Couldn't agree more.
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| Bob_Robertson Nov 10, 2009 4:52 PM EDT |
And I'm glad to see the subject, unalloyed and uncompromised, brought up. For a more "intellectual" treatment of the subject, other than the many works of Stephan Kinsella at http://www.stephankinsella.com/ I can recommend "Against Intellectual Monopoly" by Michele Boldrin, David K. Levine: http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/against.htm I hereby pledge NOT to get into personal tit-for-tat over this, this time. |
| hkwint Nov 10, 2009 6:46 PM EDT |
Wrong link (1st) Bob. Delete the comma. Funny you mention the second, I have been reading (parts of) that a while ago. |
| montezuma Nov 10, 2009 7:56 PM EDT |
"Austro-Anarchist Libertarian Legal Theory" Hmmm................ |
| gus3 Nov 10, 2009 8:10 PM EDT |
Cue the Monty Python quotes... |
| Kagehi Nov 10, 2009 8:43 PM EDT |
Problem is, this guy confuses IP with patent. Patent says, "I came up with some trivially stupid solution to a problem, but because I came up with it first, and there are not enough people to check to see *how* trivial it is, I can file a patent, then sue anyone that tries to make a competing product." IP is - I wrote this book, I **might** let you, if you ask, photocopy a few pages, or quote from it, or even use it to produce a derived work, as long as you don't plagiarize the contents, but if you go around making complete copies, taking out entire chapters and placing them in your own works, or otherwise *steal* the content, I will have your ass in court." I have no problem with the later form of IP, save in some extreme cases where a few companies screw their own fans, by telling them they can't produce derivatives that are not even being "sold", but just as fan fic type stuff. But when some idiot tries to tell me that I can't make a product that *does* X, because that is IP. Not one that *is* X, but **does** X, then they can kiss my ass, because at that points its not IP, its patent, and odds are the patent is something trivial and stupid, not like, "I was the first guy to invent wheels", type innovation. And, seriously, the argument that the fact that you can easily copy something makes it different that something you can't, is BS. So what. It pisses me off that I have to have a game CD in the machine to play some games, and that I can't make backups, etc. But there are only two reasons why this is a problem - 1) There is no way they would send me a new one if the old one broke, which I *do* find objectionable, and 2) The medium in question is inconvenient to keep lying around. If you had something the size of like a camera card, and a machine that had dozens of slots for them, so you didn't even have to "install" a product, just plug in all the cards you wanted, like books on a shelf, or, better yet, all of them where wireless, and could only "connect" to one machine, so you just sat them on a shelf, and when you wanted to use on you just picked it off the "virtual shelf" in your PC, and it ran **without installing to the machine at all**, you wouldn't have people babbling about, "Software is different because you can like.. copy it easy!" Software has three traits: 1) People that want to give it to you free can do so real easy, where a physical book you can't, no where near as easily. 2) Protecting it from use by more than one person is a pain in the ass, since you have to have the original media to do that, which can be lost/broken/damaged. 3) Since it must be "installed" to work, its trivial to hack the application, so that you can use it in more than one place, even if this was never intended, including doing the equivalent of giving everyone you know a copy of a hard bound book, which you only bought one copy of. So, hell yes IP is real, and its reasonable to protect it. The issue is protecting stuff that shouldn't be, making it impossible for people to get stuff at a sane price that they should be able to, and/or doing the equivalent of patenting "books about cooking", then telling everyone that only your IP is valid, because all other books that contain recipes or instructions "violate X patent", and, "Oh, BTW, you can only use it in your kitchen, in your original house, on Tuesdays, and you are not allowed to give it away to someone else, even if you buy a new cook book from us!" That is the real problem, not this imaginary, "IP violates RP!", BS. IP, in a sane form is, "You can't make copies of my cookbook for your friends.", IP as its practiced is, "You can't make a cookbook, give copies of mine away, *or* even use it, except where we tell you its OK to cook." Only "one" of those is valid, and ironically, it seems to be the one the article claims is the problem... |
| Libervis Nov 11, 2009 7:39 AM EDT |
Kagehi, 1. Both copyright and patents rely on the same basic paradigm, that ideas, information, arrangements, concepts and thus software (stuff that is presumably under "intellectual") can be owned. Since to own something it first has to exist *as* that something, and these intellectual "things" cannot exist without a medium and thus do not exist by themselves distinctively, saying that you can own them is like saying you can own a vacuum or just absolutely nothing. So I don't care whether it's patents or copyrights, if they both rely on the same assumption they're flawed. The difference between copyright and patents seems to be only in which form of intellectual "things" it covers. Patents cover ideas, concepts, algorithms etc. whereas copyright covers specific expressions of ideas, concepts, algorithms and more. Fundamentally there's no difference. All of these "things" don't exist in and of themselves. They must reside in the brain or some other medium to "exist". They're like constantly changing shapes of physical things. That's what information fundamentally is. 2. As you can see above my argument doesn't rely AT ALL on the fact that you can easily copy ideas. Given that you seem to attack that argument I am beginning to doubt if you've even read my article (or did better than just skim it while buzzing with preconceived notions) before ranting. 3. You say IP is real because software can be copied too easily? Well I disagree for the same reason that this wasn't why I think IP is invalid. Look at 1. 4. You're completely missing the point as evident in the last paragraph. Denying ownership of intellectual property is about letting real property be respected again in which case certain contracts can still prescribe certain terms of use or copying. It's just that these terms would solely apply to the two parties in an agreement and not anyone else. This is the only way you can cede partial control over your own property to someone else, through your own agreement. I own my computer and hard drive. You own yours. Before you use your computer and hard drive to send me a copy of the program you just created you can ask me to agree that I wont use my computer (or any other property I have) to copy it to someone else. You can even ask me to agree that if I break this agreement I have to pay you $1000 USD. This can be put in writing in a text file with a digital signature or whatever and the deal is sealed. You can now transmit the copy to me and I remain bound to those terms. Now should I actually break that agreement and give the program to some random person and that random person gives it to a few more random persons neither of the random persons can be liable. They weren't the ones having the agreement with the program author. I was. I am thus the only one liable and according to the agreement I should pay $1000 USD for it. Now of course the agreement about the fine could be that the fine wont be a fixed amount, but based on estimated damages of a leak. For instance, if you could somehow determine that 1000 copies have leaked and the agreement was that the one who leaked it has to pay $7 per copy, I (and only I) would be liable for $7000 to you. All of this works without copyright and without the assumption of intellectual property. It is based solely on real property (the fact that you have to use real property to transmit your program to me and the fact that I have to use real property to break the agreement). It's all you need. The only difference is in whom is made liable. Instead of criminalizing essentially innocent people you criminalize only the one who actually had an agreement to break. Capisce? |
| hkwint Nov 11, 2009 9:48 AM EDT |
As far as I'm concerned, patents and copyrights are about the concept of "exclusive rights" and not about the concept of "property". Then, because the whole issue doesn't deal with property anymore, there's no 'violation of real property' anymore and most of the issue is solved. Enforcing copyrights / patents would be about enforcing exclusive rigts, not about 'enforcing property'. So why do you insist that people who respect the current idea of copyright / patent (not the implementation) think of copyright as property? Because a lot of them - like me - don't. |
| phsolide Nov 11, 2009 10:09 AM EDT |
As to the "why insist on copyright as property", read William Patry's blog, particularly this entry: http://moralpanicsandthecopyrightwars.blogspot.com/2009/08/b... From that blog entry: Quoting:To me, the debates about copyright as property are always political, not historical; they are always efforts to influence the present and the future, an effort to get the legislature or the courts to reset the boundaries, as you once put it. That is why Jack Valenti insisted that the debate about home taping be decided by giving motion picture companies the same rights "as all other forms of property." And because efforts to reset the boundaries are perpetual, the political use of the property description is ongoing too. So let's just admit that much and admit that calling copyright property is merely a rhetorical tool. You and a few others may not insist on "copyright as property", but the overwhelming majority of the persiflage surrounding copyright in the USA is an attempt to get almost everyone to believe the rights holder has property rights in whatever idea/implementation/manifestation they've gotten a copyright on. In the USA, we see this as referring to infringement as theft or piracy. Some forms of copying are indeed infringing. They're not theft, at least legally. Framing infringement as theft is a political tool, at least according to Patry. |
| Libervis Nov 11, 2009 10:25 AM EDT |
Hkwint, reframing them as "exclusive rights" solves nothing, not by a long shot. If I were to use that terminology I would simply say that "exclusive "rights" granted via copyright and patents violate property". These are false rights if they infringe on something far more fundamental. I would argue that rights don't even exist since they always imply entitlements for ones and by that positive obligation for others. It makes more sense to talk about morally right actions and wrong actions rather than entitlements. But those cannot really be determined by law, but rather by a deeper philosophical examination of objective reality pertaining to human beings and human nature which relies on logic and empiricism. As you might guess, that's beyond the scope of this discussion, but I bring it up to draw the context for the point that these laws by themselves hardly constitute an end all and be all conclusion to the issue of what truly are legitimate rights. |
| dinotrac Nov 11, 2009 10:48 AM EDT |
Hans - Property carries with it a bunch of exclusive rights that can be assigned individually. That's how you can live on a place but give somebody else the right to drive across, to drill for oil, etc. |
| hkwint Nov 12, 2009 8:43 AM EDT |
Quoting:Property carries with it a bunch of exclusive rights that can be assigned individually. So "owning" any physical matter is also an 'exclusive right', only working because it's enforced by law. Sure, you could enforce it yourself but the same goes for copyright. I just don't see how 'copyright' is only enforced by law and 'property of physical matter' is something 'natural'. To me, that's just nonsense. How can you own any molecule? Why does copyright infringe on your right to "own a molecule" if the latter is utterly nonsense anway? Property of physical matter only works because there are people or governments (also people, just an organized bunch of them) enforcing it. Same for copyright. So what's the problem? Why distinguish? |
| dinotrac Nov 12, 2009 9:21 AM EDT |
Hans --- A big gold star. You have hit the nail on the head. There have been many societies through history that didn't believe that people could own land, for example. A rather ludicrous thing when you think about it -- land is forever and we are fleeting. Property rights are legal rights that we attach to our stuff. They help us to protect our stuff from those who might want to make our stuff their stuff, and they provide a basis for commerce. After all, why buy what you can take? And my, that brings us right back to the essence of intellectual property, doesn't it? |
| jdixon Nov 12, 2009 10:02 AM EDT |
> There have been many societies through history that didn't believe that people could own land, for example. They didn't believe that individuals could own land. I suspect they were quite willing to define some given land as "theirs" should some other society try to claim it. The primary difference between land and intellectual property is that land (or some equivalent) is a requirement for human survival, as you have to have a place to live and food to eat. You don't need intellectual property to survive. |
| dinotrac Nov 12, 2009 10:08 AM EDT |
jdixon - So it is a requirement for human survival. That would be an argument against individual ownership, not for. Think grazing rights in the old west. |
| jdixon Nov 12, 2009 11:20 AM EDT |
> That would be an argument against individual ownership, not for. Think grazing rights in the old west. I didn't say it wouldn't. Merely that it makes some type of land control/ownership a necessity. IP, not so much so. |
| dinotrac Nov 12, 2009 11:25 AM EDT |
jdixon - Necessity is in the eye of the beholder. If you live in a society of nomads, control of land might not seem so important. If your skill is writing things that other people want to read, feeding your family might make IP very important indeed. |
| phsolide Nov 12, 2009 11:44 AM EDT |
Dinotrac: Grazing rights on public land (BLM land, mainly) are still around in the modern west. And even if a society has a notion of "individual property", the rights attached are often different. In the Nordic countries, you can't forbid people from hiking across your fields, I believe. I forget what this is called in Scandinavia, but here in the USA, we'd call it trespassing, and shoot at the varmints. But the real difference between real property and "intellectual property" is the actual physical possession, isn't it? If I own a book, I can use it. If you take it, I can't use it. And that's where the idea of "intellectual property" falls apart. First, more than a single person can invent something: who actually invented the telephone, for example? Who invented the telegraph? My sister claims she invented the "curtain wwall" an architectural engineering concept, well before she found out about it at university. I invented the circular windshield ice scraper, by discovering that coffee mugs of softish plastic can actually scrape ice off auto windshields more effectively than a flat "knife" scraper. Later, I found out that someone had patented the idea. I've also written code that's almost a line for line duplicate of other people's code. In 1994, I wrote a little C function to push a pointer on a pointer-to-a-pointer-to-a-stack. Some months later, I was reading Usenet or Dr Dobbs, and I found the function, line-for-line, only the variable names were changed. More than one person invents a given thing independently. It's a fact. The intellectual property laws ignore this. Second, the fact is that a copy doesn't decrease the utility of "intellectual property". It may decrease monetary value (although that's arguable: music pirates tend to buy more music, too), but the utility of the "original" idea for the inventor is still there. I still use plastic coffee mugs to scrape my car's windshield, and I suppose the person who patented circular scrapers uses circular scrapers too. We both get utility from the idea. So, a coy of "intellectual property" isn't the same thing as stealing a chef's knife, or a car, or a book. Those two facts at least allow anyone to distinguish between physicla property and intellectual property. And it takes government to enforce the latter due to independent invention, at lest. |
