buy Macs because I would perceive them as being ripoffs of Apple. Remember -- I'm not arguing that everything should be free. You should absolutely reward innovation and punish theft. What I'm arguing against is the
legal restriction of information. Paying for quality is one of the central concepts of capitalism, and all Americans would be driving plastic Ford Pintos and eating dirt if we didn't already behave by that natural law.
The GNU/Linux/BSD communities (and Wikipedia, and countless other systems) have been thriving based on a gift economy for quite a while now. Again, I'm not saying Richard Stallman's life means that all artists should paint for free; I'm just saying that innovation, quality, and value are generally rewarded whether or not the flow of information is artificially restricted.
I write knowing that my chances of being J.K. Rowling's less-attractive, hairier, and-penis-wielding competitor are very low. Almost impossible. If money was my goal, I would have been a lawyer, drug dealer, politician, or professional accident victim.
If money was the only incentive for innovation and advance, almost no art of any kind would exist. Most science would not exist, since that too was not financially valuable for a long time ("the earth is round; pay me $5."). Greek philosophy was developed primarily by people who
refused to accept money. In terms of military technology, the Phoenicians or whoever would probably rule the world right now if they'd patented the war chariot.
In my opinion, most restrictions on the flow of information exist because people are afraid of competition... but whether you're a Libertarian or an Anarchist (like me) or even a Syndicalist or some other brand of socialist, you're almost sure to believe that competition is A Good Thing. So I ask myself which is more important: the lost lives of Africans dying because they lack malaria vaccines, or the right of Whatever Pharmaceuticals not to have competition for 23 years?
I say make information free; let all people compete on as equal a playing field as possible, and let's have as many vendors as possible competing. That's the ultimate free market. Let quality, not artificial scarcity, determine profit.
