RoR: Forum

I said "Not sure" because I think that there are some ways to "gain" ideas from others which involve skullduggery -- and the poll didn't differentiate. For instance, if an idea is from a printed book, then I'd say it was adopted -- but if an idea was getting a trademark or a patent, and a corporate spy leaked the information to a competitor who ended up getting the patent first (by "stealing" it), then I'd say it was stolen.

Afterthought: Spying, in general, seems to be the very business of stealing ideas.

Ed

Post 1

Saturday, February 11, 2012 - 6:58am

Ya, I was thinking more in regard to everyday life, or things that bring you pleasure or comfort. I should have written "In general, ideas gained from others are..."

Post 2

Saturday, February 11, 2012 - 12:52pm

yes, that was my sentiment too - we each create our own individual cultures, by adopting ideas from wherever...

Post 3

Saturday, February 11, 2012 - 1:18pm

How strange to discover this isn't common knowledge among a few groups of people. I'm hoping to write a little something about a recent experience regarding this. It wasn't pleasant.

Post 4

Saturday, February 11, 2012 - 1:33pm

Ideas "properly" gained from others are adopted. At least that is the assumption I made when I voted for the "adopted" option. If they are "stolen," e.g. piracy or failure to cite with credit to the originator, that is theft. If they are "borrowed" then I have no idea how you would "return" them so that sounds nonsensical. Those who accept psychic phenomena might select "not sure" because that fits none of these categories.

Post 5

Saturday, February 11, 2012 - 5:38pm

Adopted... Interesting word....

But I agree, based on Howard Roark's chat with Gail Wynand: I inherit the bow...

You have it in your power to reject the ideas of others. Has anyone here benefited from the very many long hard hours of research at the British Museum library invested by Karl Marx?

In The Fountainhead, Keating admits to Roark that he has not brought so much as a new doorknob to architecture. Years after I first read that - a decade perhaps - I showed another programmer a routine that I wrote. "Nice doorknob," he said. I was taken aback, a bit surprised. He read my look and reassured me, "No, no... I just meant that it is a nice little gizmo. Here, look at this..." and he ran up a subroutine he created to fill in the callable library. We inherit the works others...

On the other hand, I just quoted this, from Von Mises to a question posted on the OrgTheory blogsite:

The activities of these prodigious men cannot be fully subsumed under the praxeological concept of labor. They are not labor because they are for the genius not means, but ends in themselves. He lives in creating and inventing. For him there is not leisure, only intermissions of temporary sterility and frustration. His incentive is not the desire to bring about a result, but the act of producing it. The accomplishment gratifies him neither mediately nor immediately. It does not gratify him mediately because his fellow men at best are unconcerned about it, more often even greet it with taunts, sneers, and persecution. Many a genius could have used his gifts to render his life agreeable and joyful; he did not even consider such a possibility and chose the thorny path without hesitation. The genius wants to accomplish what he considers his mission, even if he knows that he moves toward his own disaster. Human Action, 4th ed. page 139 online here:

DMG here bridled at this. As a computer programmer, he sees all of his work as "creative." It is a testament to our time and culture that DMG's creativity with software is just another kind of production. On a database project for General Motors, we were told to wear white shirts and ties to identify ourselves as white collar employees. "But we get paid by the hour to work on machines," I protested to no avail. Ayn Rand found the flaw in Von Mises: even so-called "repetitive work" demands intelligence (at some level) when performed by a human being.

"Adopted"... interesting concept....

Post 6

Tuesday, February 14, 2012 - 11:07pm

(Sanctioned Luke. Interesting point. We often read of inventions being borrowed - the alphabet for instance - but how do you give it back when you are done with it? Good catch, Luke!)

Looking forward to TSI's "not pleasant" story on this. I agree with Ed that "it depends" is probably the best answer. That is the reason why I further differentiate formal espionage ("stealing ideas") from the "craft of intelligence." A spy can gather a lot of information from non-proprietary, non-restricted sources. CIA analysts spend most of their time reading newspapers and similar sources.

This enters into the well-worn discussions over intellectual property rights. In the early days of automobiles, manufacturers attempted to patent the steering wheel, the brake pedal, and so on. (In aviation, the Wright Brothers and Glenn Curtiss were similarly locked over "wing warping.") But any competent mechanic who saw Henry Ford rolling about Detroit in his horseless carriage could easily build one of his own... and improve upon it.

I believe that improvement is the "water" that "washes" the taint from copying.

Yet, the cruciform aeroplane was first built by George Cayley in 1799. (Lots of promise in the Enlightenment.) But the flying machine was impossible without the propeller. It was the Wright Brothers who figured out that the propeller is a wing. Everyone else was fooled by the nautical propeller. Water is about 800 times denser than air (about 1000 kg/m^3 vs 1.2 kg/m3). So, the simple canted or angled propeller is sufficient. To achieve the same result through air, the propeller needs a camber or curved cross-section. It is why the Wrights succeeded while Smithsonian curator Samuel Langley put two planes in the Potomac at taxpayer expense. So, there is no denying the philosophical importance and economic value in good thinking.

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 2/14, 11:11pm)

Post 7

Wednesday, February 15, 2012 - 6:43pm

I believe that improvement is the "water" that "washes" the taint from copying.

I so agree with that.

I've been trying to design an argument which proves, in essence, that true "copying" of one individual's work by another isn't actually possible. Things made by different individuals will inevitably be "different," and not exact copies. I watched a fascinating PBS special about the discovery of a lost Da Vinci chalk portrait.  Science and research proved it was real, and not a fake. Even though there are barely a handful of DaVinci artworks in the world, there is enough known about the man and his traits to discover what came from him, and what didn't. I think this sort of discovery is possible in everything made, regardless of who made it.

