Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Register)   Intellectual property thieves have their intellectual property stolen   (theregister.co.uk) divider line 110
    More: Ironic, The Pirate Bay, Cory Doctorow, TorrentFreak  
•       •       •

12772 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 May 2012 at 10:12 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



110 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-05-09 11:41:00 AM  

Lord Thorn: Great concept, but remind me again how I can afford to put in the time that's required to produce my music if NO ONE IS GONNA PAY FOR IT. Please? Thanks.


Suck less and people will want to pay for your music.

Don't blame piracy when you're just a shiatty musician.
 
2012-05-09 11:42:28 AM  

MusicMakeMyHeadPound: Aw. Are you one of those sad souls who can't get paid for doing what they love and instead has to take a crappy menial job just to get by?


I sure am. There isn't a sperm bank around here that will accept my deposits anymore. Now I need a real job instead of fapping all day.
 
2012-05-09 12:01:26 PM  

Xenomech: Theaetetus: [up-ship.com image 535x356]/that said, they can be anti-copyright while being pro-trademarkI don't think you understand the difference between copyright and trademark. One presumes control over people's thoughts and actions while the other deals with trust and validity.


I suspect that's exactly why Xenomech said that it's quite reasonable to be anti-copyright while being pro-trademark...
 
2012-05-09 12:09:46 PM  
Me thinks the real problem is that some of the copycat sites were charging $ for the downloads. And they didn't even have an *AA at the end of their name,
 
2012-05-09 12:11:25 PM  

Lord Thorn: Phinn: jonas opines: /because when they say "we must protect property rights", what they actually mean is: "mineminemineminememememe"

Copying is not theft. You can't steal what you can't own.

Information wants to be free.

Great concept, but remind me again how I can afford to put in the time that's required to produce my music if NO ONE IS GONNA PAY FOR IT. Please? Thanks.


I'll give you a hint. If no one wants to pay you for your music. Your music SUCKS.

Also, as a musician, you should be making money on live shows. Selling CD's is a chumps game, and selling MP3's through any of the big stores is a waste of time since you'll never see any of the money anyway.

Listen, the artificial and entirely controlled scarcity that historically allowed musicians to make millions selling CDs... those days are gone. You can adapt, or you can cry like a biatch and go broke. No one is going to miss all the crappy musicians that were in it for the money.
 
2012-05-09 12:25:58 PM  
Meh. If you didn't want your "intellectual property" stolen, you wouldn't have put it up on the internet for all to use as they please. Really now folks, you should have figured this out a while ago.
 
2012-05-09 12:27:22 PM  

The sound of one hand clapping: TeDDD: The sound of one hand clapping: This is too hilarious! I can't stop laughing!

'OMGZZZ, YOU CAN'T COPY US CAUSE, CAUSE... INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY!!!11ONE'. 'Yeah, but, weren't you guys all about how intellectual property laws are a load of bull?'. 'YEAH, BUT THIS IS DIFFERENT CAUSE IT AFFECTS US NOW!!'.

0.5/10 effort, man

Actually, I'd like to just take this opportunity to apologise for my comment. I don't troll and I kinda just did that one as a spur of the moment thing and yeah, my heart wasn't in it and it was crap.

/I feel ashamed now
//I shall sit in the corner for the rest of the thread and speak to no-one


Aww, that makes me want to hug you.

/but I won't
 
2012-05-09 12:29:49 PM  

Lord Thorn: Great concept, but remind me again how I can afford to put in the time that's required to produce my music if NO ONE IS GONNA PAY FOR IT. Please? Thanks.


Has it ever occurred to you to put effort in to making something that people actually DO want to pay for? You know, instead of blaming them for not wanting to pay for your crappy beats?
 
2012-05-09 12:35:13 PM  

fluffy2097: Suck less and people will want to pay for your music. Don't blame piracy when you're just a shiatty musician.


Kahabut: I'll give you a hint. If no one wants to pay you for your music. Your music SUCKS.


To play devil's advocate for a second, if the music sucks, why do people pirate it?

(The truth is a middle ground. There's a lot of "exploratory" piracy that happens, and some evidence that this actually helps sales. And there's some piracy of things that people really legitimately wouldn't buy, or will buy eventually but won't afford right now. But at the same time, if you think there isn't a lot of "I'm to cheap to buy this so I'll download it instead" or "I can't afford this (I'm spending my $$$ on beer instead)" piracy, I think you're insane and blind.)