| gus3 Nov 12, 2009 12:07 PM EDT |
Quoting:More than one person invents a given thing independently. It's a fact. The intellectual property laws ignore this.So true, so true. During my first semester in college, I took a course on Pascal. When I handed in my final exam, I returned to my desk to get my coat, and the professor called me back. I thought I was in trouble... Until he showed me the last exercise on my test, and the last exercise on another test. The only differences between them were the symbol names; the code structure was identical, and they would have compiled identically on the same computer. Neither of us cheated from the other; we were sitting over 10m apart. |
| dinotrac Nov 12, 2009 12:18 PM EDT |
Phsolide -
Yawn. Go by your friendly neighborhood bookstore sometime and offer to pay them for the value of the materials in a book. Better still, stop browsing books or reading reviews or ads or anything of the sort. Just buy the first one you can lay your hands on. After all, there is nothing of value there beyond paper and ink, right? |
| gus3 Nov 12, 2009 12:30 PM EDT |
@dino: (list price of print edition) - (list price of electronic edition) (materials and labor) N.B. I am not saying it's good or bad, or even valid, just a starting point. |
| dinotrac Nov 12, 2009 12:50 PM EDT |
gus3 - I think Jeff Bezos would take issue with your equation, but it's a step in the right direction. There is real value in creating something that people want. "Harry Potter" has value that "Some kid in your class" might not. |
| gus3 Nov 12, 2009 1:00 PM EDT |
The only ones who care what Jeff "One-click Patent" Bezos says are the ones who are paid to care. |
| tuxchick Nov 12, 2009 1:30 PM EDT |
Libervis, it seems you are saying that you do not value the talents, creativity, and hard work of people who create works that are not physical in nature. That because they are not works you can physically touch they have no value, and the creators have no rights of control over the distribution of their creations. Or am I reading this wrong? What do you propose to protect the rights of the authors of creative and intellectual works, or are you saying that they have no rights? **edit** I am serious because the current system is quite flawed, so what is an alternative? |
| jdixon Nov 12, 2009 2:05 PM EDT |
> If you live in a society of nomads, control of land might not seem so important. If my understanding of nomadic cultures is correct, they're mostly nomadic because their herds are nomadic, usually because the land can't support the herds in a single location. So what happens when another group of nomads tries to use the same land. The land can't support both, and you wind up both starving or with a war. Control of land is still important. Ask the plains Indians. > If your skill is writing things that other people want to read, feeding your family might make IP very important indeed. You can't buy your daily bread with the money you earn if there's no land to grow the wheat on. People need land (or as, already noted, an equivalent), whether as individuals or at a societal level isn't really important. A group of people can exist without IP, they can't exist without food to eat. |
| dinotrac Nov 12, 2009 2:18 PM EDT |
jdixon - They can't exist without food, but food requires not ownership. The topic was property, not nutrition. PS - If another group of nomads tries to use the same land, you move on, they move on, or you fight. No property required. |
| Bob_Robertson Nov 12, 2009 2:27 PM EDT |
> What do you propose to protect the rights of the authors of creative and intellectual works, or are you saying that they have no rights? Fraud. Such as, I cannot sell a bearing oiler as a "Real McCoy" unless it in fact is a real "McCoy" bearing oiler. I see a very strong market force for what is usually termed in the literature as "reputation". Trademark is one of the ways it is embodied at this time. There are any number of boxed paper tissue brands, yet "Kleenex" charges a premium because of their reputation. Compaq did the same thing back around 1995, when they stopped trying to compete with the other cut-rate OEMs, raised their price by 25%, said "We have a reputation for quality" and proceeded to sell fewer yet make more money. Lots of companies make 45-degree V-twin motorcycles (bleck!), but Harley Davidson charges one heck of a premium for putting their name on it. Etc, ad infinitum. Only Picasso could paint a Picasso, and to paint one just like it and try to sell it as a Picasso is fraud. To copy masterworks is considered one of the best ways to learn the arts, and no one is prosecuted for it. There is a Las Vegas (I think) show where four guys who look/sound very much like the Beatles do a Beatles concert. But they don't pretend to BE the Beatles, that would be fraud. Oh, and Elvis impersonators, Thank You Very Much. I build a cabinet, and sell it. I have NO RIGHTS to that cabinet any more, the owner can do whatever they want with it. Even to make one that looks just like it, sell it and give me NOTHING, because they are not committing fraud. They are not claiming it's mine no matter how good my cabinetry reputation might be, so they are not lying to anyone. Good painters, good musicians, good writers, will find that their work is in demand because it is good. The age of recording did not put classical symphonies out of business, even if they still play the same music, because people will pay for live performance even if they can get exactly the same thing in a recording. What technology has done is make reproduction cheap. It costs x=>0 to produce a copy, copies are now commodities, the price of which tends toward the cost of reproduction regardless of what the commodity is. That's just a fact of life and clinging to the obsolete idea of copyright/patent is doing no good. The problems we see today caused by the monopoly grants of copyright/patent have always been there, they were just hidden behind the comparatively short-terms and limited scope that copyright/patent used to have. But now those problems are so obvious that even Caitlyn agrees that there are abuses going on. I contend that those abuses exist inherent in the monopoly grants themselves. It is long past time to abolish this medieval practice of letters patent. |
| dinotrac Nov 12, 2009 2:31 PM EDT |
Bob -
What a bunch of cr@p.
You don't need fraud for physical items. You have the book. Writers don't have a physical item. Your position, clearly, is that writing has no value, or that it should be the province of the wealthy patrons who can afford to commission private works. How thoroughly modern and democratic of you. |
| Bob_Robertson Nov 12, 2009 2:42 PM EDT |
I'd like to add something here. The "market:" is a discovery process. Solutions are found not by being designed and applied to everyone, because that creates the very problems we're seeing. Kagehi summed it up well right at the beginning: "I have no problem with the later form of IP, save in some extreme cases where a few companies screw their own fans, by telling them they can't produce derivatives that are not even being "sold", but just as fan fic type stuff." If it were possible to write laws that were specific enough to embody only the "legislative intent", yet broad enough to cover example after example by the highly imaginative beings called "people", it might very well work. But that is why there are entire libraries of laws upon laws, regulations upon regulations, and lawmakers keep full time staffs busy writing an ever accelerating number of laws and regulations: Because law is not a discovery process, it is arbitrary. This thread, and all the other threads on the subject here and in fact in every forum I've ever seen, shows a huge demand for compensating creative thinkers for their creativity. So I cannot say what particular answer might evolve if the arbitrary statutes were repealed and creativity itself allowed to be a purely market factor. I cannot, if for no other reason than that I have no experience in such an environment. None of us do. All I can say for sure is that where copyright and patent are weakest, we see the greatest innovation and fastest development of ideas, to the betterment of the entire world. |
| jdixon Nov 12, 2009 2:56 PM EDT |
> ...but food requires not ownership....The topic was property, not nutrition. The right to take food from the land is ownership. Or are you also arguing that the right to take minerals from the land also doesn't require ownership? People need land for two things, a place to live and food to eat. Those are two essential things without which people cannot survive. |
| caitlyn Nov 12, 2009 2:56 PM EDT |
Quoting:All I can say for sure is that where copyright and patent are weakest, we see the greatest innovation and fastest development of ideas, to the betterment of the entire world. I strongly disagree. Nation with the largest venture capital investment for innovative tech startups: United States. Nation with the largest venture capital investment per capita for innovative tech startups: Israel Tiny Israel has more startup investment than China, Korea, Japan, or the whole of Europe. Both the United States and Israel have strong patent and copyright laws. |
| Bob_Robertson Nov 12, 2009 3:14 PM EDT |
> Both the United States and Israel have strong patent and copyright laws. You mistake me. I said "where copyright/patent is weakest". Such as F/OSS, where copying gratis is encouraged. Such as the Internet RFC process, where ideas are placed directly into common use. "Rough consensus and running code." > I strongly disagree. And isn't it wonderful that neither of us commits a crime by disagreeing? Not yet, anyway. Edit: Oh cr@p, I promised not to get into a tit-for-tat. Go ahead, Caityn, the last word is all yours. |
| phsolide Nov 12, 2009 3:34 PM EDT |
Dinotrac writes:
Quoting: Go by your friendly neighborhood bookstore sometime and offer to pay them for the value of the materials in a book. That's different. Since it's practically impossible to separate "intellectual" from physical property, you get to pay for both. Copying is also quite labor intensive. In effect, books, LPs, etc can include compensation for the rightsholder (not "creator") in their price. Note the "practically". You could potentially xerox "Lord of The Rings", but the copy would be more expensive than actually going to B&N and getting a new one. The "practially" ends up as "copy costs more than original". And that's OK, that's what the copyright laws were based on up to DMCA. Clearly, the technology of copying changes the situation. If you can take a physical think and copy it easily (CD comes to mind) then the value of the plastic in the CD isn't much. There's where your counterargument fails. The laws have to keep in touch with reality. The DMCA (and what we can see of the ACTA agreement) attempt to put a partial lid on the technology of copying. Both DMCA and ACTA agreement go way beyond that, however. The DMCA provisions against reverse-engineering are an example. I confess I haven't read the bits of ACTA that seem to have leaked. But pretty clearly the large media companies are using lobbying and other tactics to make laws that aren't in the general interest. They're only in the large company's interest. They make a rather illogical class of stuff, "intellectual property" that gets special legal and enforcement privileges from government. And the laws make a special class of people, "rightsholders", which get benefit from those privileges. But I preceive you're just using your law schooling Socratic Method experience to torque people up, eh? |
| dinotrac Nov 12, 2009 3:59 PM EDT |
>The right to take food from the land is ownership. It could be, but doesn't have to be. It can be employment. For that matter, why assume that there is some right to take food from the land? Where does that "right" come from? Nobody has to let you eat. |
| gus3 Nov 12, 2009 4:23 PM EDT |
Quoting:Nobody has to let you eat.Ten years ago, I would have argued with you. |
| dinotrac Nov 12, 2009 4:36 PM EDT |
gus3 - Most of human existence -- about 99.8% or so -- passed without property and without a right to eat. I don't suggest that's better. It's not, but we need to realize that property is not some thing, it is a societal grant of rights. |
| Bob_Robertson Nov 12, 2009 5:29 PM EDT |
> property is not some thing, it is a societal grant of rights. I agree that the concept "property" is something created by people, and that human beings are social animals. It is my opinion that the environment of a respect for private property is the most productive and safest interpersonal structure that human beings have yet invented. I look forward to seeing what other structures people invent, and will gladly join in on one that generates more happiness, the same way I would change location to make a better living. |
| jdixon Nov 12, 2009 5:53 PM EDT |
> Where does that "right" come from? The same place all other rights do Dino. "Endowed by their Creator". > Nobody has to let you eat. If someone is denying you the right to take food from a given piece of land, then they are claiming ownership of it. If no one owns it, no one can deny you the right to use it. > It's not, but we need to realize that property is not some thing, it is a societal grant of rights. The exact details are, yes. But the acknowledgment of a right to property, whether societal or individual, predates our societies. It derives from our nature. |
| dinotrac Nov 12, 2009 5:57 PM EDT |
Well, Bob, I can't argue. And that is probably why efforts to encourage Intellectual-creative-endeavors and to secure their incorporation into the public domain embraced a concept similar to conventional property rights. |
| hkwint Nov 12, 2009 6:06 PM EDT |
I don't know if this is still the right place to discuss the original article, but anyway, why not try: Let's assume we use Daniëls model. I write or invent something. You 'buy' it, and agree with me not to sell it to third parties. You break the agreement and sell / give it away anyway. You're to blame, not the third party. What would change? Well, probably the fact that the price of my writings / inventions have to been tenfolded or so. And then, probably nobody will buy it anymore; and because it's more expensive, there would be a greater incentive to break the agreement and resell it. Look at how the more expensive CD's are more prone to be 'illegaly' copied than cheap ones etc. Or, I should be certain enough lots of people will buy it directly from me, and then I could lower the price. But then, cheap replication by third parties would not be used anymore, and the process as a total would require more efforts and resources. |
| Bob_Robertson Nov 12, 2009 6:24 PM EDT |
> And that is probably why efforts to encourage Intellectual-creative-endeavors and to secure their incorporation into the public domain embraced a concept similar to conventional property rights. I agree with you, and if the writings of the people who established copyright/patent in the US are any indication then it was done substantially with the Very Best of Good Intentions. It is my opinion (opinion, yes everyone has one) that the problems inherent in copyright/patent outweigh their benefits now, because the costs of communication/reproduction have so substantially decreased. Maybe the costs always did. Since I didn't live in the 19th century I can't speak from experience about that, only, again, opinion. I think those problems are inherent in the grant of legal monopoly. That's why Microsoft's abusive market domination is referred to, negatively, as a "monopoly". |
