- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
The Case of the Compressed Image
|
|
|
Comments (31)
11 earlier comments in the full thread.
> mvermeer, I said "scarce", I mean "scarce"
OK, then I misread you.
> I disagree about your comment concerning the earth's surface.
I meant real estate. Sort of special in that a resource may be not scarce as such, but in a special location (and not movable). That's why we have expropriation laws etc.
dinotrac:
I think we're arguing past each other. What you define as the classic model of property rights is not what the author describes as the classic model of "intellectual" property rights, as implemented currently and going back as far as his historical examples reach.
You seem to be arguing against the story lead.
I think we're arguing past each other. What you define as the classic model of property rights is not what the author describes as the classic model of "intellectual" property rights, as implemented currently and going back as far as his historical examples reach.
You seem to be arguing against the story lead.
grouch:
The author of the article has a rather twisted notion of property rights and more. The article seems to rely on a notion that property is somehow evil, and intellectual property as a concept, because it relies on the constructs of property, evil upon evil.
The author of the article has a rather twisted notion of property rights and more. The article seems to rely on a notion that property is somehow evil, and intellectual property as a concept, because it relies on the constructs of property, evil upon evil.
Economic goods are by scarce goods. One cannot charge for just air, but it must be compressed, contained, liquified, or otherwise altered.
Computer code, even F/OSS is an economic good because there are aspects of scarcity about it. It must run on hardware and that hardware (like the bottle holding compressed air) is a physical and therefore scarce good. It requires labor to install, and it doesn't necessarily have all the features I desire. I may even pay to have such features built into a F/OSS project, since the benefit to me has value to me.
Etc. One problem I've noticed is that people equate "economics" with "money". Money is merely a medium of exchange. It allows for calculation of relative value, for example I would pay $20 for one thing but not for another. But that's all. It has often been pointed out that renown, the same thing being sought by Beowulf, is the "money" of F/OSS.
Computer code, even F/OSS is an economic good because there are aspects of scarcity about it. It must run on hardware and that hardware (like the bottle holding compressed air) is a physical and therefore scarce good. It requires labor to install, and it doesn't necessarily have all the features I desire. I may even pay to have such features built into a F/OSS project, since the benefit to me has value to me.
Etc. One problem I've noticed is that people equate "economics" with "money". Money is merely a medium of exchange. It allows for calculation of relative value, for example I would pay $20 for one thing but not for another. But that's all. It has often been pointed out that renown, the same thing being sought by Beowulf, is the "money" of F/OSS.
r_a_trip wrote:
I agree. The term "intellectual property" while seemingly simple and understandable, is actually causing more confusion than clarity which makes discussing *it* pretty pointless because we don't exactly know what "intellectual property" actually is. It seems that elements of this confusion have already popped up in this thread as well.
Copyrights, patents and trademarks are different from each other. If we talk about copyrights then we don't necessarily talk about patents (which are a whole different kind of "right").
Copyrights apply to creative works (be it works of art or functional works) and regulate terms under which works are being distributed. Patents apply to ideas (naturally for functional works), but not works themselves and regulate the use of these ideas (not the distribution of ideas or works to which they are applied). And trademarks apply to names regulating the use of various names as marks of certain products of companies and other groups.
We can't just lump these three distinct things under one confusing term that doesn't tell you enough about either of these three distinctive concepts.
Now it is even questionable in my opinion if property can even be intellectual at all. If it can't, and if its value is rather manifested in different ways than value of tangible material things, then that's another argument against the use of the term "intellectual property".
Thanks Danijel
Quoting: Not to nitpick, but Intellectual Property is a misnomer to lump various protective rights on creative works into one heap and muddy the boundaries of each specific field.
We'd be better off if we don't strengthen the *AA by using their New Speak for old but separate rights.
I agree. The term "intellectual property" while seemingly simple and understandable, is actually causing more confusion than clarity which makes discussing *it* pretty pointless because we don't exactly know what "intellectual property" actually is. It seems that elements of this confusion have already popped up in this thread as well.
Copyrights, patents and trademarks are different from each other. If we talk about copyrights then we don't necessarily talk about patents (which are a whole different kind of "right").