Kahabut: Selling CD's is a chumps game, and selling MP3's through any of the big stores is a waste of time since you'll never see any of the money anyway.


It is possible to self-publish you know, and my understanding is you make out decently well if you do (on a per-sale basis). I recently got an album from an independent artist; I got it because I backed it on Kickstarter, but his stuff is also on iTunes, and if my understanding is correct, he gets 70% from that sale. I also discovered a similar artist (haven't gotten anything yet but I totally plan to) who also publishes independently, and also is on iTunes. While I tend to think that a 30% cut to Apple is pretty big, 70% is better than you'd get from a label and is definitely far from "you'll never see any of the money anyway." Or, you can go to either of their websites and order directly from them, cutting out the middleman entirely. (Well, maybe a few percent to Paypal or whoever they use for processing.)

Kahabut: No one is going to miss all the crappy musicians that were in it for the money.


That's a bit unfair... there's a difference between "in it for the money" and "not being a starving artist."
 
2012-05-09 12:38:43 PM  

Fapinator: All I'm saying is that it's impossible to own an idea. That's what the notion of "intellectual property" entails. This is too fine a distinction for most people, which is unfortunate.

The only copyright law I ever break is the DMCA, when I make backups of things I've bought (movies, music, etc.). This entails circumventing DRM, which is against the DMCA.


To further confound the concept of IP, making things infinitely and nearly no-cost to reproduce and transport drives their inherent worth as a tradable good to zero.
 
2012-05-09 12:44:58 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: The sound of one hand clapping: TeDDD: The sound of one hand clapping: This is too hilarious! I can't stop laughing!

'OMGZZZ, YOU CAN'T COPY US CAUSE, CAUSE... INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY!!!11ONE'. 'Yeah, but, weren't you guys all about how intellectual property laws are a load of bull?'. 'YEAH, BUT THIS IS DIFFERENT CAUSE IT AFFECTS US NOW!!'.

0.5/10 effort, man

Actually, I'd like to just take this opportunity to apologise for my comment. I don't troll and I kinda just did that one as a spur of the moment thing and yeah, my heart wasn't in it and it was crap.

/I feel ashamed now
//I shall sit in the corner for the rest of the thread and speak to no-one

Aww, that makes me want to hug you.

/but I won't


Is it OK if I close my eyes and pretend you are hugging me?

/Is it OK if I touch myself also?
 
2012-05-09 01:10:17 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: Meh. If you didn't want your "intellectual property" stolen, you wouldn't have put it up on the internet for all to use as they please. Really now folks, you should have figured this out a while ago.


Lord Thorn:

Great concept, but remind me again how I can afford to put in the time that's required to produce my music if NO ONE IS GONNA PAY FOR IT. Please? Thanks.

Relevant to both comments, a few folks who agree with Pony Killer and disagree with Lord Thorn - and, in at least two cases, whose music does not suck, at least according to a few million people:

Blink182 Rewards 107000 fans who've used their music without their permission to launch 1st new single in 8 years

Heavy Metal band tells fans: "Steal Our Album, Bury the Label," says they don't make any money at all on CD sales

Trent Reznor of Nine Inch Nails tells fans "Steal it!"

Reznor has gone so far as to deliberately make his music available to TPB and other torrent sites due to what he and NIN feels are ridiculously high album prices set by the labels. Somewhere out there is a graphic (I can't find it now, sorry) that puts the lie to the MPAA and the RIAA regarding how piracy is "hurting" their businesses... but someone hit it upthread already with the Avengers box office take - which I spent $69 on tickets alone to see in the theater last night. That was just for tickets and doesn't include anything from the concession stand.

It's no farking wonder people use TPB and other torrent sites with prices like that. I'd rather buy a bluray - it's cheaper.
 
2012-05-09 01:11:21 PM  
It seems to me that the IP/Copyright bit was introduced by The Register for lulz. TPB seem more offended that someone would be yoinking bits of their site and slapping some sort of pay-wall on it. Which, in some regards is understandable.
 