| hkwint Nov 12, 2009 6:30 PM EDT |
Quoting:It is my opinion (opinion, yes everyone has one) that the problems inherent in copyright/patent outweigh their benefits now Something we agree on! Nonetheless, as I pictured above, I'm afraid the model of Daniël is not going to work. Having some form of 'exclusive right' feels like a necessity to receive something in return for your efforts. And someone would have to 'enforce' those rewards, because otherwise (proven by internet) people won't give you anything in return for your efforts. Wether your efforts are spent to make something physical or something non-physical (such as a piece of music), I think we'd agree both should be rewarded if the creator (dare I say: Wealth generator?) wishes so; on both 'products' efforts are spent. But it's what mechanism to use we'd probably disagree on. |
| dinotrac Nov 12, 2009 6:39 PM EDT |
Bob - Two problems: 1. IP has been corrupted and its original goal forgottten. Paying creators was a means to an end, not an end unto itself. The end was the grant of creativity to the public domain. 2. Bad as the current way is, I'm hard pressed to think of a better one that might actually work. Fortunately, there are lots of people out there smarter than I am. Maybe somebody will figure it out. |
| Bob_Robertson Nov 12, 2009 6:52 PM EDT |
> because otherwise (proven by internet) people won't give you anything in return for your efforts. Yet people pay to see concerts, movies in theaters, live plays. People pay for books of public domain materials. The problem is that people DO pay in return for creative efforts. Dino has accused me of therefore wanting only the wealthy to have art. But isn't that exactly what we have now? Only the wealthy own Picasso originals, I put up a cheap reproduction. Do I want to spend $60 to see Jim Beck in concert, or nearly nothing for a recording? Or $9 to see a movie in a theater, instead of a DVD or computer file? Photography was going to eliminate the art of painting. Has it? |
| tuxchick Nov 12, 2009 7:06 PM EDT |
Let me try again. What is an alternative to the current model? And how is this not about valuing creative works simply because they are electrons and easily reproduced, instead of something more tangible and difficult to reproduce? Forget all the analogies and why "IP" is wrong. What, then, is right? |
| Bob_Robertson Nov 12, 2009 7:30 PM EDT |
> What, then, is right? And let me try again, because I thought I had answered that a couple times over. Look at what do people do aside and outside from copyright/patent now. People do create without expectation of direct remuneration for that creation, even today. I'm using the software they wrote right now, and so are you. |
| hkwint Nov 12, 2009 7:36 PM EDT |
Quoting:Photography was going to eliminate the art of painting. Has it? Maybe not the art of painting, but I'm quite sure without photography people could earn more by making and selling paintings. For example, I have a repro of M.C. Escher above my TV (TV is not always interesting, even when turned on, but Escher is). Let's say photographed / reprint-repro's like that wouldn't have been possible. Then Escher (or his children) could have earned more because they could have made more repro's (becuase Escher did litho and wood-carvings, and those are still the property of his children I guess). In the same fashion that monastries could have earned more money if the art of movable type printing would have been invented, and in the same way artists could have earned more if digital content media wouldn't have been invented (blame the mathematicians for that!). So both TC, Dino and I are all three agreeing (!) that current copyright / patents don't work and we'd like to see an alternative. Quoting:People do create without expectation of direct remuneration "People" in that sentence should be replaced by "some people". For the people who expect direct remuneration, there should also be some mechanism to reward them in my opinion. |
| dinotrac Nov 12, 2009 7:44 PM EDT |
Bob - Only the wealthy can own a Picasso, but that is not what we are talking about. Most people can own a reproduction of a Picasso, or a Harry Potter book, or a Taylor Swift Record. Most people can afford to got to a movie --- at the theatre -- something that also depends on IP. Well, maybe not Paranormal Activities, but there are only so many $12,000 movies worth seeing (ok -- that's not one of them). |
| Bob_Robertson Nov 12, 2009 8:08 PM EDT |
Edit: > Maybe not the art of painting, but I'm quite sure without photography people could earn more by making and selling paintings. Have you ever read "Petition of the Candle Makers"? http://bastiat.org/en/petition.html > For the people who expect direct remuneration, there should also be some mechanism to reward them in my opinion. Funny, I've made a reasonable living and not one patent or copyrighted work to my name. So that mechanism exists. Right now. Otherwise, I would have starved long ago. > Only the wealthy can own a Picasso, but that is not what we are talking about. That is EXACTLY what we're talking about. You said I somehow only want creative works to exist for the wealthy, and I point out how that is exactly what happens now. Oh, but wait, it doesn't happen now, since you say: > Most people can own a reproduction of a Picasso, or a Harry Potter book, or a Taylor Swift Record. How does that contradict the assertion that people who want a Picasso can get a reproduction? How does that contradict the assertion that people want, and are willing to pay for, creative works? Nothing you've said contradicts what I claim. > Most people can afford to got to a movie --- at the theatre -- something that also depends on IP. Ah! Finally. You assert it "depends" upon IP, and I make no such claim. The theater depends far more on _investment_ than IP. There are only so many movie theaters that can recoup their investment in a given population, and IP has nothing to do with it. Even as IP has been reinforced, the number of theaters has gone down. Many of those theaters are multiplexes, it would be interesting to know how the "number of screens" has changed. > Well, maybe not Paranormal Activities, but there are only so many $12,000 movies worth seeing (ok -- that's not one of them). Good sir, if money were the only object, then _Waterworld_ would have been worth seeing twice. Proof positive that money can't buy everything. |
| tuxchick Nov 12, 2009 8:10 PM EDT |
Quoting: > What, then, is right? And let me try again, because I thought I had answered that a couple times over. Look at what do people do aside and outside from copyright/patent now. People do create without expectation of direct remuneration for that creation, even today. I'm using the software they wrote right now, and so are you. Then it is about free as in freeloader? Which is what Libervis' fundamental point seems to be. What about people who don't want to give it away? You're being vague on this. Here is a concrete example: Dino cuts a music CD. You buy it. You copy it. You sell many copies and make lots of money. How is that right? This happens with unhappy frequency in the music and book business, one of the more famous examples being Ballantine books ripping off JRR Tolkein by publishing his books in the US and never paying him a dime. How do you propose handling situations like that? |
| Bob_Robertson Nov 12, 2009 9:11 PM EDT |
> Then it is about free as in freeloader? Does this entire discussion really boil down to the classic "free rider"? Could be. Let's get to that below. > What about people who don't want to give it away? Then they don't. You'd think that people would have had enough of silly love songs. > Dino cuts a music CD. You buy it. You copy it. You sell many copies and make lots of money. How is that right? Dino cuts a CD. Ok. I buy the CD. Ok. I make copies and sell them. Really? What if I make lots of copies, but someone else got it from Dino and that person makes lots of copies and sells them so that I don't get to sell any. I've lost my entire investment. Repeat this for everyone who got a copy from Dino, and note that the only person who actually sold CDs is Dino as the first to market. I could make an example of flying to the moon in a balloon to prove any point I want, but that doesn't make flying to the moon in a balloon something that would actually happen. So was this a "red herring" or "straw man"? Ok, let's talk about the great Free Rider "problem", since in fact I agree that one aspect of this discussion really can boil down to that well known and heavily debated subject. Here I'm going to make a bald assertion: Just like roads, bridges, water works, and all the other times the Free Rider "problem" comes up, either a way is found to deal with it or the project is not accomplished. That is one of the great skills of the entrepreneur, to discover how to deal with free riders and make the project work anyway. Since this IS an economics problem, I dare point to an economics site: Free Riders: Austrian v. Public Choice http://mises.org/daily/1869 And this quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good "Author Stephen King, for instance, authored chapters of a new novel downloadable for free on his website while stating that he would not release subsequent chapters unless a certain amount of money was raised. Sometimes dubbed holding for ransom, this method of public goods production is a modern application of the street performer protocol for public goods production." > This happens with unhappy frequency in the music and book business, one of the more famous examples being Ballantine books ripping off JRR Tolkein by publishing his books in the US and never paying him a dime. Well, TC, copyright didn't work, did it? You provide a perfect example of a gross failure of the very system you're trying to convince me is the only way things can work. And those were great book covers. I wonder if my friend Sal still has his? Hmmm. > How do you propose handling situations like that? How about the same way Tolkien did: By informing his fans that, if they cared, to buy the "official" version when it was finally licensed in the US. ...and they did. Because, as I've pointed out before, reputation matters. People do in fact care. Otherwise, this wouldn't be such a big issue. Microsoft deals with it by making it difficult for anyone but Microsoft to produce a copy. As pointed out by others, a publisher can produce a physical book cheaper than I can make a copy of a book, which amounts to the same thing. First to market is how the inventor of the "Topsie Tail" made her fortune. |
| Bob_Robertson Nov 12, 2009 9:34 PM EDT |
Sorry, Dino, missed this in the chaff: >1. IP has been corrupted and its original goal forgottten. Paying creators was a means to an end, not an end unto itself. The end was the grant of creativity to the public domain. Oh, man, you are so right. The absurd lengths to which copyright/patent have been carried have given the entire idea such a bad rap. I would still argue that a monopoly grant is a bad thing if copyright/patent were still as limited as they were at first, but it sure would be harder. It might not even be worth arguing about. > 2. Bad as the current way is, I'm hard pressed to think of a better one that might actually work. Fortunately, there are lots of people out there smarter than I am. Maybe somebody will figure it out. That's actually the crux of what I've been trying to say to TC. One of the primary jobs of the entrepreneur is to figure out how to make things work more efficiently than other people. Maybe fewer creative works will be produced. But I know a couple of professional writers, and they would write anyway. One of the best stories I ever read was an Urusai Yatsura fan-fic for which the author never expected remuneration. I'm glad to say that "Just A Dream" is still available, fan fiction being one of those respected grey areas of copyright. So without copyright/patent, how might it work? Since we know that creative people want recognition (and money), and us intellectuals understand the importance of the public domain (and enough people agreed with that reasoning to establish the laws in the first place), why not a private registry? "I'm sorry, I did write that, and here it is in the Underwriters Registry with my name and a date stamp 30 days before you claim to have written it." etc. |
| tuxchick Nov 12, 2009 9:42 PM EDT |
Bob, it still sounds like disrespect of the work of other people. It's a simple issue that has nothing to do with your links: it's about copying and selling other people's works without their permission. You buy one of Dino's CDs, you get to re-sell it if you like. Maybe even at a profit if you're lucky. How do you justify that? Even if Dino is well-known enough for "reputation" to matter, how are fans, if they even care, going to distinguish between legitimate and counterfeit Dino CDs? It sounds like your position, and I think this is Libervis' position too, that this is perfectly OK, and if people don't like being ripped off, tough, that's their problem. Is that correct, or am I misunderstanding? The current system doesn't work and needs to be fixed; how? I don't mean to nag, but both you and Libervis are wandering all over the place, and maybe I haven't been specific enough, but these are the questions I'm trying to get some answers to. I was wrong about the Ballatine/Tolkien deal; Ballantine didn't rip him off. Long story, start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballantine_Books |
| jdixon Nov 12, 2009 10:16 PM EDT |
> This happens with unhappy frequency in the music and book business, one of the more famous examples being Ballantine books ripping off JRR Tolkein by publishing his books in the US and never paying him a dime .,,, I was wrong about the Ballatine/Tolkien deal; Ballantine didn't rip him off. Long story, start here: [HYPERLINK@en.wikipedia.org] Ace apparently published the unauthorized books, and apparently did so legally, or at least Tolkien never took legal action against them. Wikipedia also discusses this at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lord_of_the_Rings under Editions and Revisions. > The current system doesn't work and needs to be fixed; how? The current system works fine for Disney and their ilk, who are free to rip off any and all plots from the 1930's on back (and even more recently in some cases, compare The Lion King to Kimba, the White Lion from the 1960's), secure in the knowledge that their bought and paid for legislature will make certain that no one else can ever do the same to their products. Quite simply, copyright is already too long. It was for only 28 years with an extension for an addition 28 if you applied for it in my youth. That's 56 years, and that's still long, but within the realm of reason. Anything over sixty years is too long. Software copyright is a special case, and should be far shorter, on the order of 10-20 years at most. Also, if the material is not being made available to the public, copyright should lapse. |
| caitlyn Nov 12, 2009 10:32 PM EDT |
I think tc hit the nail on the head. Have you ever gotten into a discussion with one of the people who shares music illegally? I have. They say "music should be free" but they mean free as in not paying for it. They have this incredible sense of entitlement to something that just isn't theirs. Ditto folks who think it's fine to pirate MacOS (think hackintosh) or Windows or whatever. As tc points out corporations steal too, and on a much larger scale. I have problems with specific provisions of DMCA, but not the concept. Ditto ACTA. Opponents of ACTA claim it will change the very nature of the internet. You know what? They're right. The Wild West days, the free for all, the orgy of theft may just come to an end. IMHO that's a good thing but I fear the unintended consequences of the agreement should it come into being. I also fear how software companies, the RIAA, etc... will try to use it to stifle those who choose to freely release the fruits of their labor. The choice should belong to the creator or owner of the work, not to the RIAA and the like and not to freeloaders either. |
