AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > General > General Chat

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2012-06-28, 18:32   Link #41
aohige
( ಠ_ಠ)
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Somewhere, between the sacred silence and sleep
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malkuth View Post
I rest my case aohige, you know everything. At least try like Ahn_Mihn you can try to write ONE argument, instead of your generalizations about how knowledgeable you are.
You're the one that said I'm claiming human history is sci-fi.

Look, we all agree that current society is not ideal.
But stop and think about what you're claiming.. Going back to even less ideal days is not the answer. You know this, right?
__________________
aohige is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-06-28, 18:37   Link #42
Malkuth
Banned
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: London
Age: 34
Send a message via MSN to Malkuth Send a message via Skype™ to Malkuth
Changing one law, does not rewind human evolution, unless of course you believe that this one law is the sole reason for human progress.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh View Post
That's because you only brought up one: software.
If you ignore music, films, smartphones, the internet... yeah only software remains

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh View Post
And truthfully, I'm not sure it's even an exception. Without patents and copyright, the amount of man hours poured into the development of new stuff may well fall.
I suggest that you see how the linux kernel development process works, since I can not go into any details about what we did in a company I worked to avoid the wasted man-hours of archaic software development relying on the secrecy promoted by copyright and patents, and let's not forget that copyleft software development not only produces high quality software, it also finds us the developers good jobs, helps students do something productive during their studies, and generates a shit-load of money in several ways to companies of all sizes not only the few oligarchies that have the funds to abuse patents

What seems unintuitive to mainstream practices is not by default dangerous and risky... it can very well be effective and ground-breaking. Radical solutions (abolish patents) can be better than conservatives ones (stop reselling them) and both certainly better than not solving a problem (keep patents as are).
Malkuth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-06-28, 18:49   Link #43
aohige
( ಠ_ಠ)
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Somewhere, between the sacred silence and sleep
I'm pretttty sure it takes way more than one law for destruction of patents and universal collection of knowledge.
__________________
aohige is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-06-28, 18:56   Link #44
Malkuth
Banned
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: London
Age: 34
Send a message via MSN to Malkuth Send a message via Skype™ to Malkuth
Quote:
Originally Posted by aohige View Post
I'm pretttty sure it takes way more than one law for destruction of patents and universal collection of knowledge.
Cool, that's a good point to start arguing about your opinion.

Let now ask, not allowing individuals and companies to buy and sell patents will bring about the armageddon you implied earlier?

Is copyleft promoting at least equally innovation?

Historically speaking having patented typography would make it more widespread, efficient, and so on?
Malkuth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-06-29, 01:23   Link #45
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malkuth View Post
Changing one law, does not rewind human evolution, unless of course you believe that this one law is the sole reason for human progress.



If you ignore music, films, smartphones, the internet... yeah only software remains
They were supposed to be counter-examples? For music and films: all I've claimed was that big budget productions would disappear. Which you didn't deny. For the phones: you give as an example Apple... which is precisely not the model (where nobody's interested in research) we want. For the internet: again, the software is, indeed, a particular case as it can be developed cheaply. The hardware isn't, and what have you answered to that? Zip.


Quote:
I suggest that you see how the linux kernel development process works, since I can not go into any details about what we did in a company I worked to avoid the wasted man-hours of archaic software development relying on the secrecy promoted by copyright and patents, and let's not forget that copyleft software development not only produces high quality software, it also finds us the developers good jobs, helps students do something productive during their studies, and generates a shit-load of money in several ways to companies of all sizes not only the few oligarchies that have the funds to abuse patents
Yeah, yeah. I'm a software developer too. I don't need non-opensource software in my job either (except when the client's being particular, which happens a lot, come to think of it...) But nevertheless - just compare the games you find for Linux with those for Windows. Or the office suites.

Quote:
What seems unintuitive to mainstream practices is not by default dangerous and risky... it can very well be effective and ground-breaking. Radical solutions (abolish patents) can be better than conservatives ones (stop reselling them) and both certainly better than not solving a problem (keep patents as are).
Except you've never touched on the elephant in the room - speaking of ignoring arguments... Who's going to fork over the money needed for research? Who's going to pay the artists' bills when they lose the rights to their work?
Anh_Minh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-06-29, 11:13   Link #46
Malkuth
Banned
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: London
Age: 34
Send a message via MSN to Malkuth Send a message via Skype™ to Malkuth
Hardware, and electrical engineering in general, has a lot of problems with research, partially because of patents, more so though because of the commercialization of education and for many years now just recycles old technology instead of researching feasible new one.