2012-05-09 01:15:28 PM  

Phinn: If the government gave me a monopoly on the sale of something, I'd make a lot more money than if I had to sell it in a competitive market. However, the fact that I'm going to make more money with a monopoly does not justify the monopoly.

It's not the government's job to make sure your business model is profitable.


1) yes actually it is - U.S. Constitution, Article I Section 8 Clause 8 would disagree with you.

2) anyone who talks about competitive markets when discussing Public Goods (or Club Goods depending on your definition of IP) has no idea what they are talking about

/positive externalities biatches
 
2012-05-09 01:18:26 PM  

mdeesnuts: Fapinator: All I'm saying is that it's impossible to own an idea. That's what the notion of "intellectual property" entails. This is too fine a distinction for most people, which is unfortunate.

The only copyright law I ever break is the DMCA, when I make backups of things I've bought (movies, music, etc.). This entails circumventing DRM, which is against the DMCA.

To further confound the concept of IP, making things infinitely and nearly no-cost to reproduce and transport drives their inherent worth as a tradable good to zero.


which is why any discussion of a Public Good as a Market Good is a sign that the speaker has no idea what they are talking about. Much in the same way as when people biatch about the results of class actions without addressing the private attorney general principle or realizing that they are advocating either rampant corporate dickery or massive government regulation.
 
2012-05-09 01:28:20 PM  

mdeesnuts: Fapinator: All I'm saying is that it's impossible to own an idea. That's what the notion of "intellectual property" entails. This is too fine a distinction for most people, which is unfortunate.

The only copyright law I ever break is the DMCA, when I make backups of things I've bought (movies, music, etc.). This entails circumventing DRM, which is against the DMCA.

To further confound the concept of IP, making things infinitely and nearly no-cost to reproduce and transport drives their inherent worth as a tradable good to zero.


in economics we would say that music is not rival. Meaning that me making a copy of(or listening to the same music) doesn't deprive you of anything
 
2012-05-09 01:36:15 PM  

mdeesnuts: To further confound the concept of IP, making things infinitely and nearly no-cost to reproduce and transport drives their inherent worth as a tradable good to zero.


True ... in terms of information, were in a state of post-scarcity. This will eventually make copyright law as it is now unenforceable (we're actually almost there). In some ways this is unfortunate, since it will make it more difficult for creative people to make a living from their work. On the other hand, musicians have made more money from live performances than from recorded works for a while now. As far as writing is concerned, ebooks may actually improve things for individual writers (though I'm not going to buy an ebook until the law is changed so that I can own a copy).

Teirtzamna
: I'm not sure I understand your point (that probably indicates ignorance on my part). Elaborate if you like. I will say that "Rampant Corporate Dickery" sounds like a great name for a band.
 
2012-05-09 01:59:55 PM  
One Fapinator:

I was agreeing with your point about "inherent worth as a tradable good," but in a snarky Fark appropriate oblique way.

When discussing IP many people will attempt to discuss it as if it was a private good (what i called a market good). Such an item usually has two traits, that it is rivalrous (i.e. that only one person can own/use it at a time) and that it is excludable (i.e. that it is possible to prevent people who have not paid for it from being able to use it). Thus on the open market, if X wants to have a car, X must not only pay for that car, but someone must go through all the effort of actually assembling a new vehicle. Not paying for the car is called theft (or conversion) because if X has the car, someone else must go without the car.

IP is a public good. Such goods are generally non-rivalrous and non-excludable. So if X wants an idea, he can just listen to Y and now the idea is fully within X's head. No one is deprived.

The problem is that when discussing IP both sides tend to couch their discussions in terms reserved for private goods. The pro-piracy folks say (in paraphrase) its a non-excludable good so no one is harmed! Its not like taking a car! So no harm no foul. The point is that this is a misleading argument because the reason IP law exists is not to prevent conversion and exclusion of use (as that is impossible anyway) but to prevent free-riders. Specifically, to prevent non beneficial free-riders.

The big problem with public goods is that without some external force to require people to contribute for their use of the non-excludable good, pretty much only suckers and altruists will pay for the service. While there are many suckers and a solid number of altruists out there, its a really bad system if you want public goods to get made. Thus we build systems to require people to pay for the benefits they get from non-excludable goods. The most well known system is called Government, and it makes everyone pay some money for some big public goods like the military and police, (security is fairly non-excludable), public services (making them excludable is generally not very useful) and the like. Its why government monopolies on IP make perfect sense.