| vect Nov 12, 2009 11:03 PM EDT |
Bob, I think your sarcasm to TC is damaging your communication. It adds noise to your message and it undermines the necessary idea that you are sincerely communicating. jdixon, Apple Shake is a terrific video compositing software released by Apple and it's a good example of software that was released (for linux) and is no longer supported or even sold. Shake is made to such high-quality that using it is an inspirational awe-inspiring experience. It is so good that one must appreciate how much love and attention Apple put into it's creation. Don't they deserve to decide what happens to Shake? Additionally, people were paid money to make Shake. Those programmers made a decision to sell their creativity to Apple and it was a decision that they benefited from. Shouldn't we respect the decision those programmers made? Shouldn't we respect Apple's investment in those people? Let Apple keep its ownership of Shake. |
| tuxchick Nov 13, 2009 12:17 AM EDT |
Vect, everything is a derivative of something. Except in very rare instances of genuine originality we're all building on something someone else made, who built their work on previous works, and so on. That is a good thing, and I like the idea of limited copyrights, like what jdixon said, and adding the 'orphans go into the public domain' provision. My own question here is narrow, about direct copying only. Because I think there is no way to spin that as anything but a ripoff, personal use excepted. If Bob records his own CD that is a virtual replay of Dino's, well, that's life, it happens all the time. All industries copy ideas, designs, and concepts from each other. The differentiator is the implementation. Maybe fans would like Bob's singing better, and the cover photo of him in his lime-green leisure suit. I agree that the resources and talent that go into something like Apple Shake deserve protection and reward. Still, I think an orphan provision that triggers after a certain period of time would be a wonderful thing, because it's not the only the creators that have a stake but also customers who are hurt by closed proprietary abandonware. |
| dinotrac Nov 13, 2009 8:18 AM EDT |
TC -
As to vritual replay cd, well, that isn't life, depending... Copyright protects more than complete literal copies -- it protects copying of the creative element. The CD ripoff (aside from any potential unlicensed use of of copyrighted songs) is probably safe, because, well, music is that way. |
| Bob_Robertson Nov 13, 2009 11:58 AM EDT |
> Even if Dino is well-known enough for "reputation" to matter, how are fans, if they even care, going to distinguish between legitimate and counterfeit Dino CDs? Fraud. I know I've mentioned this before. To sell an "original" that isn't an "original" is false advertising, fraud, and lots of other words that mean the same thing. How does anyone distinguish now? I mean, really, how do you KNOW the disk you're buying wasn't made by the music store chain? Vect, > I think your sarcasm to TC is damaging your communication. Then you're not paying attention. I wasn't being sarcastic. TC, > and the cover photo of him in his lime-green leisure suit. It was sky blue. > I don't mean to nag, but both you and Libervis are wandering all over the place, and maybe I haven't been specific enough, but these are the questions I'm trying to get some answers to. I realize this may be hard to believe, but I see it exactly the same way. I point out specifics, you wander somewhere else. You ask a question, I answer it, and the next post pretends I haven't said anything at all. Take fraud for instance. I bring that up right from the beginning, and yet you are still asking what's to stop someone from selling "original" works that are not "original". Just like I'd never mentioned fraud at all. Or accusing me of not wanting creators to get paid, which contradicts everything I've said. Or accusing me of wanting only the "rich" to benefit, which is just attacking the messenger. The only thing in agreement is that what is going on now isn't working. |
| hkwint Nov 13, 2009 12:34 PM EDT |
Quoting:Funny, I've made a reasonable living and not one patent or copyrighted work to my name. Leads to two conclusions: -You don't depend on remunerations from your creative / development work, and if so you're just lucky other people didn't copy and sell your ideas, -You think if something works for you, it works for the entire world. Where I work, we make stuff that's copied by 'cheap brands'. I'm glad there's trademark protection, to make sure consumers can see the difference in quality (which isn't immediately obvious to the layman while just looking at the original and the copy). However still, we spend effort on developing good products, and while they are being copied, others are benefiting from our efforts without them having to do the same efforts. That "benefiting from the efforts of others and not rewarding them for that efforts" is no problem for you is one thing - and I'm glad for you, but it doesn't mean there's some kind of working mechanism for everyone. |
| Bob_Robertson Nov 13, 2009 6:33 PM EDT |
> Leads to two conclusions: Many more. > -You don't depend on remunerations from your creative / development work, and if so you're just lucky other people didn't copy and sell your ideas, Nope, wrong. I contracted to create answers particular to that situation, and was paid for that work by the people who benefitted from those answers. Just like most programmers. > -You think if something works for you, it works for the entire world. Wrong again. Folks were asking about remuneration processes that were not copyright/patent based, and I pointed out that without any copyright/patent remuneration still happens, so those processes DO exist. Asserting that somehow I think what works for me works for everyone is projection of the worst kind. I'll turn that around and point out that by law, copyright/patent are what are forced on everyone. By trying to point out that copyright/patent are not the only ways to do things, I am in fact saying that NO ONE ANSWER works for everyone. > I'm glad there's trademark protection, to make sure consumers can see the difference in quality And as I've already pointed out (here I go repeating myself as if my prior statements were never read, again) because there is such a demand for reputation in a commodity market, such brand recognition AND prosecution for fraud for violating brand recognition is very much a market force we will see regardless of any law. > That "benefiting from the efforts of others and not rewarding them for that efforts" is no problem for you... Another hostile, bald assertion directly in conflict with what I've already written. > but it doesn't mean there's some kind of working mechanism for everyone. Here you go again, using a straw-man argument I never made. My objection to copyright/patent is specifically because no one answer works for everyone. I understand exactly why Libervis walked out. What reason is there to write to people who do not read? |
| azerthoth Nov 13, 2009 7:40 PM EDT |
Actually Bob if you were contracted to perform that, then unless your contract stipulated otherwise the code and thus the copyright belonged to the contractor. Your expressing copyright in that case is moot, it wasnt your to copyright in the first place. |
| vect Nov 13, 2009 8:49 PM EDT |
Bob, You keep reminding this thread that you must repeat yourself and re-state things. Your writing isn't very clear. If you think your readers are not comprehending you then you should try communicating in a way that is comprehensible to them, otherwise what's the point in communicating at all? For example, you responded, 'Nope, wrong.' Wrong about what? Is he wrong that you don't depend on remunerations? Is he wrong that other people don't copy your ideas? Is he wrong to assume you do creative work? Is the thinking behind his question wrong? What is wrong about it? If you know he's wrong it's simple for you to state 'wrong.' and move on, but it helps the rest of us to move on with you if you communicate your thinking. I'm paying attention to you, but without any vocal inflections behind your statements, they seem over-simplified in a way that comes across as sarcasm. I imagine a bratty voice saying, 'Nope, wrong'. Here's what would help me to understand you (and I assume others here will agree). Spend less time criticising the interpretation of your responses. Stating that the response to you is a 'projection of the worst kind' or that you are having to repeat yourself _once again_ doesn't help us understand your point. Simply get to the point. If you spend more time explaining and defending your own responses then your message might be more clear. Your posts are fairly long also, so maybe try shortening them so we don't have to find your thoughts in a wall of quotes and other non-sense. |
| hkwint Nov 13, 2009 10:34 PM EDT |
Quoting:I contracted to create answers particular to that situation Indeed, just like I said: Ideas which make no sense to copy. I stated you were lucky above others didn't copy your work if you were dependent on remunerations! Quoting:Asserting that somehow I think what works for me works for everyone is projection of the worst kind. You think there is a working system, at least that's literally what you said above (yes, I did read!). If a system doesn't work for everyone, it's not a working system. So basically like vect says above: You're writing isn't very clear, I'm interpreting things from your writing you didn't mean to communicate. Quoting:Another hostile, bald assertion directly in conflict with what I've already written. OK, then tell me - again (because obviously it wasn't clear enough at least to me)- if others copy our 'unbranded' products without trademarks applying, how will we be rewarded without copyrights, and patents maybe? Do I understand correctly (let's not make assumptions) you favour a public registry? And how would that work, would we have to post all our technical drawings to them? Isn't EPO actually just that: A public registry - because surely it's not some part of any government, because certainly it doesn't account to any government? And isn't EPO the best proof a public registry doesn't work? Didn't the people of EPO protest against the system of their _own_ public registry - because it's just too much work for them? And are they not the biggest granters of softwarepatents - only after USPTO? |
| Bob_Robertson Nov 20, 2009 11:22 AM EDT |
Thank you, critiques taken and dealt with. 1) Fraud. Answers all objections to fraudulent copying. Fraudulent copying still happens under copyright/patent, so trying to say it isn't perfect is moot. Neither is anything else. 2) Demand for creative works. It exists, so people will rise to meet that demand. 3) Public registry. Again, there is a demand for being able to prove who wrote what, so there will be mechanisms for doing just that. Just as there are now. Maybe we'll all use GPG/PGP digital signatures. 4) First to market. Time preference is very, very strong in human beings. Did I use the plastics example in this thread yet? Do I need to write it out again? Pizza. A wonderful example given by Jeffrey Tucker, I think in this talk, http://mises.org/media/4255 but I can't find exactly where it is right now. Pizza embodies everything about intellectual property without copyright/patent. There is no monopoly on pizza. No copyright, no patent. I saw a "Buffalo Chicken" pizza in the store freezer but I'd first seen such at Pizza Inn a couple years ago. Obviously wide copying is going on. Pizza has huge start-up costs. Facilities, ovens, personnel, training, and anyone who has worked in or tried to run a restaurant knows that the profit margins are razor thin. Each maker tries to entice me by doing something different, such as crust variations, and yet offer very standard items like pepperoni that "everybody" has. The only "force" is the fact that people expect pepperoni on pizza and the sovereign Consumer must be satisfied or business will not last. Yet there are half a dozen pizza places that will deliver to my door. There are as many or more different brands of pizza in the freezer with prices that range from moderate to suspiciously cheap. The well-known brands are more expensive than the store brand, yet they both sell. Enough to still be stocked, and anyone who has tried to run a retail store knows that shelf space is expensive. Especially freezer space. Speaking of well-known brands, here is "branding" and reputation in action. Is there a difference between the $5.50 pizza and the $3.50 pizza? Same ingredients list, same sized box. Different picture, different name. Reputation matters. Is this too long? Is this somehow unclear? |
| vect Nov 20, 2009 1:39 PM EDT |
The point is well made. I agree. |
| tuxchick Nov 20, 2009 1:59 PM EDT |
Bob, you've overlooked the key point-- ease of copying and distribution. Or is that implied in one of the other points? Every pizza is a re-implementation of the same recipes. It's the skill of execution, price, customer service, and location that make the difference to customers. If a pizza could be copied and distributed as easily as digital media it would be a different problem. |
| tuxchick Nov 20, 2009 2:17 PM EDT |
One more thought-- it seems a pretty obvious fraud, as I think was said somewheres way back in thread, for someone to copy (for example) a music CD and pass it off as their own. But to copy and sell it as-is, being an unauthorized seller and distributor, that is one significant problem that copyrights attempt to solve, the rights of creators to control the distribution of their own works. Libervis' writings are hard for me to follow, but this one still reads like creators don't deserve any protection for their works, or to profit from selling them, but only from service and support. Which is presented as a refutation of copyleft, but it's not clear how. |
| dinotrac Nov 20, 2009 2:23 PM EDT |
tc - Yes, that's one big reason why fraud doesn't work. |
| Bob_Robertson Nov 20, 2009 3:51 PM EDT |
> the rights of creators to control the distribution of their own works. There is only one place a creator can control the distribution of their own works: How they distribute it. If they want total control, then don't publish. The only way to restrict an idea is to keep it all to yourself. Anything further than that is the control of others, not one's own works. And agreed, it's not fraud when not claiming the work as one's own. The answer to that is reputation, that a conscientious fan will buy authorized works and thereby support the works of which they are a fan. Someone who does not was not going to anyway. I do not believe that anyone has a "right" to the actions of others. That would seem to be the single un-resolvable point of disagreement. |
| tuxchick Nov 20, 2009 4:15 PM EDT |