In all technological sectors patents inflate the cost of using any known technology to improve a products quality without offering any benefit to the product itself with inevitable result of producing expensive, less and worse products. In addition to these problems, the high cost of acquiring the right to use a patented technology is so high that does not let small companies that can offer better products to compete with mega-corprorations that spend their resources into acquiring the right of using old tech instead of researching new ones.

The only recent examples I can recall of breaking this vicious circle was Microsoft, copying the windows concept from Apple, making Microsoft a significant software player and earning them the funds to buy political and judicial support to win the patent war, practically destroying Apple; and Apple (in practice NextGen) with iPod, and later iPhone that brought the company back into significance by shamelessly infringing software and hardware patents, and they are still at courts.

Current software and hardware giants are also redistributing their resources in trade patents as well as in their lawyers to defend their numerous infringement cases. Acting like the decadent investment banking sector with technology as their excuse for another form of legal gambling

Moving to games, funny you mentioned it, since most use OpenGL which is free and open-sourced. As for office suites, should the protectionist policies of Microsoft stop for them like they did for their browser, they will immediately lose their market share. Databases is another example... outside the finance sector commercial ones are simply non-existent due to their development cost. MySQL and Java (the only free products of Sun) were also its only profitable departments, while all their commercial arms had losses for years.

Look I think we more or less can agree with the problems that patents and copyright create, as well as that it is easy to just ignore them (legally by buying them, and illegally by moving operations into countries where they don't apply) if the funds exist. The problem is that these two systems take resources away from the scientist, which is exactly the opposite from what they evangelize of doing under the fatalistic excuse that this is how the world is (more or less what aohige has been writing).
Malkuth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-06-29, 12:29   Link #47
aohige
( ಠ_ಠ)
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Somewhere, between the sacred silence and sleep
You continue to dodge the most important question.
__________________
aohige is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-06-29, 13:48   Link #48
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Indeed he is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Malkuth View Post
Hardware, and electrical engineering in general, has a lot of problems with research, partially because of patents, more so though because of the commercialization of education and for many years now just recycles old technology instead of researching feasible new one.
Which doesn't tell us where the money's coming from if there are no patents. Does the legal system suck a lot of money? Yes. But that's the point: there is money to be sucked.

Quote:
In all technological sectors patents inflate the cost of using any known technology to improve a products quality without offering any benefit to the product itself with inevitable result of producing expensive, less and worse products.
Yes, it'd be great if everything was free. But you can't confine it to ideas. Food and shelter would also have to be free. And material. And man labor. Can you imagine such a world? I can't.


Quote:
In addition to these problems, the high cost of acquiring the right to use a patented technology is so high that does not let small companies that can offer better products to compete with mega-corprorations that spend their resources into acquiring the right of using old tech instead of researching new ones.

The only recent examples I can recall of breaking this vicious circle was Microsoft, copying the windows concept from Apple, making Microsoft a significant software player and earning them the funds to buy political and judicial support to win the patent war, practically destroying Apple;
Actually, they both stole from Xerox.

Quote:
and Apple (in practice NextGen) with iPod, and later iPhone that brought the company back into significance by shamelessly infringing software and hardware patents, and they are still at courts.
Yeah, and that's what you want: everyone taking from everyone else, with no one left to make something new. Unless it can be made cheaply by charitable enthusiasts. Can't you see how limiting that is?

Quote:
Current software and hardware giants are also redistributing their resources in trade patents as well as in their lawyers to defend their numerous infringement cases. Acting like the decadent investment banking sector with technology as their excuse for another form of legal gambling

Moving to games, funny you mentioned it, since most use OpenGL which is free and open-sourced.
But the titles themselves aren't.

Quote:
As for office suites, should the protectionist policies of Microsoft stop for them like they did for their browser, they will immediately lose their market share.
It's not a matter of format: they just have more, better features. Free alternatives are just playing catch up.