/now what the monopolies are (as in duration, or the rules therein), that doesnt necessarily have to make sense. And it is a colorable arguement that US IP law doesn't. But discussing IP like it is a private good just messes up the whole debate.
 
2012-05-09 02:02:56 PM  
I thought this was going to be an article about Alan Moore, blowing his top over the way they misappropriated his characters "Huck Finn" and "King Leonidas."
 
2012-05-09 02:09:28 PM  

Teiritzamna: IP is a public good. Such goods are generally non-rivalrous and non-excludable.


Since copying is (by definition) non-rivalrous, a pattern is not capable of being property in the first place.

IP is a misnomer. It ought to be called something like "pattern monopoly," or "pattern protectionism."
 
2012-05-09 02:20:10 PM  

Phinn: Teiritzamna: IP is a public good. Such goods are generally non-rivalrous and non-excludable.

Since copying is (by definition) non-rivalrous, a pattern is not capable of being property in the first place.

IP is a misnomer. It ought to be called something like "pattern monopoly," or "pattern protectionism."


Whatever floats your boat. Personally I like the semantic distinction between excludable and non-excludable property (as property merely is - all together now - a bundle of sticks), but its cool with me if you wanna call it a pattern monopoly.

/now we shall discuss pink nerve gas farting dragons
//hopefully not obscure
 
2012-05-09 02:51:34 PM  

Teiritzamna: But discussing IP like it is a private good just messes up the whole debate.


No, it clarifies it. The very idea of owning an idea is preposterous and could only be thought up by wannabe rent seekers. The state of US IP law shows just how bad of an idea it is.

Hell, we've got a whole farking rent seeking economy based on IP that's sucking and leeching BILLION$ from society that could be useful and beneficial elsewhere. But lawyers for Google and Motorola gotta eat right?
 
2012-05-09 02:51:44 PM  

Teiritzamna: Whatever floats your boat. Personally I like the semantic distinction between excludable and non-excludable property (as property merely is - all together now - a bundle of sticks), but its cool with me if you wanna call it a pattern monopoly.


You don't get it. It's not one of the "bundle of sticks" if it's not property in the first place.

This isn't mere semantics. If it is, then all of law is semantics.
 
2012-05-09 02:53:57 PM  

Phinn: Information wants to be free.


Does information enjoy musical theater? What are its thoughts on dubstep?

Information wants nothing. People want information to be free, because people like free stuff.
 
2012-05-09 02:55:36 PM  

Holfax: Information wants nothing. People want information to be free, because people like free stuff.


That's the joke.
 
2012-05-09 03:05:09 PM  

Phinn: Teiritzamna: Whatever floats your boat. Personally I like the semantic distinction between excludable and non-excludable property (as property merely is - all together now - a bundle of sticks), but its cool with me if you wanna call it a pattern monopoly.

You don't get it. It's not one of the "bundle of sticks" if it's not property in the first place.

This isn't mere semantics. If it is, then all of law is semantics.


Well 1) that's pretty much begging the question; but 2) who cares what we call it, because as i said up-thread as rivalrousness/excludability is never the issue. Free Ridership is. We could call IP intangible goods, which my mentor and professor prefers (i am coming around to her point i suppose) and it wouldn't matter to the policy debate.

The point is that the classic harms of theft (someone is excluded from rightful ownership) are irrelevant to the discussion of a government monopoly on public goods. They are neither a justification for infringement, nor an argument against it. What is relevant is what to do about non-beneficial free riders. Which is what government monopoly is meant to address.
 
2012-05-09 03:09:09 PM  

Teiritzamna: What is relevant is what to do about non-beneficial free riders.


Are you talking about the lawyers or the policy makers?
 
2012-05-09 03:13:51 PM  

mdeesnuts: Teiritzamna: But discussing IP like it is a private good just messes up the whole debate.

No, it clarifies it. The very idea of owning an idea is preposterous and could only be thought up by wannabe rent seekers. The state of US IP law shows just how bad of an idea it is.

Hell, we've got a whole farking rent seeking economy based on IP that's sucking and leeching BILLION$ from society that could be useful and beneficial elsewhere. But lawyers for Google and Motorola gotta eat right?