Copyrights apply to creative works (be it works of art or functional works) and regulate terms under which works are being distributed. Patents apply to ideas (naturally for functional works), but not works themselves and regulate the use of these ideas (not the distribution of ideas or works to which they are applied). And trademarks apply to names regulating the use of various names as marks of certain products of companies and other groups.
We can't just lump these three distinct things under one confusing term that doesn't tell you enough about either of these three distinctive concepts.
Now it is even questionable in my opinion if property can even be intellectual at all. If it can't, and if its value is rather manifested in different ways than value of tangible material things, then that's another argument against the use of the term "intellectual property".
Thanks Danijel
dinotrac: >"The author of the article has a rather twisted notion of property rights and more.
The article seems to rely on a notion that property is somehow evil, and intellectual property as a concept, because it relies on the constructs of property, evil upon evil."
How in the world did you come to that conclusion? I don't see anything like that in the article.
From beginning to end, it's about the aberration of intermediaries who exploit both creators and "consumers": Forgent trying to extort money via a 21 year old patent related to JPEG they acquired, Unisys with GIF and TIFF, BT Group over the hyperlink, the EU "Database Directive", Amazon's 1-click patent, Sony and Microsoft.
The article underscores an effect of the Internet and free software, the ability of creative people to market for themselves. "Intellectual property is likely to become as atomized as labor and to revert to its true owners - the inspired folks. They, in turn, will negotiate licensing deals directly with their end users and customers."
If "[t]he article seems to rely on a notion that property is somehow evil", then why does it portray this period of intermediary exploitation as an aberration and portray the ability to self-market as a restoration of balance between "intellectual property" owners and their customers?
How in the world did you come to that conclusion? I don't see anything like that in the article.
From beginning to end, it's about the aberration of intermediaries who exploit both creators and "consumers": Forgent trying to extort money via a 21 year old patent related to JPEG they acquired, Unisys with GIF and TIFF, BT Group over the hyperlink, the EU "Database Directive", Amazon's 1-click patent, Sony and Microsoft.
The article underscores an effect of the Internet and free software, the ability of creative people to market for themselves. "Intellectual property is likely to become as atomized as labor and to revert to its true owners - the inspired folks. They, in turn, will negotiate licensing deals directly with their end users and customers."
If "[t]he article seems to rely on a notion that property is somehow evil", then why does it portray this period of intermediary exploitation as an aberration and portray the ability to self-market as a restoration of balance between "intellectual property" owners and their customers?
Sigh.
The very premise that FOSS is somehow undermining Intellectual Property rights requires a rather twisted notion of what those rights are.
The very premise that FOSS is somehow undermining Intellectual Property rights requires a rather twisted notion of what those rights are.
Dean,
I think most of the misunderstanding is a result of people confusing the *existence* of "IP" laws with the the most common ways that those laws are *used* in the real world.
The GPL inverts the way that the laws are used in some ways. It does not invert the laws, themselves.
For my part, I'm a strong supporter of the author of software getting to control how his creation is used. I guess that makes me a strong supporter of "IP". I wish more authors went the OSS route. But if they don't, that's their business. There are consequences for them either way.
Also, while the GPL is solidly based in the existing IP laws, it does not require that the software author like the laws. It only requires them to acknowledge their existence.
One other thing. I think we are best off using all the terms commonly understood in the real world:
'Intellectual property', because so many people think they understand what that means.
But also 'copyrights', 'patents', and 'trademarks'. It helps to avoid the confusion that results from people thinking, for example, that if you don't enforce your patent, you'll lose it.
I think most of the misunderstanding is a result of people confusing the *existence* of "IP" laws with the the most common ways that those laws are *used* in the real world.
The GPL inverts the way that the laws are used in some ways. It does not invert the laws, themselves.
For my part, I'm a strong supporter of the author of software getting to control how his creation is used. I guess that makes me a strong supporter of "IP". I wish more authors went the OSS route. But if they don't, that's their business. There are consequences for them either way.
Also, while the GPL is solidly based in the existing IP laws, it does not require that the software author like the laws. It only requires them to acknowledge their existence.
One other thing. I think we are best off using all the terms commonly understood in the real world:
'Intellectual property', because so many people think they understand what that means.