Quote:
Databases is another example... outside the finance sector commercial ones are simply non-existent due to their development cost. MySQL and Java (the only free products of Sun) were also its only profitable departments, while all their commercial arms had losses for years.
Yes, which brings us back to the exceptionalism of software: when you can make most of your money through support, then yes, go for open source. Shove it down everyone's throats. But that model can't be applied to everything.

Quote:
Look I think we more or less can agree with the problems that patents and copyright create, as well as that it is easy to just ignore them (legally by buying them, and illegally by moving operations into countries where they don't apply) if the funds exist. The problem is that these two systems take resources away from the scientist, which is exactly the opposite from what they evangelize of doing under the fatalistic excuse that this is how the world is (more or less what aohige has been writing).
That's where we disagree - sure, patents take resources. But the alternatives means the resources aren't there, period.
Anh_Minh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-06-29, 16:20   Link #49
Malkuth
Banned
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: London
Age: 34
Send a message via MSN to Malkuth Send a message via Skype™ to Malkuth
Quote:
Originally Posted by aohige View Post
You continue to dodge the most important question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh View Post
Indeed he is.
Here you go... all the parts addressing your question...

Spoiler for quotations:


Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh View Post
Which doesn't tell us where the money's coming from if there are no patents. Does the legal system suck a lot of money? Yes. But that's the point: there is money to be sucked.
So wasting the money in the legal system is productive?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh View Post
Yes, it'd be great if everything was free. But you can't confine it to ideas. Food and shelter would also have to be free. And material. And man labor. Can you imagine such a world? I can't.
Catalonia pre-junta. But I am not saying that everything should be free, this will require a world of selfless humans, not the current with a majority made of selfish apes. Sarcasm aside, some things should not become commercial comodities, like ideas, air, ownership of our bodies, etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh View Post
Actually, they both stole from Xerox.
That would be the mouse, not the touchscreen, hand gestures, and some other minor patents I was talking about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh View Post
Yeah, and that's what you want: everyone taking from everyone else, with no one left to make something new. Unless it can be made cheaply by charitable enthusiasts. Can't you see how limiting that is?
I can see how effective it is currently as well as historically. On the other hand, I don't want to imagine a world where everything material and not has degraded to a mass produced product by a company or state... oh! wait 1984 described such a world

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh View Post
But the titles themselves aren't.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh View Post
It's not a matter of format: they just have more, better features. Free alternatives are just playing catch up.
Eh? OpenGL, PostgresSQL, are catching up? LMAO, they are the most complete and efficient choices

Office suites on the other hand are the less technical products, and advertisement of useless features is their selling point... not to mention Excel still can not parse correctly grammatically correct XML, Office for mac is full of bugs, and their C++ compiler can not even comply with the 99 standard 15 years later

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh View Post
Yes, which brings us back to the exceptionalism of software: when you can make most of your money through support, then yes, go for open source. Shove it down everyone's throats. But that model can't be applied to everything.
This model is adapted by more and more vendors, because they already have problems competing with free software (Oracle, SAP).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh View Post
That's where we disagree - sure, patents take resources. But the alternatives means the resources aren't there, period.
Why, they will magically disappear
Malkuth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-06-29, 18:30   Link #50
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malkuth View Post
Here you go... all the parts addressing your question...

First here by historical example...
That's not an example. It's you making a bald claim about things being better in some unspecified past.


Quote:
Then here with a modern one...
That's just an example of you liking cheap music. Good for you, but it doesn't indicate that the death of copyright isn't the death of big budget productions, or that we'll all be just as glad to be stuck watching Youtube videos of cats instead of going to watch movies like Avengers on the big screen.

Quote:
Again here in principle...
You'd have to be more precise. Who do you mean when you say "creator/developer"? How would you enforce that only they would profit?

Also, what do you mean by "tiny fraction"? Because a quick Google search gives Microsoft's budget as 8 to 10 billion dollars, and their legal one as 10 times less.

Quote:
Another alternative
Yeah, I answered that one. Don't feel like repeating it.

Quote:
And the context for the argument...
Which doesn't tell us that, should patents disappear, those same resources will go to R&D.


Quote:
More modern example of pattern infrigment...
You seem to think that spending on marketing rather than on R&D is a good thing. I disagree.


Quote:
More examples...
And yet, all the modern drugs? The end results of hundreds of millions of dollars of investment. Each. That's without counting the failed projects, of which there are many for every success.