Sigh - this is a practice argument not a policy argument. This is like saying that ownership of tangible goods is bad because look out there, people are murdering each other all the time over stuff! Lawyers spend billions fighting over stuff! Much of litigation can be characterized as rent seeking. It seems that you are suggesting that the modern set of laws regarding the government granted monopolies on IP are broken. You aren't alone in thinking this. Very smart people agree. Cool. But that is a very different debate then saying that the monopolies shouldn't exist at all.

Instead of saying that the method of creating excludability in a public good is not working right, you are saying that the whole idea of excludabaility for such goods should be tossed. However, until you address the free-rider problem I don't see how this leads to a good outcome. It just feels very baby/bathwatery to me is all because it trades a system that can (and should) be fixed for no system at all.
 
2012-05-09 03:20:15 PM  

mdeesnuts: Teiritzamna: What is relevant is what to do about non-beneficial free riders.

Are you talking about the lawyers or the policy makers?


Cute - i am talking about actual Free Riders. As in the term for those who use a resource without paying for it. In private goods this is easily fixed - you just don't let them use the item. But in IP, if you cannot exclude, then you cannot recover the benefit you have given. Thus there is no way to recoup your investment in creating the IP in the first place, except for from charity. Altruism. Suckers. Government exists solely to prevent this problem (in other public goods like security or in semi-public "common goods" like water rights).
 
2012-05-09 03:37:35 PM  

evaned: To play devil's advocate for a second, if the music sucks, why do people pirate it?


Well, that's making the huge assumption that people are actually pirating Lord Thorn's music. All we know for sure is that he noticed he can't make a living getting into it. He blames piracy, much like how the space lizards running the government are why we don't have hoverboards yet.

/vote Kang 2012
 
2012-05-09 03:49:22 PM  

Fapinator: "Intellectual property" ... yeah. Doesn't exist. More fun should be made of this stupid idea than of the invisible sky wizard.


We can start by referring to "intellectual property," by the more accurate term 'imaginary property.'
 
2012-05-09 03:55:03 PM  

Teiritzamna: I was agreeing with your point about "inherent worth as a tradable good," but in a snarky Fark... etc.


Okay that makes sense to me. So, in other words: a book you have in your house is a "private good" (that copy belongs to one person - or, say, a municipality, in the case of public libraries). If someone breaks into the house and takes it, that's theft. The contents of the book, on the other hand, are protected by copyright, which is a right granted by governments to establish a "public good" - the encouragement of innovation and so on.

Personally I think that the system we have now (copyrights, patents and trademarks are almost always civil torts) is better than what a lot of the "content providers" want, i.e. prison time as if downloading mp3 files of a CD were the same as shoplifting a copy, but it's still a very inefficient. I also think that copyright and patent law need to be reformed, but I'm not holding my breath to see the kinds of reforms I would like.

Thanks for the explanation. Let me know if I understood it properly.
 
2012-05-09 03:57:47 PM  

Teiritzamna: But in IP, if you cannot exclude, then you cannot recover the benefit you have given. Thus there is no way to recoup your investment in creating the IP in the first place, except for from charity.


Nonsense and you know it. The idea itself is not what makes the money, it is the execution or production of the idea that makes the money. This is where copyright allows those who are first to market to recoup those costs. If somebody comes along and makes a copy (heeding the copyright), then GREAT.

If somebody then comes along and makes a better version, then FARKING AWESOME. It's how governemnt should work - there for society not the other way around.

You keep making arguments that really benefit no one but rent seekers and some imaginary industrious inventor. All IP ever did was allow Edison to aggrandize himself and enable corporations to shiat on engineers, inventors, and musicians.

IPs original aim was to induce people to invest capitol into new ideas for the advancement of society, but it turns out it does just the opposite.
 
2012-05-09 04:07:29 PM  

Kahabut:
Listen, the artificial and entirely controlled scarcity that historically allowed musicians record companies to make millions selling CDs... those days are gone.


FTFY. The money's always been in the live shows and merch. Most of the money made from record sales goes back to the record company to recoup costs, only the top sellers (or extremely financially responsible musicians) make any money from record sales.
 