Bob, my question isn't about ideas, and I think I was pretty clear on that. ideas can't be controlled, as much as the tech and entertainment industries try to. It's about controlling the distribution of finished works. Nothing is ever 100%, and it's not realistic to try for 100% perfect copyright enforcement. But copyright worked pretty well until the entertainment industry corrupted it. As for conscientious fans, they aren't the ones who commit copyright infringements, or counterfeit on large scales and profit from it. That's why we have laws, and while laws and enforcement are never perfect, they're a lot better than throwing people under the bus by leaving them on their own. I don't agree that unauthorized copying and distribution are not fraud. It is. If that isn't a good word, then counterfeiting, theft, immoral, exploitive, seriously dirty trick. I think the difference between your perspective and mine is I believe that people's actions should flow from a strong moral base. That there is right and wrong. That the strong and privileged have obligations to help less fortunate. That we need laws and law enforcement, and a social ethos (which is more more powerful than laws and courts) because the alternative is chaos and suffering. As a society we have an obligation to interfere with people who do harm to others, including economic harm, and if they feel all coerced well too bad about their feelings. |
| caitlyn Nov 20, 2009 4:56 PM EDT |
+1 tc |
| hkwint Nov 20, 2009 8:38 PM EDT |
Pizza is interesting. Given it wouldn't have existed for current prices outside Italy if it was patented or copyrighted I guess. Nonetheless, the conclusions I arrived at lately conclude the protection should be related to the investment. If there's more investment, I'm okay with more protection. Sounds nice: When some pharma company put a lot of effort in some medicines H and had to built a separate factory to make that medicine, give it protection, and when Microsoft takes only one minute of effort to copy sudo and patent it, don't protect it. Probably finding out about the crust of pizza wasn't that expensive either. As a conclusion of this, when somebody copies H, the pharma company might be severely screwed, and if that's the only thing they're selling they might go bankrupt. I'm not sure if GPG can be applied to molecules, in my opinion that's not possible (note it are not the molecules that are registrated). So in my opinion, a 'public registry' would have to deal with "fuzzy logic". If it takes somebody three years to write a book and it's on TPB the day after publication, the writer is severely screwed and the "first-to-market advantage" is entirely gone. Most people don't care about autographs AFAIK, especially not if that means the book would have to be shipped crossing oceans (and one has to deal with Customs, VAT which means more costs and longer waiting for the book, while P2P users would be the first to have the book). When somebody copies Microsofts implementation of 'sudo' or better pizza crusts, nobody is screwed because not much investment is 'stolen', so not much protection is needed. But proving how much investment / efforts was needed, that's the issue. |
| TxtEdMacs Nov 21, 2009 10:22 AM EDT |
Hans, Pharmaceutical companies are a bad model, since many are bulking up by acquisitions that result in layoffs of the science side while ramping up marketing. Moreover, while the supposed certification of drug production is on paper strict, with out sourcing to Asia many facilities are never inspected*, hence, one can be certain that some fraction of the product is deficient. This would be a scandal in the U.S. if we had a media that really paid attention to important topics. YBT * Seen this written up, perhaps twice but not widely disseminated. |
| hkwint Nov 21, 2009 11:03 AM EDT |
Sure they are a bad model, but compared to "inventing sudo" they surely show 'inventions' for which more investments and efforts are needed. |
| gus3 Nov 21, 2009 1:14 PM EDT |
@Txt: I'm confused. Are you missing a set of [serious] tags? |
| TxtEdMacs Nov 21, 2009 3:27 PM EDT |
gus, You noticed. Even when I am attempting with weak humor to skewer some item, most times there is a serious issue beneath the surface. Yes, it was serious (must be in a sour mood). YBT |
| azerthoth Nov 21, 2009 3:43 PM EDT |
*note to editors* We really need a button somewhere that allows us to ignore (remove from feed) ongoing dead end conversations. |
| hkwint Nov 23, 2009 4:24 AM EDT |
We'd better have a button for threads what are _not_ dead end. |
| Bob_Robertson Dec 06, 2009 6:24 PM EDT |
TC, > It's about controlling the distribution of finished works. Which is strange, because I had just pointed out that the one thing under control of an original author is how they distribute their work. > I think the difference between your perspective and mine is I believe that people's actions should flow from a strong moral base. Again this is very strange, because you're not arguing for morality. You're arguing for statute laws. Statute laws try to enforce particular actions based upon punishment. They have absolutely nothing to do with morality unless you want to assert that the conducts as written are "moral" for everyone. > That there is right and wrong. So you ARE asserting that what is codified in law is what is right. How do you deal with the fact that laws change? Has right and wrong suddenly changed? > But copyright worked pretty well until the entertainment industry corrupted it. So now you're saying that the statute laws do NOT embody what is right? This actually illustrates exactly what I have been saying. For you, the laws enforce what is right, but you don't like what they're enforcing in this case so they're actually enforcing wrong. Yet if I asked someone else, say a RIAA executive, he'd say they're right or should be changed to be more right in exactly the opposite direction that you would say they need to be changed to be more right. > I don't agree that unauthorized copying and distribution are not fraud. Fine. Then demonstrate harm and collect damages. Even where copyright laws do not exist, all you have to do is demonstrate harm in order to have judgement in your favor. It's the same for anything someone might do that can cause harm. Copying an idea is no different than any other human action. Demonstrate harm, collect damages. That's the only "law" needed, and one I fully support. One of the reasons that this discussion is so difficult is that by arguing that the problems of copyright are endemic to copyright itself, that the laws deserve to be repealed, people instantly jump up and assert that I don't want people to be remunerated for their work. The one and only issue is that copyright causes more harm than it generates benefit. As YOU SAY, before the recording industry got a hold of copyright it seemed to work. But maybe, just maybe, those same problems have always existed and they're just much easier to see now. Much like a small quantity of poison not killing the patient, but a large quantity doing so. That's not to say that a small quantity of poison is a good thing, even though the patient had survived it. > while laws and enforcement are never perfect, they're a lot better than throwing people under the bus by leaving them on their own. Are they? So alcohol prohibition was better than leaving people alone? So drug prohibition is better than leaving people alone? How about restrictions on travel, since otherwise people won't know where to live? Here's a question: You make a very bold statement here that "they're a lot better" but you give no support. Can you support that statement? |
| hkwint Dec 06, 2009 6:44 PM EDT |
That's the problem Daniel also encounters: If Alice distributes to Bob under an agreement, and Bob breaks the agreement and distributes to Eve while Eve distributes to the whole internet, than under Daniels theory only Bob is liable for the damages caused by the acts of Eve. Even if Eve was fully aware Bob broke the agreement. The one here who is really screwed is Alice, because she cannot distribute to the whole net anymore. And she has to prove it's because Bob broke the agreement, and she has to collect all 'proven damages' from Bob. Even if Eve is a large company earning tons of money because of Bob's breach of the agreement, while Bob doesn't own anything except the original transcript from Alice. That's the exact same situation as the growth of weed here in this country: Eve is a criminal and she pays some poor Bob to grow the weed. If the police finds the weed, Bob loses his home and is liable for the damages, and Eve happily continues earning money using other Bobs. The same happens with content: You steal it for me, I pay you, and I'm not liable. The same for bicycles 'behind the train station', usually associated with addicted people who stole the bicycle. Alice her bicycle is stolen by Bob, Bob sells it to Eve, but only Bob is liable, Alice is screwed because usually Bob is broke and cannot pay damages, and Eve is happy with Alices bicycle. So in reality such a system would screw the ones providing 'scarce goods' such as 'good content'. Such a system - just like the current copyright-system if interpreted too broad - wouldn't foster people to make 'good content' I suggest. |
| tracyanne Dec 06, 2009 7:34 PM EDT |
Quoting:You steal it for me, I pay you, and I'm not liable. In the real world that's called fencing, or receiving stolen goods, and it is illegal, and fences go to prison, as they are liable. |
| Bob_Robertson Dec 06, 2009 8:27 PM EDT |
TA, I agree. What it seems to me to be is that HK is changing one thing under the present system, and pointing out how that might facilitate "abuse", without taking into account that such a change does not leave the present system intact to be "abused". HK's example does in fact apply to contract law. For instance, if I sign a non-disclosure agreement and see some fantastic tech, like a GUI and pointer on a computer, then I release that tech into the wild, it is not the people who take that idea and run with it that are liable. Only I have broken the contract, not third parties. But that also assumes that I wasn't deliberately working with a fence who acted deliberately to undermine the NDA, which as you point out I think brings the fence directly in as an interested party not an innocent "3rd". The weed example is perfect for my purposes, as removing the prohibition on weed would would keep the "innocent" Bob out of trouble, and put Eve out of business or at least make underhanded dealings unprofitable. Without the artificial scarcity that copyright creates, taking someone's ideas wouldn't have the same economic incentive that it does now. In my opinion, the economics of prohibition work the same way regardless of what that prohibition is, be it herbs, words or bearing oilers. *Edit: If I may add to this. Beyond the simplistic moral position of not making criminals out of people who have done no harm, and the "rights" position that, like air, since an idea is infinitely reproducible there is no scarcity so there is no way to make an idea private property, the last paragraph above I think deserves elaboration. Without the artificial scarcity that copyright creates, there is less money to be made in simple "copies". There is still money to be made, as the continued availability of the works of Shakespeare, Homer and such in printed form attests. The monetary incentive shifts in favor of the producer to produce more and again, rather than rely upon copies of their existing works for profits. That is, the real money is shifted closer to actual invention. Like Dickens publishing as serials in magazines, Stephen King taking money up front before writing the next chapter, and of course performance of music/theater/movies. The first to market becomes the greatest profit making opportunity, so there is a much greater incentive to be "first to market" with a new idea, a better idea, or an improvement on existing ideas. Because of these incentives, it is my opinion that copyright directly violates the theory under which it was justified in the first place: The incentive under copyright is to rest on one's laurels rather than actually "promote the progress of science and useful arts". |
| tuxchick Dec 06, 2009 8:54 PM EDT |
Bob, you're still confusing ideas with finished implementations, and none of this has anything do with prohibition. You still haven't spelled out what you think is better than copyright, other "I want what I want for free, too bad for anyone who has devoted time, talent, resources, and skills to producing it." |
| Bob_Robertson Dec 06, 2009 9:15 PM EDT |
> you're still confusing ideas with finished implementations I don't see where I am. Honestly. Can you please elaborate what you mean? > and none of this has anything do with prohibition. I am prohibited from copying a book or story or song and reselling it. Prohibition. > You still haven't spelled out what you think is better than copyright TC, in all seriousness and candor, how have I not? What I think is better than copyright is not having copyright. Fraud remains, because to claim something as one's own that isn't is fraud. Not that I think the buyer of a $10 Rolex really believes he bought a Rolex. |
| jdixon Dec 06, 2009 10:40 PM EDT |
> In my opinion, the economics of prohibition work the same way regardless of what that prohibition is, be it herbs, words or bearing oilers. Yes, they do. And that was, in fact, the intent. Creating an artificial monopoly allowed the creator of a work to reap monopoly profits for the duration, and therefore (in theory) encouraged publication. As you note, it's debatable whether it still has that effect. |
| dinotrac Dec 07, 2009 1:22 AM EDT |
jdixon - Not so debatable. Lots of people will create for free, but it's hard to excel that way because excellence requires care and craft, elements that generally call for time. Time, unfortunately, is not infinitely expandable and the need to make a living interferes powerfully with uncompensated creation. |
| hkwint Dec 07, 2009 5:21 AM EDT |
OK, forget about the weed, suppose Bob is paid by Eve to kill Alice and Eve is not liable. That's the result of what Daniel proposes in the actual article: Nowadays people (the Bobs) are paid to break some agreements and copy some stuff to Eve (who pays them) and puts it on the worldwide net. [1] Quoting: For instance, if I sign a non-disclosure agreement and see some fantastic tech, like a GUI and pointer on a computer, then I release that tech into the wild, it is not the people who take that idea and run with it that are liable. But the people who take that idea and run (Eve) are the ones causing the damage to the one who created the technology (Alice), and if you (Bob) are poor and cannot pay back to Alice for the damages caused by Eve, than Alice is screwed. So basically any system where Eve causes more damages than Bob can pay screws Alice. And that's why the system Daniel proposes doesn't work. Yes, he proposes to put in the contract higher sentences if Bob breaches the agreement with Alice. Like $1,000,000 or so. But if Bob is poor, that's certainly not going to work. Therefore the proposed 'solution' is just as flawed as the current copyright system and won't improve anything. It's about the same situation as nowadays: Watermarking movies e.d. to find out who leaked them and fine them with mega-million-dollar fines they can't pay anyway. AFAIK until now this has not decreased the amount of movies available in torrent / newssites. |
| Bob_Robertson Dec 07, 2009 3:28 PM EDT |
> the need to make a living interferes powerfully with uncompensated creation. Very true. It is creation that remains scarce regardless of the ability to copy an idea that has already been presented, or not. That's exactly what I mean by the shift of incentives from making money for the _copy_, to making money for the _creation_. And no, I'm not trying to say that someone will make just as much money. I consider that a straw-man because there is no way to prove it one way or the other. Unless we eliminate copyright/patent for, say, 100 years and see what happens. Fine by me. :^) > suppose Bob is paid by Eve to kill Alice and Eve is not liable. Sorry, HK, Eve is liable, at least an "accessory to murder". > But the people who take that idea and run (Eve) are the ones causing the damage to the one who created the technology What damage? What as Eve been deprived of, in fact? Does Eve still have her idea? Can Eve still use, build upon and sell her idea in any way she is able to? Yes. Just as someone breathing next door does not deprive me of my breathing, since air is not a scarce resource. > Watermarking movies e.d. to find out who leaked them and fine them with mega-million-dollar fines they can't pay anyway. AFAIK until now this has not decreased the amount of movies available in torrent / newssites. Indeed. Barn doors and loose horses come to mind. Might as well sue NetFlix for decreasing theater viewership. It's the same thing, one "copy" of a flick being seen by many different people. |