And it's not (solely, or even mainly) because of patents. It's a side effects of the systems we've put into place to make sure we're not being sold snake oil.

It's nice that doctors still see what they do as a public service. It's nice that governments fund a lot of research. I'm not sure what to think about the fact that there's never enough top rated surgeons for everyone.

But you can't expect all those to hold true for consumer electronics.

Quote:
Again in summarizing in principle and answering for the tenth time...
Please note that I didn't say it'd disappear entirely. But yeah, if there's no money to be made in R&D, then the private investment will mostly dry up. And nothing in history's telling me otherwise.

Quote:
Yet another working example...
Drawn from software. Cheap to research, and most of the money comes from support. So?

[quote]
Quote:
Last post only addressed the question...
The problem is that you haven't shown how doing away with patents will bring those resources to the scientist.


Quote:
So wasting the money in the legal system is productive?
To borrow Vetinari's dairy farming metaphor, if you have an idea to get milk without having to deal with moo, feel free to share it. (I was going to say "patent it", but, well...)


Quote:
Catalonia pre-junta. But I am not saying that everything should be free, this will require a world of selfless humans, not the current with a majority made of selfish apes. Sarcasm aside, some things should not become commercial comodities, like ideas, air, ownership of our bodies, etc.
And I'm saying that if the output (the ideas) has to be free, then so does the input (the material, the labor). And if the people have to work for nothing, then they'd better not have bills to pay.

It's not an absolute rule, obviously. But the exceptions aren't enough to build a functioning society.


Quote:
That would be the mouse, not the touchscreen, hand gestures, and some other minor patents I was talking about.
I thought you were talking about windows?


Quote:
I can see how effective it is currently as well as historically.
The situation may not be ideal, but what history are you even talking about? 50 years ago, we had no internet. 100 years ago, we had no computer. Look at us now.

In contrast, how much time elapsed between the first glass lenses and the first telescope?

I'm not saying that patents would have accelerated the process. I am, however, wondering about that golden technological age of yours.

Quote:
On the other hand, I don't want to imagine a world where everything material and not has degraded to a mass produced product by a company or state... oh! wait 1984 described such a world
Which is why we have licensing - balancing the need for those who make a big investment to make a return on said investment, against the potential for further innovation to come cheaply, from other maybe less well endowed sources. It's not perfect, but it's better than having every technological advance treated like KFC's 11 herbs and spices mix.

I'll also remark that your ideals are all very well, but regardless of patent laws, some things take millions or billions before you have a sellable product. And that you still haven't addressed that point.

Quote:
Actual games are copyrighted as all get out. Thousands of man hours are poured into them, and the companies making them expect a return - they have bills to pay. So, again, compare actual copyrighted games made for Windows and the actual free games we have for Linux. Instead of telling me about the free engine they both use.

Oh, sure, you could claim you've found some indy gem whose plot and gameplay outshine everything. But be serious: there's a reason game companies survive, and we're not all playing some free version of sudoku.


Quote:
Eh? OpenGL, PostgresSQL, are catching up? LMAO, they are the most complete and efficient choices
Yeah, I was talking about office suites.

Quote:
Office suites on the other hand are the less technical products, and advertisement of useless features is their selling point...
Useless to you and me, sure. That's not how those who use the damn things a lot are saying.


Quote:
This model is adapted by more and more vendors, because they already have problems competing with free software (Oracle, SAP).
Those are software. When I said "everything", I meant everything that's used to make money. Small material goods, for example. You can't give cars away and then ask that people pay through the nose to have them repaired - they'll just get new free cars. (I guess some kind of deal like where a gas seller helps you buy a car in exchange for you buying a guaranteed amount of gas every months for years would theoretically be possible, though.)


Quote:
Why, they will magically disappear
They'll be redirected to things that actually bring a return.
Anh_Minh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-06-29, 20:12   Link #51
Malkuth
Banned
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: London
Age: 34
Send a message via MSN to Malkuth Send a message via Skype™ to Malkuth
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.
Malkuth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-06-30, 14:40   Link #52
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malkuth View Post
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.
No, you didn't answer the question. As I explained at length in my previous post. It's not a matter of being persuaded or not. Giving vague examples, without trying to explain how they apply, isn't an answer.