2012-05-09 04:08:08 PM  

jonas opines: Ah yes, the mating call of that creature that says they believe in property rights, but has still found something that someone else has created, that they want to use on their own terms, rather than the terms of the person who created it. (i.e. steal)

/because when they say "we must protect property rights", what they actually mean is: "mineminemineminememememe"


Here we see a classic example of the farker who says he doesn't like to suck off horses, but has still found a way to feel superior to other people.

/Because when they take the conversation in a totally unrelated direction, what they're actually doing is saying, "I'm better than you!"
 
2012-05-09 04:20:37 PM  

Fapinator: Teiritzamna: I was agreeing with your point about "inherent worth as a tradable good," but in a snarky Fark... etc.

Okay that makes sense to me. So, in other words: a book you have in your house is a "private good" (that copy belongs to one person - or, say, a municipality, in the case of public libraries). If someone breaks into the house and takes it, that's theft. The contents of the book, on the other hand, are protected by copyright, which is a right granted by governments to establish a "public good" - the encouragement of innovation and so on.

Personally I think that the system we have now (copyrights, patents and trademarks are almost always civil torts) is better than what a lot of the "content providers" want, i.e. prison time as if downloading mp3 files of a CD were the same as shoplifting a copy, but it's still a very inefficient. I also think that copyright and patent law need to be reformed, but I'm not holding my breath to see the kinds of reforms I would like.

Thanks for the explanation. Let me know if I understood it properly.


Pretty much. And I agree that harsher penalties are stupid, but understandable as from a lawmaking perspective they are relatively cheap. By this I mean that what would actually stop infringement is an increased chance of being caught, not an increased punishment for being caught. If only 1 person in 100,000 is sued for infringement for downloading a film, and the rights owner seeks $100,000 in damages not only do we as the public see this as ridiculously high punishment for a relatively minor infraction, but also in effect the punishment is the equivalent of charging all illegal downloaders $1. So who cares, no deterrence. In order to get better deterrence, one argument says to raise the punishment. But even at super ridiculous levels - say 1,000,000 for one illegal download - that would be the equivalent of a $10 fine against everyone. But, if you ratcheted up enforcement such that 50% of all infringement was caught, and you charged each of them lets say only $100, that's the equivalent of getting dinged fifty bucks each time you did it. No one would. The same applies to drug crime (huge penalties + spotty enforcement = lots of people doing drugs and a system where a smaller percentage of them goes to prison for ridiculous amounts of time).

Or course enforcement like this is hard. So to seem tough on crime, or pro-business, or whatever, its easier for congress critters to want to ratchet up punishments.
 
2012-05-09 04:24:03 PM  

Trolljegeren: We can start by referring to "intellectual property," by the more accurate term 'imaginary property.'


I prefer to call it "Ideas"
 
2012-05-09 04:34:24 PM  
The real problem, of course, is that IP does NOT protect the wisdom that flows from my well-manicured-yet-manly fingers, through my keyboard, and onto the pages of Fark.

You people are reading my genius, incorporating my carefully-chosen word-patterns into your brains, and thereby gaining an unearned benefit. You are learning from me, and regurgitating my ideas, for NOTHING. You're pirates, all of you.

I get quoted all the time. Even the assholes who disagree with me at first eventually learn. They integrate my ideas into their tiny minds.

The fact that IP rights don't protect me and compensate me for all you freeloaders is a travesty of justice.

I also own all uses of the letters e and j and r. I invented them. I also invented the use of the letter e at the end of words. That was me.

You people my inventions and patterns all the freaking time. Chasing you for infringing on MY PROPERTY RIGHTS is a full-time job.
 
2012-05-09 04:39:32 PM  

fluffy2097: Trolljegeren: We can start by referring to "intellectual property," by the more accurate term 'imaginary property.'

I prefer to call it "Ideas"


Except that "ideas" are a distinct thing from works of authorship fixed in a tangible medium. You can copyright a work of authorship, but you cannot copyright a bare idea.
 
2012-05-09 04:45:24 PM  

mdeesnuts: Teiritzamna: But in IP, if you cannot exclude, then you cannot recover the benefit you have given. Thus there is no way to recoup your investment in creating the IP in the first place, except for from charity.

Nonsense and you know it. The idea itself is not what makes the money, it is the execution or production of the idea that makes the money. This is where copyright allows those who are first to market to recoup those costs. If somebody comes along and makes a copy (heeding the copyright), then GREAT.