| dinotrac Dec 07, 2009 4:20 PM EDT |
Bob - In the old days, we did have a way to pay for the creation without the copy. Patrons of the arts would commission artists/musicians/etc to create works for them. The idea behind copyright was to form an incentive to create works that would ultimately go to the public domain, ie, share the fruits of creation with every(wo)man. |
| tracyanne Dec 07, 2009 4:39 PM EDT |
Quoting:The idea behind copyright was to form an incentive to create works that would ultimately go to the public domain, ie, share the fruits of creation with every(wo)man. This is the bit that [conveniently] the relevent media industry forgets, and wants everyone to forget. The point of copyright was to foster the creation of artistic works that would became public domain, by ceding, for a short time, a monopoly (the copyright) over that work. What corporate art wants is complete and total ownership of those works forever, as their business model will only work while they hold the copyright. |
| jdixon Dec 07, 2009 4:44 PM EDT |
> The idea behind copyright was to form an incentive to create works that would ultimately go to the public domain.. And idea which seems to have been completely abandoned with the various extensions of copyright. Now the only goal seems to be lining the pockets of Disney and other corporate copyright holders. |
| Bob_Robertson Dec 07, 2009 5:14 PM EDT |
I couldn't agree more. And this abuse of what copyright was "supposed" to be is something that everyone here agrees is a BadThing(tm, reg us pat off). |
| dinotrac Dec 07, 2009 5:18 PM EDT |
Yes. I find a certain tragic irony that, finally, with the power and pricing of digital media and distribution via the internet, copyright finally has a chance to fulfill its promise for creators (as opposed to publishers), only to fail in large measure because the internet doesn't respect copyright or artists. |
| Bob_Robertson Dec 07, 2009 5:28 PM EDT |
> copyright finally has a chance to fulfill its promise for creators (as opposed to publishers), only to fail in large measure because the internet doesn't respect copyright or artists. And I see it as the exact opposite. The "publishers" are enablers (or parasites, depending on your point of view) , who make the real money on the monopoly of "copyright", while now the artists and customers can finally connect together in large numbers without the intermediary. "The Internet" respects the artists. Just not the doorkeepers. |
| dinotrac Dec 07, 2009 5:54 PM EDT |
You need glasses. Artists and "customers" connecting is valuable only if the customers are willing to pay. The internet rips the artists off and denies them the value of their work. |
| Bob_Robertson Dec 07, 2009 6:21 PM EDT |
> Artists and "customers" connecting is valuable only if the customers are willing to pay. And you need to exercise your imagination. Multiple ways for an artist to make money without copyright have been suggested, have worked in the past and work right now. As one example, the book "Complete Liberty" is available in dead tree and mp3, has been released to the public domain because of the principles of the author, yet still makes him money. http://completeliberty.com/ > The internet rips the artists off "The Internet" doesn't do anything at all. Individuals are demonstrating that information itself is not a scarce resource. They value its creation, and any artist who can't figure out how to profit thereby deserves to fail. |
| hkwint Dec 07, 2009 7:02 PM EDT |
I feel we're making slow progress here. Suppose Eve pays Bob to kill Alice, then it's accessory to murder. Eve is liable. Suppose Eve pays Bob to breach his agreement with Alice, then why the # isn't it accessory to contract breach? Why isn't Eve liable? Because Alice doesn't lose anything? Let's suppose Eve distributes Alice's content to the whole world for free. Then Alice is not deprived to use or built upon her idea. But Alice lost the opportunity to sell any of her work (this bears the implicit assumption people will not pay twice for the same information). And about the books being in the public domain and still selling: You are not obliged to sponsor Greenpeace. Still they make money. It's called 'charity'. Read Courtney Love on it: She says artists are dependent on charity, just like you suggest. Basically she even agrees that it is because of the failing IP-system: The money goes to the studios and not to the artists. http://www.salon.com/technology/feature/2000/06/14/love/prin... (Probably the best article about IP / artists and RIAA I read). Abortion of copyright law would maybe* cure the problem of MPAA & RIAA extorting all money out of the artists, but it would still leave artists dependent on the charity of their fans. So while it's a cure against RIAA, it's not a cure against artists not getting what they worked for. Some artists who earn enough are happy with that. Especially the stadium concerts still make them rich and compensate for losses due to less albums sold. Most of the times those artists are famous because the record studios made them famous. But if you just started and nobody knows your name, then how the # is anyone going to pay in advance for your work? Did you know how many times V. van Gogh was paid in advance for work he didn't make yet? That would be: Never. He wasn't famous at all. He was lucky it wasn't easy to reproduce his work bit by bit, otherwise he wouldn't have earned anything, even no apples. So, how are people voluntarily going to pay to you as means of charity - if they don't know your name and if your content is easy to reproduce? If you have a good idea + implementation and it took time and effort to create that idea, but you can not 'produce' your own idea (maybe because it's a 10 soccer-fields large energy plant), how are you still being rewarded if your idea is not protected in some manner after you told it to some big company? Hint: They will not sign a contract with you if they haven't heard your idea yet. And after they heard it, why would they give you a contract if your idea isn't protected? If you just started as a writer, which publisher will pay you in advance for a manuscript? The system where you are being paid because you are 'first to market' fails if you are not famous, because you just started. I think it's reasonable to assume all artists / writers etc. 'once started'. The above (small inventors / artists and writers etc.) is the reason why even some FFII members are not supporting the total abolition of patents altogether. That should make one thin! *Maybe - because after all the contracts between RIAA and artists may still be valid even without copyright. |
| gus3 Dec 07, 2009 7:45 PM EDT |
Quoting:Suppose Eve pays Bob to kill Alice, then it's accessory to murder. Eve is liable.Because the first contract is illegal on its face, so the contract is null and void. And without a valid contract, there can be no contract breach. |
| tuxchick Dec 07, 2009 8:46 PM EDT |
No, the Internet doesn't rip artists off-- it merely enables easy theft and copyright violations on a mass scale. It's easy to copy and distribute digital works, that doesn't make it right. Bob, your whole argument boils down to "I shouldn't have to pay for something if I don't want to, and the easier it is to rip off someone else's work the better I like it." The crux of your many words is if a person cannot protect their own interests, tough beans and they deserve to be ripped off. You haven't said anything that indicates your point of view includes any respect for the works of others, but rather an overlarge sense of entitlement. Kind of like the RIAA. |
| Bob_Robertson Dec 07, 2009 9:36 PM EDT |
> why the # isn't it accessory to contract breach? Who said it isn't? What does the adjudicator say? > Read Courtney Love on it: She says artists are dependent on charity, just like you suggest. I don't see how, for examples, paying Stephen King to write his next chapter, "I'll post it when this counter reaches $50K", is "charity". I don't see how charging $100 per ticket for opening night of an Andrew Lloyd Webber musical is charity. I don't see how charging $120/ticket for a performance of the Rolling Stones is charity. Now, L. Neil Smith putting his novel "Ceres" online for free may very well be considered charity, I agree. But that is his choice to do so. http://www.bigheadpress.com/lneilsmith/?page_id=53 > But if you just started and nobody knows your name, then how the # is anyone going to pay in advance for your work? When I lived in San Jose, there was a wonderful "wine bar" in Saratoga that had live musicians some nights. I loved it, with music that didn't require me to wear earplugs, and really good music too. They brought in business, they were paid, and some had CDs for sale. I've never said that everyone who makes money now would make money without copyright, but then you can't say that there aren't people who would make more money cutting out the middle-men either. > Basically she even agrees that it is because of the failing IP-system: The money goes to the studios and not to the artists. Which makes me wonder why copyright isn't called "theft". > it merely enables easy theft TC, "theft" is a very well established principle. What was taken? What property was denied from the use of the artist by the actions of the downloader? > The crux of your many words is if a person cannot protect their own interests, tough beans and they deserve to be ripped off. Tell me, oh self-righteous sage, how is that ANY different than what happens under IP? Or haven't you noticed the actions of the RIAA? > You haven't said anything that indicates your point of view includes any respect for the works of others, That is a lie. Or, you are welcome to back that up or take it back. > but rather an overlarge sense of entitlement. Kind of like the RIAA. It's very frustrating, because every time you have made this accusation you have failed to back it up in any way. Tell me how wanting people to be free means I don't respect them? Tell me how cutting out the middle-man is "kind of like the RIAA", the archetype of abusive middle-men? The imposition of coercive copyright on everyone, backed up with violence, is what is disrespectful, what alienates individuals, and what creates a sense of entitlement. I realize you disagree, that you think copyright is better than no copyright. But please stop with the personal invective and over-the-top accusations of things that are obviously and patently untrue. TC, really, all you're doing is making emotional accusations without support. If I'm wrong, show me how and I'll change my mind. |
| dinotrac Dec 07, 2009 10:03 PM EDT |
TC - It's a funny thing about Bob. He pretends to be libertarian, but when respecting the rights and outputs of others puts a crimp in his style, it's full-press redistribution of wealth time. |
| hkwint Dec 08, 2009 4:42 AM EDT |
Quoting:> why the # isn't it accessory to contract breach? That's the result of saying only the one who breaches the contract is liable. Wheather the one who is encouraged to breach a contract receives status or money, isn't all that important IMO. About the wine bar: They were invited there because people knew them and knew their work. Normally you don't present your implementations of some idea or your manuscript in a winebar, so I'm not sure it's going to work beyond music. Also, with the winebar, people pay for the performance, not for the 'information only', like with an album. About charity: I meant selling albums was charity! Because people don't have to pay for the information, they can usually get it for free. Quoting:Which makes me wonder why copyright isn't called "theft". Like I said above: the studios extorting money out of artists is because of contracts between the two (which could exist without any laws), not necessarily because of copyright! Copyright is more used as a tool by the studios to extort money out of customers, it's not needed to extort artists. Anyway, I'm glad you seem to agree to my example above if Eve distributes Alice's content to the whole world than Alice lost the opportunity to sale her content. |
| dinotrac Dec 08, 2009 8:43 AM EDT |
Hans - WRT theft: Yes. The whole canard about studios exploiting artists amounts to little more than one of your kids saying "But Billie was stealing candy, too." It's a juvenile argument meant to make people feel better as they go ahead and join in the exploitation. The lie is easy to see: Now that the internet makes it possible for artists to reach a large population without a publisher, it is still ok to steal from them because, well -- I'm not sure...maybe it's just because the artist deserves to be exploited. Ironically, thanks to all of these self professed lovers of freedom and friends of the arts, creators are driven back to their exploiters as protectors against thievery. |
| Bob_Robertson Dec 08, 2009 9:16 AM EDT |
Dino, > He pretends to be libertarian, but when respecting the rights and outputs of others puts a crimp in his style, it's full-press redistribution of wealth time. Let's say you see me raking my front yard. You think that's a great idea, so you go put together something that looks like the tool I was using with your own wire and stick, and start to rake your own yard. Copyright says you can't do that, it's my idea to rake not yours. Patent says you can't make that rake, since all you did was copy my idea. I realize that you believe there is "property" in ideas and patterns. I'm glad to argue the point, and address the problems and benefits in all directions. But please, please. Don't lie. My position is one of respect for the individual and their property. Copyright is an artifact of statute law, just like taxation. Both violate property rights. |
| Bob_Robertson Dec 08, 2009 9:37 AM EDT |
Hk, > That's the result of saying only the one who breaches the contract is liable. > > Wheather the one who is encouraged to breach a contract receives status or money, isn't all that important IMO. Then change your opinion. Just because a theft is done by one hand does not make everyone else in that gang innocent, or make the left hand innocent for what the right hand did. "The one who breached the contract" may very well be more than one person, a team, a "conspiracy", whatever. The point is that Jimmy in Romania who happens upon the results of the crime, be it gemstones or an industrial process, has nothing to do with the crime and cannot be considered to have broken any contract. > About the wine bar: Nothing you say goes one way or the other, copyright or not. I don't understand how that supports the idea of monopoly grants. > if Eve distributes Alice's content to the whole world than Alice lost the opportunity to sale her content. Here is the crux of it, and I'm glad you finally brought it up: Prior claim to the actions and money of others. You're assuming that there would be sales under copyright that would not exist without it, and placing a prior claim on the property (money) of others based upon that assumption. "Lost the opportunity." The problem with "lost the opportunity" is that anything and everything can be justified by that. Canada's fee for blank media paid to their RIAA, for example, is rationalized directly upon that train of illogic. So would be the prohibition of blank media entirely. The web of rationalizations and prohibitions grows and grows, very much in the same way as a web of lies grows to support one lie little at the start. Oh the tangled web we weave, when first we practice copyright. This is in comparison to defense of actual property, that which is scarce. Such as the musician in the wine bar, who is paid not even for what particular songs they may play, but for the fact that good musicians are scarce and in demand. Which brings this full circle to my assertion that without copyright it is not the copy upon which profit stands, but creation and communication, which is what "copyright" was supposed to promote in the first place. |
