AnimeSuki Forum - View Single Post - Should we change how we approach copyright law, and IP?

Malkuth · 2012-06-29, 20:12

So I answered your questions several times already, it's just that you and aohige are not persuaded by the arguments... so please don't write again that I evade the question, disagreeing and ignoring are two very different things. Discussion between arguing parties has the purpose of enriching our understanding, improving and occasionally altering our mindset, and enlightening the audience... diverting attention, ignoring and twisting each others arguments does not fulfill any of those purposes.

Now instead of going in circles, let me ask clearly... do you guys believe that the current patent and copyright laws promote technology and benefit the scientists and inventors?
Not if you think that what I and others consider a better alternative is better, just if the current one that you support is fulfilling even in principle its alleged purpose.

Also about the history of innovation. Almost all scientific and technological development were made without any laws privatizing and/or nationalizing them. Form speech, to writing systems, lightning fires... to typography, all transportation systems, programming languages... to the recipes for food and drinks. And those are far more important than the modern patented ones.

Keep in mind that I am arguing against both systems in principles; the main problem I perceive with both laws is that they promote financial oligarchies and monopolies as well as state protectionism. In this context I am arguing against them, and under the assumption that a globalized even partially free works patents and copyright prohibit innovation and technological development.

In effect patents and copyright end up almost immediately from the hands of engineers and scientists that should benefit from them in those of investors that alone have a steady financial gain. Now you want to believe that those many in large is reinvested, you can continue believing it, but I have a very different experience from all the companies I have worked in (independent of size).

Also money not wasted on buying patents or wasted in legal power struggles, even if spent of advertisement is better, since that sector can benefit more scientists and developers. But realistic speaking if people become the resource (by not allowing the sale of the right to implement their work) they will benefit more and constantly from it, while now they don't since their work is dissociated financially from them and ends up as another product abused by people who are incapable of producing anything.

Now very quicly on the examples:

I was talking about both windows and tech used "illegally" for the iPod
Those people prefering MS office are the same that prefer the older versions of MS office to the new "better" ones that incorporate features from their free competitors. What is more telling about what is more prevelent is to observe the trend among new users.
About games, you are ignoring the fact that these products are available because they use royalty free technology, otherwise the cost would be higher. Also their paying customers (not the vast majority world-wide that has pirated copies) have bought windows so they are willing to pay a fraction of its cost. It not that games for windows are better because they are copyrighted, but rather because linux is an operating system for professionals that wouldn't buy a game to begin with.
I am also delighted that at least you agree that software (even as an anomaly) shows that intellectual property is not the best way to gain money.
Addressing your worries about funding research without patents, think of a subverted situation. Intel supported with billions of dollars reasearch for CISC architecture, and this research after 20 years of more billions lost to the elimination of RISC competitors, ended up using a RISC architecture itself now that was available already. Patents lock also companies in their use, while they could offer higher quality and in greater quantity products.
Finally, on the historical examples, the apparent accelerating rate of technological progress is not because patents and copyright generate money redirected into research, but because there is free access to past research that in principle patents and copyright try to halt.

2012-06-29, 20:12	Link #51
Malkuth Banned Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: London Age: 43	So I answered your questions several times already, it's just that you and aohige are not persuaded by the arguments... so please don't write again that I evade the question, disagreeing and ignoring are two very different things. Discussion between arguing parties has the purpose of enriching our understanding, improving and occasionally altering our mindset, and enlightening the audience... diverting attention, ignoring and twisting each others arguments does not fulfill any of those purposes. Now instead of going in circles, let me ask clearly... do you guys believe that the current patent and copyright laws promote technology and benefit the scientists and inventors? Not if you think that what I and others consider a better alternative is better, just if the current one that you support is fulfilling even in principle its alleged purpose. Also about the history of innovation. Almost all scientific and technological development were made without any laws privatizing and/or nationalizing them. Form speech, to writing systems, lightning fires... to typography, all transportation systems, programming languages... to the recipes for food and drinks. And those are far more important than the modern patented ones. Keep in mind that I am arguing against both systems in principles; the main problem I perceive with both laws is that they promote financial oligarchies and monopolies as well as state protectionism. In this context I am arguing against them, and under the assumption that a globalized even partially free works patents and copyright prohibit innovation and technological development. In effect patents and copyright end up almost immediately from the hands of engineers and scientists that should benefit from them in those of investors that alone have a steady financial gain. Now you want to believe that those many in large is reinvested, you can continue believing it, but I have a very different experience from all the companies I have worked in (independent of size). Also money not wasted on buying patents or wasted in legal power struggles, even if spent of advertisement is better, since that sector can benefit more scientists and developers. But realistic speaking if people become the resource (by not allowing the sale of the right to implement their work) they will benefit more and constantly from it, while now they don't since their work is dissociated financially from them and ends up as another product abused by people who are incapable of producing anything. Now very quicly on the examples: I was talking about both windows and tech used "illegally" for the iPod Those people prefering MS office are the same that prefer the older versions of MS office to the new "better" ones that incorporate features from their free competitors. What is more telling about what is more prevelent is to observe the trend among new users. About games, you are ignoring the fact that these products are available because they use royalty free technology, otherwise the cost would be higher. Also their paying customers (not the vast majority world-wide that has pirated copies) have bought windows so they are willing to pay a fraction of its cost. It not that games for windows are better because they are copyrighted, but rather because linux is an operating system for professionals that wouldn't buy a game to begin with. I am also delighted that at least you agree that software (even as an anomaly) shows that intellectual property is not the best way to gain money. Addressing your worries about funding research without patents, think of a subverted situation. Intel supported with billions of dollars reasearch for CISC architecture, and this research after 20 years of more billions lost to the elimination of RISC competitors, ended up using a RISC architecture itself now that was available already. Patents lock also companies in their use, while they could offer higher quality and in greater quantity products. Finally, on the historical examples, the apparent accelerating rate of technological progress is not because patents and copyright generate money redirected into research, but because there is free access to past research that in principle patents and copyright try to halt.