Well the execution and production of the idea is fairly inseparable from "the idea." Its what you get rights on anyway (well in copyright). You cannot get a copyright on a broad nebulous idea, only the expression of that idea which corresponds to the "execution or production" of that idea. Patent is a bit different but thats again a practice discussion and in truth the Supreme Court has been kicking the shiat out of the Federal Circuit and its brutally pro patentholder decisions for the past decade,

If somebody then comes along and makes a better version, then FARKING AWESOME. It's how governemnt should work - there for society not the other way around.

Your rhetoric is getting somewhat confusing here, but let me attempt a parsing. In copyright you have the right to derivative works. Thus if you write a book, and someone wants to make a movie of it, they need to get permission from you. If someone wants to make a sequel, same thing (to an extent). But 1) as said above you have no rights to basic ideas, so you can likely make a movie or write a book about a star empire and a heroic farm boy and probably win, but the closer your work gets to something in the Lucas stable, the more likely you will lose if sued and 2) the whole point of this is to encourage people to make works so they are protected fro a limited time and then they enter the public domain and are usable by all. Now if we are arguing that modern copyright terms are too long and thus strangle the public domain, i will agree with you 105%. That's a practice problem. That's a debate we can (and should have) - how much enticement is necessary to encourage the creation of a healthy public domain. I would say we give too much power to copyright holders and end up hurting the public domain. I feel you would agree.

Note that under patent, if you make a device, and i make an improvement on that device, i can patent the improvement. Thus I am encouraged to tinker with your invention to improve it and you are encouraged to do the same so that i don't end up patenting the improvement first. Note that you still have a valid patent so i would need a license to sell the improved device, but its pretty much the system that drove all industry in America, and still does. Software is a farking horrorshow in patent and probably requires major fixes, but this is in part because for a long time courts had no idea what software was. This has been changing massively over the last decade as well.

You keep making arguments that really benefit no one but rent seekers and some imaginary industrious inventor. All IP ever did was allow Edison to aggrandize himself and enable corporations to shiat on engineers, inventors, and musicians.

1) imaginary industrious inventor? You mean the backbone of all american manufacturing? We are either the #1 or close to the #2 manufacturing power in the world and its generally because we have the best friggin inventors around. We dont manufacture basic goods anymore, we manufacture shiat that didnt exist 10 years ago. I work with these people. They are very motivated by the idea that thinking up new and exciting things not just fun but a way to feed their kids. You take that away and they will do something else with most of their time because they dont wanna starve to death. Why do we see fark threads always say get a career as an engineer or hard scientist? Because making new things is monetizable.

2) I am making the economic arguments for the modern system of the world. Yes you get people who game the system. That's what happens in systems. Every attempt to prevent free riders also chokes off access to those who could not afford the benefit but would have brought more into the system by their use (i.e. beneficial free riders). We should work on fixing that.

2a) So what if Edison was a dick? he was a dick. We know this. He screwed Tesla. Too bad, so sad. You know that smarmy handsome guy who is a shiat worker but great at schmoozing? He got a promotion!? Oh noes! Sometimes being good at some things doesn't pay off as well as being good at systems. We should try to ensure the system fixes that, not say the idea of having a system is dumb. Edison is an error in IP, not a result.

IPs original aim was to induce people to invest capitol into new ideas for the advancement of society, but it turns out it does just the opposite.

I'm really not sure what to do with this sentence. Esplain? If you are thinking of software patents - sure that's a problem in how obviousness in patent has been calibrated. As i noted above there have been some seismic shifts in the law which have been addressing this, but it is still a mess. If you are thinking of how lengthy copyright terms stifle the public domain? Again, no disagreement, life of the author +70 is likely far too long and should be curtailed. But explain how IP as a concept, in the abstract is bad?
 
2012-05-09 04:52:38 PM  

Xcott: you cannot copyright a bare idea.


What If I put the idea in a bikini?

This thread is now about bikinis.

quantumconservative.com
 
2012-05-09 04:56:19 PM  

Xenomech: Theaetetus: [up-ship.com image 535x356]
/that said, they can be anti-copyright while being pro-trademark

I don't think you understand the difference between copyright and trademark.


isleifure.blog.is
 
2012-05-09 04:58:27 PM  

fluffy2097: Xcott: you cannot copyright a bare idea.