| hkwint Dec 08, 2009 10:16 AM EDT |
So basically because Alice produces 'scarce' information (scarce because it didn't exist before) which cannon be labeled as property and therefore it's easy to copy she is screwed. And because other people abuse the 'lost sales' argument, Alice is screwed again: She cannot point to lost sales because some people will scream: "Yes, so says RIAA, and you can justify whatever!" So it's OK she loses sales, because if the RIAA misuses some argument than so must have Alice. Because people who are not part of the crime receive this information for free - and therefore may cause damage to Alice's sales opportunities - are not liable according to you and Daniel, Alice is screwed again. So let's summarize a world without copyright: If I put efforts into the creation of information, it's not my property, it's easy and free to copy (even if I don't want it to be), the ones who receive it for free because others broke the agreement with me are not liable even if they know I put efforts into the creation of that information and like to have something in return, and I cannot claim lost sales because the RIAA & co abuses that argument and therefore "it's a wrong argument". In a world without copyright artists / those who create new information still are extorted by companies and studios (also companies), just as today, because that extortion is a result of contracts and not a result of copyright. So in a world without copyright I'm still extorted by companies but I cannot protect my 'chance to sale' my information. The same like buying a lot for a lottery (chance to be awarded some money) and then people copying that lot and claiming the prize I won so I can't claim it (because you would argue I still have my lot and were not deprived to use it, modify it etc.) But according to you if people copy my lot and sell it, then the one who buys the copy / receives it for free is not liable. Even if they know they deprive me of a chance to receive money in return, so even if they know what they're doing is morally wrong: They're still not liable. That's not a world in which I'm encouraged to create information. That's a world in which I'm encouraged to copy lots for free and claim the prize, while others paid for their 'genuine' lots and cannot claim their price. That would be a world only encouraging 'leeching', and not giving anything in return. That would be a world in which information on its own has no value whatsoever. Especially given Daniels claims that information cannot exist without medium and therefore it cannot have a value. That's just wrong! |
| hkwint Dec 08, 2009 10:21 AM EDT |
Quoting:> Wheather the one who is encouraged to breach a contract receives status or money, isn't all that important IMO. That was not what I meant, I'm sorry for being not clear: If I upload the newest Hollywood movie to The Pirate Bay I may receive money or I may receive status. That different in 'reward' is what I was hinting at when saying it's not that important. |
| jdixon Dec 08, 2009 10:32 AM EDT |
> That would be a world only encouraging 'leeching', and not giving anything in return. Since that's effectively the world we have today with copyright, I fail to see how that's a valid argument for copyright. > That would be a world in which information on its own has no value whatsoever. Information on it's own has no value. People give value to information, by using it. |
| dinotrac Dec 08, 2009 10:35 AM EDT |
Bob - You misrepresent both copyright and patent to suit your purposes. First, you cannot copyright ideas, only creative works. If I make a rake similar to yours, I will get up leaves with efficiency similar to yours. If some non-functional aspect of your rake's is distinctive and inventive in a way that can be copyrighted, I might have to alter my rake a bit, but I will have no problem raking my yard. That's because purely functional things are not subject to copyright. Anything that is intrinsic to the idea of a rake is up for grabs. You also cannot patent an idea, only implementations that embody the idea. That's why you can often work around a patent. At any rate, patents have much higher standards than copyrights, and -- more important -- much short lifespans. With some exceptions, patented implementations go into the public domain 20 years after the patent application is filed. By contrast, trade secrets need never reach the public domain. >My position is one of respect for the individual and their property. So long as you get to decide what property is and whether the individual has the practical power to stop you. |
| Bob_Robertson Dec 08, 2009 3:44 PM EDT |
Hk,
> So basically because Alice produces 'scarce' information (scarce because it didn't exist before) which cannon be labeled as property and therefore it's easy to copy she is screwed. Screwed how? She has something, it's unique and in demand. It's up to her to sell it for a price she is satisfied with. If she's not satisfied, then don't sell it. > If I put efforts into the creation of information, The fallacy of the labor theory of value. It doesn't matter how hard you work on something, it's value is only measurable by how much you can get for it. > That's not a world in which I'm encouraged to create information. That's a world in which I'm encouraged to copy lots for free and claim the prize, while others paid for their 'genuine' lots and cannot claim their price. You're reversing facts. Copy WHAT? What are you going to copy if no one is getting what they think their ideas are worth, and therefore not producing anything? Do you really think that "stuff" magically appears? No. Creation is hard work, and a creator deserves whatever they can get for their creation. I'm not going to "take" someone's mental production any more than I would "take" their wallet. Dino, > You misrepresent both copyright and patent to suit your purposes. They are indeed difficult to keep perfectly straight, but again you're making a statement about my motivations that is untrue. Please try to address the facts, and please also correct my errors if you see them. Lawyering is a skill. That's one reason I'm not a lawyer. If you're interested in hearing a lawyer talk about this subject, I suggest: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZgLJkj6m0A The problem being that telling people to go see this or read that is kind of distracting. You want your answer NOW. > So long as you get to decide what property is and whether the individual has the practical power to stop you. Again with the ad-homonim. Please, Dino, stop. I am not deciding what is and is not property. Yes, another long list of books comes to mind. It still comes down to what I have already said many times. The idea of "property" comes from the need to deal with scarce resources. Information itself is not a scarce resource. The media is, thus Libervis' assertions on the subject. It's been DEFINED as property, sometimes, in convoluted, arbitrary terms, some ways limited and some ways unlimited, subject to change without notice, by statute law. So can you tell me how YOU define property? |
| dinotrac Dec 08, 2009 4:02 PM EDT |
Bob - The only time my definition of property matters is when it provides some sort of extra-legal protection. Ie, I have a legal right to take something, but morality and/or decency causes me to respect a claim without regard to its legal merits. Otherwise, the society I live in defines property by its laws. I can try to change the laws, I can even break the laws (so long as I am willing to accept the consequences of my actions). What I can't do is operate in the absence of the laws. |
| hkwint Dec 08, 2009 4:26 PM EDT |
Quoting:Since that's effectively the world we have today with copyright, I fail to see how that's a valid argument for copyright. Yeah, that would be my conclusion. I don't like the term IP because I agree information cannot be property, a bit like Daniel states. And I don't like the current copyright and patent system. But what Daniel is saying in the article this thread is about - and his follow-up (not published on LXer because our TOS-issues) he tries to convince his reader the problems would be gone if there were no copyright. I don't agree, this solves some issues and make other worse. So I'm all for limiting the copyright and patent system, but also I feel 'reward' has to match the 'effort'. Quoting:It doesn't matter how hard you work on something, it's value is only measurable by how much you can get for it. OK, your opinion explains a lot about your other statements (wish you'd have started with that!), though I don't share it. Quoting:t's up to her to sell it for a price she is satisfied with. The example deals with Alice unable to sell it for a price she is satisfied with because Bob and Eve just distributed it to the whole world for free. Which leads me to believe Alice cannot get any price for her information at all, and A is screwed. Quoting:So can you tell me how YOU define property? Been trying so on Daniels blog. I noticed you were in the comments too. The basic disagreement was if information can exist without a medium (I say it can, because insipiration - the thing which leads to information - doesn't come from anything physical) and if consciousness is material or not (I say it isn't). That's a religious debate, and would probably derail our discussion. Suffice to say I feel property is a result of a social phenomenon while Daniel insists on a physical model of property, which I think is doomed to fail. My 'social' explanation of property has severe weaknesses too, so it's not a full answer either. So though I tried, I'm not there yet. Quoting:The problem being that telling people to go see this or read that is kind of distracting. You want your answer NOW. Believe it or not, but I've been reading on Mises because you were the one who pointed to it. Not all of it you linked too, that was just too many, and some of it was plain business-lobbying (thinktanks and the like - sorry, I don't buy their cr@p), but still interesting though. Now I'm going to watch the lawyer on Youtube - provided the cron deamon does'n issue the shutdown command when it's time to sleep. Bob, thanks for the discussion, I've the idea I finally start to see the fundamentals behind your opinions - so I'm pretty much done questioning your arguments now I'm satisfied with the answers. Took me some time, but hey, I'm learning! |
| hkwint Dec 08, 2009 4:51 PM EDT |
The Youtube / Mises video is 1 hour long, and that's indeed too long considered there are other things which deserve my attention. I'm sorry I have to ask, but which 10 minutes are most interesting? |
| tuxchick Dec 08, 2009 5:10 PM EDT |
Ok so disagreeing with Bob is a personal attack. So never mind. Dino, Libervis' premise is primitive: intellectual works are not physical works so they have no value, not like real property that can be touched, smelled, eaten, shat upon, and so on. (Yes, I'm thinking of monkeys going ninja on the Mona Lisa or anything else they can't eat and don't understand.) It's a bogus premise, but as long as he sticks to that this is an impossible discussion. |
| dinotrac Dec 08, 2009 6:06 PM EDT |
TC - Yes, I know. |
| Bob_Robertson Dec 10, 2009 8:06 PM EDT |
TC,
> Ok so disagreeing with Bob is a personal attack. So never mind. Only when it's a personal attack. Hk seems to be able to do it without personal attacks or invective. > intellectual works are not physical works so they have no value...It's a bogus premise Indeed it is utterly bogus, since creation is a very valuable commodity and maybe the most scarce resource of all. Hk, > but which 10 minutes are most interesting? Sadly, all of them, so I guess it's moot. > I've the idea I finally start to see the fundamentals behind your opinions - so I'm pretty much done questioning your arguments now I'm satisfied with the answers. I appreciate that. It does come down to the definition of "property", which can differ greatly without disagreeing on what is or is not worthy goals. Dino has decided that his definition is whatever the law says it is, TC also seems to run in this direction, so because the definition I'm using undermines the justifications for those same laws, then the definition is wrong. Looking at it from the other direction, it's the law that's wrong. > The example deals with Alice unable to sell it for a price she is satisfied with because Bob and Eve just distributed it to the whole world for free. Which leads me to believe Alice cannot get any price for her information at all, and A is screwed. But your logic doesn't follow. How did Bob get it if Alice never sold it? The copying cannot happen if Alice didn't get the price she wanted for it, because then it would not exist. > > It doesn't matter how hard you work on something, it's value is only measurable by how much you can get for it. > > OK, your opinion explains a lot about your other statements (wish you'd have started with that!), though I don't share it. To take it to "argumentum ad absurdum", imagine I spend several years piling my fingernail trimmings into a huge pile. I have worked exceptionally hard doing this, eating well for the highest quality nail trimmings, using only the best trimmers, spending huge effort to keep it all in a clean pile, etc. Is it worth anything? Is it valuable to anyone else just because I worked so very hard producing it? This is the error of the labor theory of value. Or "house mix" music. Pointless repetition, not valuable at all to me. Worthless, in fact, since I don't want it. Is it possible for you to explain how you disagree with that? |
| caitlyn Dec 10, 2009 8:13 PM EDT |
Quoting:Or "house mix" music. Pointless repetition, not valuable at all to me. Worthless, in fact, since I don't want it. The market determines value. Since there is a market for House music and people are willing to pay for it then it has value. Quoting:Dino has decided that his definition is whatever the law says it is, TC also seems to run in this direction, so because the definition I'm using undermines the justifications for those same laws, then the definition is wrong. Looking at it from the other direction, it's the law that's wrong. Property rights are, indeed, defined by laws. You can work to change the law but in the interim the law does, in point of fact, determine what is and is not legally property. As always, I am very glad I live in a society governed by law. |
| Bob_Robertson Dec 10, 2009 8:48 PM EDT |
> The market determines value. Since there is a market for House music and people are willing to pay for it then it has value. Exactly. Since Hk said, "though I don't share it", I am left to wonder by what other method he assigns or determines value. Edited For Content, mea culpa: Funny, you never hit me as someone who would oppose various measures that violate the premise that "The market determines value." > law does, in point of fact, determine what is and is not legally property. I've never said anything to the contrary. I cannot imagine "legal property" being defined any other way than "legally". > I am very glad I live in a society governed by law. If only that were true! Sadly, human society remains ruled by humans who make up laws as they go along. |
| caitlyn Dec 10, 2009 11:47 PM EDT |
