[hyl]

Originally Posted by Malkuth

Quite the the opposite! I try to address all of their arguments... mind you, when I am writing 5 lines, but despite the quoting the counter-argument refers to only the first one ignoring the other four... or whichever is convenient to extract out of context to support one's opinion is not much of a discussion, rather an excuse to religiously evangelize one's opinion. I stated my arguments, at the best of my ability and patience, they are there to read, and in good-will countered.

It's up to you guys to read our opinions and contribute, I don't believe I can try any more to write anything else constructive here given the preachers opposing my opinion... some earlier post (including the first few ones of Anh), actually made me reconsider some of my opinions and confirm a couple of impressions I had with actual facts, but the last couple of days that's not the case.

It's one thing to have an opinion and be willing to discuss it, either to enrich it or change it, and another to strive to impose one's own. My intention was and still is to consider an alternative to the deification of money, and that a more altruistic mindset can be at least equally beneficial to the society. Everyone is free to read it as well as the opposing opinions and make his/her own mind. I don't even wish to change the opinion of anyone, rather drive them to think for themselves instead of adapt the most convenient opinion...

... rant-mode-off... damn this thread sucks as it turned out, again I have to defend myself, instead of my opinion... just like AnoHana 15 months ago with almost the same persecutors

Your view on copyright is very anarchic to the point to the point that you seem to have a hate for capitalism instead of just copyright.
Anyways some arguments of mine against some of your previous posts (while i am pretty sure they are similar to others)

Before copyright, patent, and all that jazz, innovation had the same pace, and was more accessible from the masses. On the other hand, the commercialization of science and engineering has created an array of problems that lead into many failures, financial included. Companies these days spent way more resources into having the legal right to use certain technologies, rather than into inventing new ones or perfecting existing ones.

Before the copyright and patent , you say? Funny, patents and copyrights were starting to get used more often during the industrial revolution, an era which is known for an explosive growth on innovation and technology.
As for more accesibility, before the industral revolution many things that we consider normal now were luxury goods that only the royality and the rich could afford.

Same is true for art. Almost all band I used to like established themselves in underground scenes, broke into mainstream for a few years and then either turned back into the underground scene for stable financial support or jointly founded small independent labels. On the other hand, very crappy mass produced artists have risen and fallen within large record labels producing very bad quality music, earning their employers a shitload of money, and the individuals disappeared in poverty.

You were claiming that aohige was making generalizations before, but it's you who is making generalizations that are based on empirical observations on music.

Should patents and copyright stop being a merchandise and benefit financially only the creator/developer, and by extent his employers/cooworkers/benefactors is a first step to stop all this waste of resource (the billions of dollars) for something that can objectively needs a tiny fraction.

Are you even considering the huge ammounts of money invested? The money invested in the copyright is a small fraction of the research costs on a short term.

Thank the Romans that did not claim a patent for aqueducts, otherwise we would still be unable to have running water
And the context for the argument...

I find it odd that you have used one of history's biggest plagiarisers as an example for this topic on copyright.

You are making many assumption here. What patents prohibit is the use of existing technology by the weaker financially companies that are unable to buy the legal right to use it. Should this again stop being the case, it will reinvigorate again the competition for innovation, instead of the competition for stagnation that patents promote. Currently resources are funneled to the acquisition of the right to use an innovation and not to innovate.
More modern example of pattern infrigment...

You are also making assumptions youself for thinking that an absence of patents would improve the innovation. The socalled "weaker" companies are the ones who did not have the huge ammount of budget to spend on developing their own kind of technology. For the weaker companies it's alot easier and cheaper to pay for a licence to use the patented or copyrighted technology.

Why was iPhone successful? Because billions of dollars were spent into innovation? Apple is still locked into countless patent wars with other hardware developers for using their patented technology. The fact that their managed trashed the patent law, led to an extremely successful product, as well as reinvigorated a stagnant market. Internet would never have exploded if we had to pay for the slow and buggy IIS, but the copyleft LAMP made cheap and fast servers feasible. Linux has not even been funded by anyone and still isn't. OS X and iOS are built around a 70s kernel with technology developed by an obscure company with very limited resources. Should we move further back into technological history when patents and copyright did not stop innovation and the spread of knowledge the examples are even more numerous.

The iphone was mostly succesfull because of their marketing strategies, not because of their technology. In fact the original iphone that was introduced in 2007 was not that much more innovative from their competition.

Also many medicine, surgery, and other practices developed outside the patent system and had greater impact to human welfare and lifespan than the multimillion research currently funded. And don't forget that any policy, law, ideology, etc. has as an objective the benefit of the many. Patents and copyright by nature as either means or ends try and succeed in achieving exactly the opposite.

A quote from the book "Pharmaceutical Patents in Europe" to counter that argument:
"Pharmaceutical companies could not exist without some guarantee that they can recoup the cost of developing a new product."

You also worry about that without patents, there will be no incentive for innovation and research. Leaving aside the thousands of years of human history that you conveniently choose to ignore, as well as the fact you're labeling an exception every contemporary example I brought up; the process is rather simple. With patents and copyright not being resealable, each individual will be sought after to work with and not for the investor, gaining exactly what he deserves, and the investor will be forced into a more productive role because he will need the person. Without the burden of the whole law altogether, investors will be forced to fund research either by institutions or individuals as well as employ the personnel that can actually produce and work with the now "secret" patents, instead bloat corporation with unproductive leeches that their only job is to lie and manipulate.

Thousand of years of human history? More like last 3 centuries when we are looking at the growth of innovation.

As for your 2nd part of that quote about companies and inventors, what does this even have to do with copyright or patents? The inventors themselves do get credit for their inventions.