What If I put the idea in a bikini?

This thread is now about bikinis.

[quantumconservative.com image 334x500]


17 U.S.C. 107

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include-
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole;
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work; and
(5) TITTAYS
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
 
2012-05-09 04:59:30 PM  

Voiceofreason01: mdeesnuts: Fapinator: All I'm saying is that it's impossible to own an idea. That's what the notion of "intellectual property" entails. This is too fine a distinction for most people, which is unfortunate.

The only copyright law I ever break is the DMCA, when I make backups of things I've bought (movies, music, etc.). This entails circumventing DRM, which is against the DMCA.

To further confound the concept of IP, making things infinitely and nearly no-cost to reproduce and transport drives their inherent worth as a tradable good to zero.

in economics we would say that music is not rival. Meaning that me making a copy of(or listening to the same music) doesn't deprive you of anything




Legally, you are allowed archival copies of your own material you purchased.
 
2012-05-09 05:01:56 PM  

Teiritzamna: fluffy2097: Xcott: you cannot copyright a bare idea.

What If I put the idea in a bikini?

This thread is now about bikinis.

[quantumconservative.com image 334x500]

17 U.S.C. 107

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include-
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole;
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work; and
(5) TITTAYS
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.


Unrelated side note... You're in Boston? We should grab a beer at some point. :)
 
2012-05-09 05:17:04 PM  

Nightmaretony: Legally, you are allowed archival copies of your own material you purchased.


Technically true, but it's illegal to bypass copy protection. In the case of DVDs, the copy protection in question is called "CSS" (content scrambling system). Though few (possibly only one) people have been sued or tried for breaking that particular clause of the DMCA, the clause has not been reversed by precedent in trial law, nor has it been reversed by the U.S. Congress.

It's unlikely that I or anyone else will get in trouble for making archival copies, but even having the software to do so on my computer is illegal.

I find this noxious, since it makes a joke out of the law.
 
2012-05-09 05:40:52 PM  

Phinn: Holfax: Information wants nothing. People want information to be free, because people like free stuff.

That's the joke.


Sorry. Poe's law!
 
2012-05-09 05:54:35 PM  

Teiritzamna:
1) yes actually it is - U.S. Constitution, Article I Section 8 Clause 8 would disagree with you.


You mean this: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"

The issue here is that (as currently written) IP law does not do as the founders intended, to wit, it does not:
(a) "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts", instead being used as a bludgeon to create monopolies,
(b) "securing for limited Times" the length of time under IP is bordering on the ludicrous, and
(c) "to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right" instead merely funneling the artist's rightful earnings to multinational corporations

So you see, while the idea of IP is really quite good, the implementation needs a hell of a lot of work.
 
2012-05-09 06:00:14 PM  

Raven Darke: Teiritzamna:
1) yes actually it is - U.S. Constitution, Article I Section 8 Clause 8 would disagree with you.


You mean this: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"

The issue here is that (as currently written) IP law does not do as the founders intended, to wit, it does not:
(a) "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts", instead being used as a bludgeon to create monopolies,
(b) "securing for limited Times" the length of time under IP is bordering on the ludicrous, and
(c) "to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right" instead merely funneling the artist's rightful earnings to multinational corporations

So you see, while the idea of IP is really quite good, the implementation needs a hell of a lot of work.


(a) An enactment of an enumerated power of Congress is prima facie Constitutional, but it can be rebutted by showing that the enactment is neither reasonable nor proper in the use of that power. As of yet, no one has been able to show that the monopolies established through the Copyright and Patent Acts have not promoted innovation. And considering the incredible pace of innovation in this country, no one is likely to.

(b) Blame those soft IP guys. Patents are still reasonable. :P

(c) Patents and Copyrights have always been assignable, because otherwise, you would infringe on the right of the author or inventor to contract and buy or sell their property.

Additionally, you suggest that IP law doesn't do what the founders intended, and yet, the first acts they wrote after signing the Constitution were the Copyright Act of 1789 and the Patent Act of 1790. Thomas Jefferson was the first Patent Examiner in fact. Tough to argue that it wasn't doing what the founders intended.
 
2012-05-09 06:15:24 PM  
Serves them right.

:-D
 
Displayed 50 of 110 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report