Quoting:Funny, you never hit me as someone who would oppose minimum wage laws and such since they violate the premise that "The market determines value." Don't put words in my mouth. Labor laws, including the minimum wage, are an example where the market fails the people and the government should and does step in. Every successful economy in democratic nations is a blend of capitalism and socialism. Neither, in isolation, has ever been successful. It is the blending of the two that always works. Quoting:Sadly, human society remains ruled by humans who make up laws as they go along. So long as we learn from our mistakes and improve the laws as we go along I'm fine with that. Look at the U.S. Constitution as an example. Many of the freedoms we take for granted were really only guaranteed to white, male, Christian land owners. The legislature, through the amendment process, and the courts have expanded those freedoms greatly over the last 218 years. Law is an evolutionary process. Yes, that includes intellectual property law which needs to be adjusted to new, changing and evolving technologies. |
| dinotrac Dec 11, 2009 9:02 AM EDT |
Bob - A true libertarian knows that the true measure of value is what somebody is willing to pay. The fact that you don't like house music id meaningless to its value so long as somebody else likes it enough to buy it. However, if self-righteous "revolutionaries" decide that they don't have to honor any property that doesn't meet their personal definition, value has no meaning beyond the very low bar of "Is it worth stealing?" |
| Bob_Robertson Dec 11, 2009 6:03 PM EDT |
> are an example where the market fails Sadly, because power rests with those who wish to regulate, the fact that every so-called "market failure" has been the result of regulation tends not to be taught in government schools. I could give you a list of articles and books, but I doubt you have time for all that. Nor would you appreciate the URLs. You could give me your source materials, please. > Neither, in isolation, has ever been successful. While I agree that complete socialism, when tried, has always bombed utterly and quickly, the same cannot be said of liberty. Those places and times and industries where it has existed have been quite successful indeed. The greater the freedom from regulation, the greater the success. The computer you are reading this on, and the network you use to reach this server are wonderful cases in point. I don't disagree that regulation exists, that the "blend", often referred to as the "third way", is very much the rule. Only that everyone being sick does not make being sick the best way to be. > Law is an evolutionary process. Indeed. It is my fervent hope that, like serfdom, chattel slavery and debter's prison, time eventually leaves grants of Letters Patent behind as well. > A true libertarian knows that the true measure of value is what somebody is willing to pay. Yes? Where have I ever said differently? > However, if self-righteous "revolutionaries" decide that they don't have to honor any property that doesn't meet their personal definition, value has no meaning beyond the very low bar of "Is it worth stealing?" Fascinating. So by pointing out the problems with, and opposition to, copyright, I'm now to be associated with "self-righteous "revolutionaries""? You could use the advice of Caitlyn above and stop putting words in other people's mouths. Not once have I advocated the violation of copyright. Not once. Merely its repeal, as the violation of reason and property rights that it is, based upon the abuses that those who profit from it have foisted upon everyone else, and its effects to destroy the very principles upon which it was justified. Like all "market failures", it is the regulation that has failed. |
| caitlyn Dec 11, 2009 7:24 PM EDT |
If I were to continue this debate I'd be as guilty of TOS violations as Bob is. My last post probably should be deleted as well. Bob, let me just say this: you're insane and so are your ideas. |
| jdixon Dec 11, 2009 7:57 PM EDT |
> ...every so-called "market failure" ... Bob, she said "the market fails the people", not market failure. Those aren't the same thing. And in that usage, she is absolutely correct. The market has not produced an outcome "the people" consider acceptable, even if those involved in the transaction do. That is not a market failure, but is is "the market failing the people". What that position has to do with individual freedom to choose any particular transaction (say, to use free software), and it's long term effects wrt to the same, as left as an exercise for the reader. |
| dinotrac Dec 11, 2009 8:12 PM EDT |
Bob - I didn't call you anything. Only you would know if you fit into that category, but -- I'd be surprised if you haven't met a few. I know I have. |
| Bob_Robertson Dec 11, 2009 9:00 PM EDT |
> Bob, let me just say this: you're insane and so are your ideas. Granted, I'm sure you're not the only one who thinks so. At least I can cite my sources. JD, > The market has not produced an outcome "the people" consider acceptable, even if those involved in the transaction do. Which leads me to wonder who these "the people" are that can't mind their own business. Jeff Cooper coined a term for them: "polypragmatoi". Or is it that the polypragmatoi just rationalize demanding what they want, by saying it's for "the people"? Dino, > I didn't call you anything. I didn't say you did. I said "associated with". And yes, I have met such people also, but they have all been of the young, inexperienced, impressionable type who would gladly expropriate any and all private property (of whatever sort, as long as it's someone else's) if it could be rationalized as being done for the equality of "the people". Again, as JD mentions, without really ever getting into just who "the people" are. What surprises me, really, is the degree of emotional response to what is just an intellectual exercise. It's not like copyright is going to be repealed tomorrow even if everyone who has read this thread is instantly convinced by my and Libervis' arguments. |
| jdixon Dec 11, 2009 11:19 PM EDT |
> Which leads me to wonder who these "the people" are that can't mind their own business. If history is any guide, the vast majority. :( |
| hkwint Dec 12, 2009 9:20 PM EDT |
OK Bob, I'll try about the labour / reward correlation: It's some real life story, stuff that actually happens / happened the last decade. We work at company A. Company A made stuff in our own country, but that became too 'expensive'. Some nice way of saying the whole bunch of work will be done outside the company by some other company B. Abroad off course. Our R&D department, the one of company A made some designs (some implementations of them patented, most of it not). Then some company B (there's a whole pool of companies belonging to B actually) delivered the prototypes, and we tested them. Some of them multiple thousand times. When there were problems, R&D fixed it - our tried too. Leading the changed drawings to be sent to company Y, and the cycle starts over. Maybe five times or so. Important here is that company X decides on the requirements / dims for the products, and it's company X doing the efforts to reach the final design, tolerances and material specifications - the products which in practice are of a 'high quality', or at least considered so by our customers. Then some months later, company B offers all products company A designed for only half of the price to every company E who wants to buy it. We - the people at company A - didn't want to be in the Guiness Book of Records, otherwise we would have tried to have nails longer than 1m. We want to eat. But given a company E who can buy some product for a price X from company A, or for a price X / 2 from company B, our products will be deemed too expensive. People will be fired at company A, the same people who devised the products from which company B is benefiting. Given company B, if A is bankrupt it will search another A. That means B doesn't have to do any R&D, A does it for them. In the current situation BTW, law doesn't usually solve this, and that's why some parties are calling for ACTA (considered IP abuse squared by lots of people, but maybe 'fixing' the issue above - referred to as 'piracy' by IP-lobbyists). Now if I wasn't dependent on company A for my income, I may have cared less about this whole patent / copyright story. I like to leach a movie from time to time, given my belief most people in Hollywood have less need for the money then I do. But since I'm employed at company A, and because company A insists on 'restructuring' because of the crisis, but also because of leaching companies like B, I don't have a job because other companies B benefit from the labour I did. And then, life and opinions are all of the suddenly differently, basically because you are involved 'at first hand' in this whole IP saga. So let's assume I created some 'abstract information'. Sure, we make some reports in MS Word (sigh...), those are on a harddisk, so there is some 'physical stuff'. But let me assure you, the physical stuff is worth nothing without the abstract data. The abstract data on the other hand, does have a value beyond the media, because I could transfer it through wires or the ether, or on paper and sent it by ship to company B to send them the information they need to make better products (note they will transform / transfer that information to configuration of production machines, after which the original medium with the information I produced being worthless again, so the value here is not in something physical!) - finally leading to more income of company A, needed so they can pay me in return for my efforts. This leads me to the conclusion that R&D departments, musicians, writers, inventors, programmers - and maybe mathematicians - create abstract information which has a value beyond the medium. Even if it's not property, there is value - and even more, that value is independent of the actual physical medium. Contemplate two canvasses made by Picasso: One empty coming with Picasso's filled paint bottles he never used, and the other canvas with a painting on it: both have the same physical 'value', but due to the 'information' one of them has more value. Now let's say I'm the mathematician and work at a University which pays me to produce the information, then I don't care about IP because the University pays me and I can eat. Or I win a prize, receive government funding, or I am paid to write an article, I still can eat. That's why all 'scientific information' is open source: Because scientists at universities can eat. Whether there are IP-laws or not, and whether there's demand for their information or not. And that's a good thing: saying something is only as worth as someone wants to pay for it clearly shows to be untrue here. People didn't want to pay anything for van Goghs paintings, and also not for relativity theory when it was just devised. Luckily there were things beyond companies to pay Einstein and van Gogh (van Gogh wasn't payed half of the times, he directly received food BTW). Or lets say company Q asks me to devise some product and I receive money in return, than I'm not bothered by IP, I can still eat. Even if Q goes bankrupt, I don't care. Or lets say I work at company R and in the meantime I write a book about about my hobby, then I don't have to care about IP, because even if I don't sell my book company R still pays me and I can eat. Or lets say I'm some 'locally' famous musician, then I don't care if some other less famous musician covers my work, because the cafes nearby will still pay me to perform. I still can eat. So there are lots of situations where 'content creators' are not dependent on copyright or patents to earn from their work. However, when you spend some effort for maybe one year to write a book, and you hope in return for 'creating that content' you will rewarded and as a result you can eat, then there's a problem if there's no protection of your information / content. True, it may be the case that you wrote utterly BS in one whole year, than indeed the lack of demand leads to lack of value. But if not, the publisher decides there is demand, then how to proceed? I can let the publisher B read my manuscript, but if they like it they can distribute it to E without rewarding me. Or I can ask them to pay before reading it, but because they have not read it they don't know if it's worth it, so they'll refuse. So apart from the situations where content creators are lucky and they can eat even without protection from the law, there are certain cases where they spent efforts, and others copy and sell the information and the 'content creator' does get nothing in return. Because in practice companies - or persons - E are happy to buy it from B, while B got the content from A and A receives nothing, this shows there's actual value in what A produced because there's a demand from E. But because A can't forbid B to distribute it without A's permission, A is screwed and someone else (B) profits from the efforts done by A. |
| Bob_Robertson Dec 14, 2009 5:30 PM EDT |
Hk,
> The abstract data on the other hand, does have a value beyond the media... You're not arguing with me on that point. That was Lib's idea. > However, when you spend some effort for maybe one year to write a book, and you hope in return for 'creating that content' you will rewarded and as a result you can eat, then there's a problem if there's no protection of your information / content. Now THAT is the core of the disagreement. First, it makes no difference what so ever if you worked on it for a year, spending vast quantities of your life and soul into it. It may very well be worthless to anyone but you. And the reverse is true, too. You might come up with something in the blink of an eye and sell the idea for $millions. Ever read J.R.R.Tolkien's _Leaf By Niggle_? Don't bother. An item, sales of which were entirely reputation-driven. Seriously, all your examples are created to prove your point. I could bring up, again, the plastics company that didn't bother with patent. They made their profits by being first to market. In the year it took for the competition to do the same thing for less, they made very happy "monopoly" profits. Then at the end of that year, they dropped the product and moved on to the next product that someone was willing to pay for RIGHT NOW. And that's really where every one of your examples falls through, because they depend upon people doing the same failed things again and again, and expecting a different result. As Caitlyn pointed out, "Law is an evolutionary process" (except in Alabama and Oklahoma where it's a Creation process, but that's not important right now). So is production. If what you're doing isn't working, then do something else. Do the R&D in-house so it can't be copied before being first to market. Give away the product and sell service contracts like RedHat. It's easy to see the "benefits" to those on the receiving end of focusing benefits while distributing costs through copyright and other IP regulations. But even though they're harder to see, those costs EXIST. The problems of monopoly: decreased innovation; crushed competition; shoddy products and higher prices, all exist through the "monopoly" that is copyright just as it exists in any other artificially created monopoly. No one before the breakup imagined (ok, no one that anyone but me in this thread listens to, citations on request) what communications might have been like without the monopoly grant that AT&T had. And there was some confusion after that monopoly was partially repealed. But look around now and see the vastly decreased costs, increased product offerings and innovation that has occurred since. It only happened because that monopoly was partially rolled back. In the 20 years after the invention of the "Internet" that it was the monopoly of the Fed.Gov, again very little progress occurred. But it took only 2 years once the NSF dropped their control of who may connect (and their prohibition of commercial content) for anyone with a phone to be able to get connected if they wanted to. (in the US anyway) If I had known just how fast innovation was going to be, I would have kept one of those Netcom disks as a keepsake for posterity. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!