No One Can Steal Your Knowledge

Copyright laws, which are laws that "protect" intellectual property, are based on the idea that thoughts and ideas can be stolen. My question to you all is this: if you and another individual possess an identical goods simultaneously, has the other individual really stolen your good that you claim to be stolen?


Intellectual Property: A product of the intellect that has commercial value. This is really an amazing concept in the legal world. Apparently, as the law currently stands, if John comes up with an idea for a product before Ray (or even after Ray) that John copyrights first, he has the sole legal right to produce any and all copies of said product - that is, of course, unless John is so courteous as to allow Ray to also produce any amount of copies of said product. This basically allows for a government-enforced monopolization of the product to an individual or business. (Isn't that hilarious?) Let's say Ray decides to disobey the copyright laws and produce an identical item. Seeing this, John decides to persecute, saying that Ray is lessening his - John's - profits. Is anybody in the wrong up to this point? In fact, yes; however, it may not be whom you would expect it to be. Ray has crossed into ethically neutral territory; if John wins the persecution (both criminal and civil, most likely), then John is in ethically iniquitous territory. Why is this so? This is because John has inevitably inflicted undue punishment. Ray never stole items, never stole equipment, never stole the actual items themselves. Rather, he coincidentally possessed the same idea: to produce a certain product for profit.

Or, let's say a musician writes a song of which he is extremely proud (something to which I can relate). Let's say a friend of mine, who is in the recording industry, hears my song and decides he wants to take it home because he likes it and may consider it for the radio. I figure I may hear from him of it soon, although I make no contract stating anything about royalties, or even being credited. So, I burn the song onto a CD and give it to him. Six months later, I hear the song - as produced by a different artist, of course - on my favorite radio station. Within a few months, it's a #1 hit. Am I mad? Of course. However, the transfer of data (the song) was done so by mutual consent, without contract stating any royalties or accreditation; therefore, he had the right to do with his property what he desired, so long as he didn't violate anybody else's rights. (Remember the NAP?) Since nobody's rights were violated, my friend was in ethically neutral territory.


In essence, thoughts are not property. A thought is conceptual in nature - that is, it isn't tangible. If there's no tangible substance, then there's nothing to be stolen. Therefore, to answer the question of this essay, that individual has not stolen your idea, but merely used an idea that he also coincidentally possessed.