But also 'copyrights', 'patents', and 'trademarks'. It helps to avoid the confusion that results from people thinking, for example, that if you don't enforce your patent, you'll lose it.
Steve:
Yup.
Re: IP -
There are times it is useful to talk about the bundle and there are times it is not.
Quick: What is the biggest difference between trademarks and many of the PTOs recent patents?
If you fail to enforce your Trademark, you'll lose it. If you enforce your patent against someone with the resource to fight you and demonstrate how idiotic the PTO was to issue it, you'll lose it.
Yup.
Re: IP -
There are times it is useful to talk about the bundle and there are times it is not.
Quick: What is the biggest difference between trademarks and many of the PTOs recent patents?
If you fail to enforce your Trademark, you'll lose it. If you enforce your patent against someone with the resource to fight you and demonstrate how idiotic the PTO was to issue it, you'll lose it.
A bit off-topic, perhaps, but at least tangentially related...
"Great Movie" idea:
A hyperspace time bubble passes through an area of the city of Philadelphia in September of the year 1787, right before the Philadelphia Convention is concluded. The participants find themselves in the Philadelphia of the year 2007, without ID, and dressed a bit strangely for the times. Being the intelligent and adaptable people they are, it doesn't take that long for them to figure out what's going on and make temporary arrangements to blend in a bit better... though they still have the problem of rescuing Franklin, who was arrested and is being held on suspicion of being something called a "Terrorist". ("How can I be a... what is it you call it? Terrorist? I'm too old!")
After experiencing a mix of wonder and distaste in the 21st century, they find a way [insert plot device here] to return themselves to their own time period. But what about Ben?
James Madison comes up with a clever plan to free him before their departure.
[Better insert a few plot devices here.]
Upon reaching Ben, they discover that he wants to stay in this century. ("Well, someone needs to clean up the mess we made! And I don't see how to do it from 1787. People are people. And a stitch in time only saves nine; You can't expect miracles!")
So the group gets back, safe and sound, and sans Franklin, to 1787. There is some debate about changing the document, but how do they know that any change they made would make things better and not worse? So they sign it as is.
I can't decide exactly how it should end. It's gotta have something to do with Ben starting his new life in the 21st century. I'm just not sure exactly what. I think it should be something that emphasizes that he's now in the same position, and facing the same problems, as the rest of us, his only special advantage being that his historical perspective is first hand. (Something including the line: "No three-fifths compromise, this time!" would be nice.)
"Great Movie" idea:
A hyperspace time bubble passes through an area of the city of Philadelphia in September of the year 1787, right before the Philadelphia Convention is concluded. The participants find themselves in the Philadelphia of the year 2007, without ID, and dressed a bit strangely for the times. Being the intelligent and adaptable people they are, it doesn't take that long for them to figure out what's going on and make temporary arrangements to blend in a bit better... though they still have the problem of rescuing Franklin, who was arrested and is being held on suspicion of being something called a "Terrorist". ("How can I be a... what is it you call it? Terrorist? I'm too old!")
After experiencing a mix of wonder and distaste in the 21st century, they find a way [insert plot device here] to return themselves to their own time period. But what about Ben?
James Madison comes up with a clever plan to free him before their departure.
[Better insert a few plot devices here.]
Upon reaching Ben, they discover that he wants to stay in this century. ("Well, someone needs to clean up the mess we made! And I don't see how to do it from 1787. People are people. And a stitch in time only saves nine; You can't expect miracles!")
So the group gets back, safe and sound, and sans Franklin, to 1787. There is some debate about changing the document, but how do they know that any change they made would make things better and not worse? So they sign it as is.
I can't decide exactly how it should end. It's gotta have something to do with Ben starting his new life in the 21st century. I'm just not sure exactly what. I think it should be something that emphasizes that he's now in the same position, and facing the same problems, as the rest of us, his only special advantage being that his historical perspective is first hand. (Something including the line: "No three-fifths compromise, this time!" would be nice.)
> with Ben starting his new life in the 21st century.
After looking around a bit and talking to people on the street, Ben throws up his hands, and declares that we are in need of a revolution. At which point the NSA busts in and arrests him (they have the whole thing on tape). Since Ben talks funny, and has no passport or other identification, they Jail him as a foreign terrorist. No visitors, held incognito.... In the end it is decided that he is harmless enough, but not rational or even sane. The last scene pulls away showing Ben, in a straight jacket, mumbling incoherently to himself "No three-fifths compromise, this time!", from his padded cell at happy acres funny farm.