This is slightly related to the "improvement" issue. Plus, I just want to bitch about it.

For the past year I've been trying to research an obscure type of bead work that was developed by the Mohawk and Iroquois tribes of the Niagara Falls area in the late 19th and early 20th century. Women in these tribes sold handmade souvenirs beaded in this distinct style to tourists. (Naturally, government regulation, permits, and over priced licensing put a stop to the practice, which all but ended the trade, and thus this particular style of bead-work)   I happened to see a very old piece on Antiques Road Show, and never in my life saw anything like it before. I had to know more about this style. While I found a whole lot of superficial descriptions and photographs (most were very poor quality), I couldn't find anything by way of instruction as to how this style was actually worked.

I love to bead, and have a semi popular series of beading videos on YouTube. One of my viewers pointed me in the direction of a lovely blog with wonderful photographs that more or less showed how one of the stitches was done. Another directed me to the site of Samuel Thomas, who is hailed as a master of this almost-lost-art, and published a manuscript with illustrations of the style. However, his "book" is not listed anywhere but on his site, which does not take credit cards, or have anything by way of an email address, phone number, or contact information. Purchasers have to physically mail a check to Canada. Collectors of the old style praise the man and his efforts to keep this art form alive. I'm skeptical, given the ease of self-publishing these days, the lack of CGI for credit cards on the site (not even PayPal, for crying out loud!) and the utter lack of contact information, other than a mailing address in Canada.

I practiced and worked the stitch several times (going by the photographs in the blog) until I felt comfortable with what I was doing, then made a video of the stitch and result.  Other beading bloggers picked up on that video and posted it along with their own tries at the stitch. Then I developed my own way of working the stitch that I think is actually better than the original innovation, and posted a couple videos of that.

Long story short, I have a group of Native American haters causing me grief. One went so far as to imply I was "stealing" from them. Another flat out threatened me to stop. All of them insult, discourage, and pretty much try to intimidate me and my efforts to learn this wonderful, amazing style of raised bead-work that is all but extinct due to the Federal Government's ban on simple trade in Niagara Falls. What they can't stand is that a white woman, me, is sharing what she's learned on her own, without help from them, to perfect strangers around the world. One is terrified I'll sell something I've made in "their" style. OMG! The horror! As if anyone couldn't tell the difference between something made today and those 100 year old tattered relics.  I'm sure even Mr. Samuel Thomas wouldn't approve, not that I give a damn.

I've never, ever, encountered this kind of destructive "culture sense." Its so odd, I don't know what to make of it. I asked a girl at work, a nice Samoan girl, if there was anything in Hawaiian culture that would forbid her from sharing that culture with me because I'm white. "NO! Gosh, I'm proud to share it with everyone!"

That's the attitude I pretty much expect from everyone, and that's the attitude I'm accustomed to.  Open. Proud. Generous. Benevolent. Unmistakeably human.

I don't know what kind of animal these haters are.

For now, I'm either ignoring the comments or removing them, but the idea that I'm hurting anyone because I love something beautiful is insane.

Oh, this isn't the "unpleasant" thing I mentioned before, but it is unpleasant. The other unpleasant thing is so unpleasant, I don't have the energy (or wit) write about it yet, but it deals with a similar kind of ignorance and hate.

(Edited by Teresa Summerlee Isanhart on 2/15, 6:50pm)

Post 8

Wednesday, February 15, 2012 - 8:48pm

Teresa,

Moving in on their territory eh? Damn, the bead business is cut-throat.

I was curious so I watched some of your videos on Youtube. I never had much interest in beads (hell, I couldn't say I ever had any interest), but your designs are incredible. Especially your leaves, those must require an incredible amount of time, patience, effort, precision, and dedication to complete. If I were to ever try my hand at it, I would go insane before I'd finished my first leaf.

Yet I can't believe some of the comments on your "Iroquois" video (Oh wait, yes I can, it's Youtube). Really, what are they afraid of? Do they want to "preserve" their culture? Are they afraid a white woman is going to contaminate their culture?

Hell, Teresa, just keep doing what your doing. Perfect the art. Show them what a white woman can do.

P.S. I also thought it was presumptuous of one of the commentators to assert that you wanted to "be" like them since you simply enjoy bead work.

Post 9

Wednesday, February 15, 2012 - 10:48pm

Tress, I watched some video and I am totally blown away! I had no idea that it is at once so formalized and yet amendable to innovation. Who would have thought... Beads...

My ex has a loom... It is how she "programs a computer" in low-tech.

Post 10

Thursday, February 16, 2012 - 3:33am

Well thank you! It's a hobby. So, like all hobbies, it works as therapy. lol.

Kyle, I'm wondering how much self hate that comment really shows the world. The irony was surely missed. I'm still getting grief for my "insensitive" reply, but I don't care.

I watched a video last year of a native American woman explaining why these old Indian art forms should "die." I can't describe how horrified I was to hear this. I can't even rationally grasp the motivation for such a hope. But what is clear to me is that cultures don't always die out naturally. Some commit suicide.

Post 11

Thursday, February 16, 2012 - 8:13am

when cultures are tribal, they die in the end - but when they are individual, when is recognised we each create out own unique culture, then culture lives on forever........

Post 12

Thursday, February 16, 2012 - 3:34pm

That's true, Robert.

Mike, your ex is programming on a low-tech scale! Looms from the 18th century used punch cards to reproduce (jacquard) patterns in textile weaving, exactly the same kind of technology used by early IBM to "program" their (room sized) computers. Greenfield Village in Dearborn Michigan has one of these old looms, and it still works!

Post 13

Thursday, February 16, 2012 - 11:08pm