Comments on: Ideas Are Worthless: No One Owns Anything

By: An Intellectual Property Debate Continued « Strike the Root!

An Intellectual Property Debate Continued « Strike the Root! — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 02:15:57 +0000

[...] Intellectual Property Debate Continued A tongue-in-cheek post by Justin Kownacki and a debate at Podcamp Pittsburgh 4 with Justin, Steve Klabnik, and Nick Pinkston has some [...]

By: Eric Goebelbecker

Eric Goebelbecker — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 14:26:25 +0000

I meant “so”, not “some”

Good editing is not worthless.

By: Eric Goebelbecker

Eric Goebelbecker — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 14:25:48 +0000

If ideas are worthless, why is it some important to share them?

“You have to give us that! Sharing it would benefit everyone! And besides, it’s not worth anything!”

Um….

By: Chris Hall

Chris Hall — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 02:50:46 +0000

I tried to cite wikipedia in that block quote… but surprisingly I messed it up.

I can just claim the information as my own anyway though right? ;)

How would high school and college been different under this new premise?

By: Chris Hall

Chris Hall — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 02:48:11 +0000

The individual creating something for the organization is another possible area to explore. Does an idea become worthless to the individual who champions it, when the company takes it over?

As an example: Bill Smith first formulated the concept of Six Sigma at Motorola in 1986.

Six Sigma is the TQM spin-off that has generated billions of dollars for Motorola. As a Motorola employee, Smith did not share directly in the profits generated by the company’s Six Sigma applications. However, over the years, he and Motorola garnered numerous awards and recognition for his vital work to improve profitability in America’s manufacturing sector.

By: The Audacity of Free – by @chrisbrogan | geekdance

The Audacity of Free – by @chrisbrogan | geekdance — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 20:34:00 +0000

[...] Chris, in his post, refers to a blog post by Justin – http://www.justinkownacki.com/.....-anything/ [...]

By: Mary

Mary — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 19:39:36 +0000

Technically, what Jeff is doing is not fine — just because he’s giving credit and adding a link doesn’t mean he has the right to use the entirety of someone else’s work. Same as your previous Blogger #3.

My whole point is really about the “gray area,” as you put it, of *how much* someone else can borrow/steal/use of your original work. The answer lies somewhere between none and all of it.

By: Justin

Justin — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 17:08:11 +0000

Jeff: You didn’t link to your blog for us to see, but just going by the way you’ve explained your process, you’re in a grey area. The good: you’re giving credit where credit is due. The bad: if all you’re doing is reposting other people’s content, you’re not really ‘blogging;’ you’re aggregating and curating other people’s work. Which, technically, is fine, but it’s a different discipline with different motivations — and since some people don’t mind profiting from the work of others, those motivations aren’t always given the benefit of the doubt by outsiders.

My advice (again, without seeing your blog or knowing more about it): define for yourself WHY you’re blogging (or curating), and then make sure your actions match your intentions.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 16:59:36 +0000

I am new to blogging, and I have been reposting blog posts by other authors to give value to anyone who might be reading my blog. I ALWAYS put the authors name at the top so that readers know who wrote it, and I also put a link to that author’s blog so that people can go there and subscribe if they like what they have read.

Is that okay? Or am I completely f’ing up?

By: Gerard McLean

Gerard McLean — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 14:01:51 +0000

Money is only one currency we use and it is not fair or accurate to limit the value of something to money. For example, this comment is taking about 12 minutes of time I could be investing somewhere else, like drinking a beer. Instead, I choose to spend it here because your idea of ideas having no value has value to me. About 12 minutes worth of value.

Tying value to the tangible COST of stuff is always a limited argument. Time is really our only true asset and many artists, musicians, philosophers, etc spend down a lot of capital before ever making anything “tangible.” Some are more skilled at recouping their investment whereas others are not.

I contend some ideas do have value that is tangible, which is why they are not freely published on blogs, Facebook pages and Twitter. Ideas that ARE published on blogs are expected to be discussed, copied, stolen, whatever and that is their value. In arguing that ideas have no value, you perhaps should consider the entire universe of ideas, not just the shareware ones (including this comment!) that folks are willing to float out there freely.