After looking around a bit and talking to people on the street, Ben throws up his hands, and declares that we are in need of a revolution. At which point the NSA busts in and arrests him (they have the whole thing on tape). Since Ben talks funny, and has no passport or other identification, they Jail him as a foreign terrorist. No visitors, held incognito.... In the end it is decided that he is harmless enough, but not rational or even sane. The last scene pulls away showing Ben, in a straight jacket, mumbling incoherently to himself "No three-fifths compromise, this time!", from his padded cell at happy acres funny farm.
dinotrac: >"The very premise that FOSS is somehow undermining Intellectual Property rights requires a rather twisted notion of what those rights are."
I don't know where you get that idea from the article, either. Dr. Vaknin makes a credible, supported claim that "Open Source" is "subversive" to the anti-competitive, monopolistic, predatory practices currently employed by the intermediaries who seek to expand copyright, patent and trademark laws. I can't find anything in the article that presents "a notion that property is somehow evil" or "that FOSS is somehow undermining Intellectual Property rights".
I don't know where you get that idea from the article, either. Dr. Vaknin makes a credible, supported claim that "Open Source" is "subversive" to the anti-competitive, monopolistic, predatory practices currently employed by the intermediaries who seek to expand copyright, patent and trademark laws. I can't find anything in the article that presents "a notion that property is somehow evil" or "that FOSS is somehow undermining Intellectual Property rights".
Sigh.
I'll bet you don't go on driving trips that require right turns.
I'll bet you don't go on driving trips that require right turns.
Quoting:The Open Source Movement weakens the classic model of property rights by presenting an alternative, viable, vibrant, model which does not involve over-pricing and anti-competitive predatory practices. The current model of property rights encourages monopolistic behavior, non-collaborative, exclusionary innovation (as opposed, for instance, to Linux), and litigiousness. The Open Source movement exposes the myths underlying current property rights philosophy and is thus subversive.
dinotrac:
Ok, so you can quote a paragraph. Where and how does that support your claims about the article considering property rights "evil" or that FOSS undermines them? Have you read any of the context of that teaser paragraph?
Ok, so you can quote a paragraph. Where and how does that support your claims about the article considering property rights "evil" or that FOSS undermines them? Have you read any of the context of that teaser paragraph?
grouch:
I give up.
I give up.
dinotrac:
Are you sick? Need me to dial 911 for you? Gimme an address and I'll disconnect my pringles can and fencewire long enough to ring up an operator.
BTW, 2 wrongs don't make a right, but 3 rights make a left. I've made enough driving trips to figure that one out.
Are you sick? Need me to dial 911 for you? Gimme an address and I'll disconnect my pringles can and fencewire long enough to ring up an operator.
BTW, 2 wrongs don't make a right, but 3 rights make a left. I've made enough driving trips to figure that one out.
grouch:
No mas. Uncle. I'm melting.
No mas. Uncle. I'm melting.
While certainly subversive of government-granted monopoly and monolithic corporate style "private property", that is not private property. That is government/corporate cooperation, better known as "fascism."
Bob_Robertson:
That ties in with RMS's recent article, which he wrote in answer to something on LinuxInsider.
http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/62648/index.html
"What the Constitution says is that copyright law and patent law are optional.... They are not rights that their holders are entitled to; they are artificial privileges that we might, or might not, want to hand out to encourage people to do what we find useful."
In the U.S., at least, there has been too much government/corporation cooperation in the extension of copyright and patent powers. The whole anti-competitive, litigious mess is a drag on real creativity.
That ties in with RMS's recent article, which he wrote in answer to something on LinuxInsider.
http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/62648/index.html
"What the Constitution says is that copyright law and patent law are optional.... They are not rights that their holders are entitled to; they are artificial privileges that we might, or might not, want to hand out to encourage people to do what we find useful."
In the U.S., at least, there has been too much government/corporation cooperation in the extension of copyright and patent powers. The whole anti-competitive, litigious mess is a drag on real creativity.
I couldn't agree more.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post