By the way, since there may be a misunderstanding, the question isn't "will there still be innovation without patents?", but "how will companies make money off investing in innovation?". I (and why was I the one who had to do it?) explained how it's done in some software. You didn't touch the subject except to say you preferred cheap music and old movies.

Quote:
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.
A meaningless question, since everything is relative. It's like asking if junk food is good for your health. Of course it is, when compared to starvation.

Quote:
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.
Define important. And do notice how long it took to make those inventions (speech? Seriously? why not lungs, while you're at it? Or the action of banding together to form multicellular organisms?). In the same time span, from the invention of patent laws, how many new things will we invent?

Quote:
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).
What, you worked for companies that had one single idea, and ran with it in the hopes of getting bought, along with their patents, by something bigger? At least those companies got formed.

Quote:
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.
Hell no. It'll benefit advertisers.

Quote:
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.
If you want patents to be held solely by the inventors (and good luck with the power struggles to get your name on that list), remains the question of who's going to pay for the labs and support personnel and other many expense those inventors are going to need to invent. What's in it for them?

Quote:
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.
  • We're both talking about anecdotal evidence, but the ones I talk about - the ones who really use Office suites, prefer the fuller featured newer versions. Guys like me can't stand them because it's not our job to write a lot of documents and complex spreadsheets and would just as soon keep things simple instead of trying to get familiar with a new goddamn interface.

    Quote:
  • About games, you are ignoring the fact that these products are available because they use royalty free technology, otherwise the cost would be higher.
  • They're available because there's a market for them.

    Quote:
    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.
    Plenty of Linux users are also gamers. I'm not saying the games are better because they're copyrighted (how silly would that be?), I'm saying they're better because a lot of money went into creating them. If you want game companies to keep making games, you have to find ways for them to make money off of making games. You'd think it'd be obvious. I suppose copyright isn't the only way. For games running on servers, they could make money from running servers. But that's rather limiting.

    Quote:
  • 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.
  • Depends which software, really. I'd appreciate more analysis on why it works when it does, instead of asserting that since in works there, it works everywhere.

    Quote:
  • 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.
  • I see that as a rich person's problem. He ordered a meal that he finds out tastes bad, but feels he has to eat it anyway because he paid for it. Your argument is that if all restaurants served food for free, he could just throw away his meal and order another.

    Mine is that if all restaurants were actually soup kitchens, we'd all get whatever they serve there, and there wouldn't be enough for everyone.

    Quote:
  • 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.
Patents actually force people to document their findings and make them public. Without them, the incentive would be to keep the exact processes secret. That's all the more true in our world where trained personnel are a dime a dozen (compared to the middle ages).

Patents exist so there's an incentive to make something that's expensive to research, but cheap to reproduce. So innovators aren't in direct competition against people who are only good at aping others for cheap (all the more cheap that they don't need to invest in R&D...). That doesn't describe every technology or creation, but it describes a lot of them. Any replacement system will have to offer a solution to that problem.
Anh_Minh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-06-30, 14:43   Link #53
Kyuu
=^^=
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 42 10' N (Latitude) 87 33' W (Longitude)
Age: 35
I can understand Copyright expiration dates for INVENTIONS, where an inventor/patent holder is granted a lifetime.

How about Copyright expiration dates for MEDIA? Considering the vast quantity of media creation vs actual inventions -- the expiration dates for media should be MUCH MUCH SHORTER.
Kyuu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-06-30, 15:08   Link #54
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyuu View Post
I can understand Copyright expiration dates for INVENTIONS, where an inventor/patent holder is granted a lifetime.
20 years, actually, in the US or Europe. Could be more or less depending on the country. (and they're called patents, for inventions.)

Quote:
How about Copyright expiration dates for MEDIA? Considering the vast quantity of media creation vs actual inventions -- the expiration dates for media should be MUCH MUCH SHORTER.
"Should"? Why? Patents expire so that eventually everyone can share in the new technology even if they can't afford to pay for a license or the inventor himself wants to keep it to himself. That's because technical progress for all is considered more important than the financial interests of the inventor.

But who cares if you can't use the Beatles for your "please hold the line" music?


(My personal opinion is that I don't care either way as long as anime and movies keep coming, and they don't need copyright to last forever for that. Culture will sort itself out.)
Anh_Minh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-06-30, 17:20   Link #55
Malkuth
Banned
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: London
Age: 34
Send a message via MSN to Malkuth Send a message via Skype™ to Malkuth
@Anh_Minh: I can understand why your fear of change is driving you to ignore any form of constructive criticism, but that does not mean that you are right... you want to believe that patents and copyright are the only tools humans have to evolve their civilization... I don't think so for the reasons I mentioned, if you or anyone else needs a clarification, well ask, don't discard half-way through trying to think how to invalidate them before even thinking about them
Malkuth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-06-30, 18:03   Link #56
Random32
Also a Lolicon
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Why isn't more cultural products better than the long term financial interests of one hit wonders?

If copyrights take forever to run out, a lazy ass can make one really good cultural product and keep reaping the rewards for the rest of their lives. They can also block out people who try to make derivatives of the cultural product indefinitely (I personally think that they shouldn't be able to block derivative works at all, but very short time limits would be acceptable as well).

Long copyright is very very bad for creating more cultural products as it puts more restriction on what new cultural products can be created, and does not push for the creation of more cultural products since a cultural product can be milked indefinitely.

Short copyright is okay for encouraging creation for now, since some cultural products take a lot of investment that needs to be gotten back somehow, but that is changing as well.

--

As for my stance on copyright. Kill it. A few nukes from orbit, it's the only way to be sure. Additional copies are practically free to make, thus everyone who wants one should get their own copy.

For financing of high cost stuff like big budget movies or games, I suggest a kickstarter-ish system. Patrons who can afford it pay creators to make cultural goods to give out to everyone free of charge.

Of course that isn't happening easily. People too invested in the current system are busily resisting change.
Random32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-06-30, 18:23   Link #57
Malkuth
Banned
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: London
Age: 34
Send a message via MSN to Malkuth Send a message via Skype™ to Malkuth
I refrained from mentioning it, but you guys are aware that patents are not awarded to innovations that do what they claim to... there are time-traveling devices, free-energy ones, and a lot more... that's another reason "investors" are so eager to support such a mechanism to lock in secrecy their own research with some cheap fantasy from a lunatic, instead of honest productive work
Malkuth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-06-30, 18:29   Link #58
hyl
sneaking like a cat
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
@malkuth, even you are saying that aohige and Anh_Minh are not listening to your form of constructive criticism, but neither are you trying to listen to theirs while they are giving you some counterarguments against your arguments.
hyl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-06-30, 18:39   Link #59
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malkuth View Post
@Anh_Minh: I can understand why your fear of change is driving you to ignore any form of constructive criticism, but that does not mean that you are right... you want to believe that patents and copyright are the only tools humans have to evolve their civilization...
I'd be more open to talking of alternatives if you actually gave alternatives, instead of merely claiming they exist. (except, yes, in software.)

Here, concrete example: explain to me how they're going to make money off inventing new drugs.

Quote:
I don't think so for the reasons I mentioned, if you or anyone else needs a clarification, well ask, don't discard half-way through trying to think how to invalidate them before even thinking about them
I made it clear I don't see anything in what you said that's an actual counterargument to the points I made. That counts as asking for clarification. I ain't gonna beg.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Malkuth View Post
I refrained from mentioning it, but you guys are aware that patents are not awarded to innovations that do what they claim to... there are time-traveling devices, free-energy ones, and a lot more... that's another reason "investors" are so eager to support such a mechanism to lock in secrecy their own research with some cheap fantasy from a lunatic, instead of honest productive work
So? Some lunatics pay good money to patent stuff that doesn't work, thus gaining the ability to forbid other people to use stuff that doesn't work. I don't see a problem, here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Random32 View Post
Why isn't more cultural products better than the long term financial interests of one hit wonders?
Your not being able to sell a remake of Justin Bieber's last song doesn't hinder cultural advancement in any way. Just make up your own crap if you're that interested in "advancing culture".

Quote:
If copyrights take forever to run out, a lazy ass can make one really good cultural product and keep reaping the rewards for the rest of their lives. They can also block out people who try to make derivatives of the cultural product indefinitely (I personally think that they shouldn't be able to block derivative works at all, but very short time limits would be acceptable as well).
Most derivatives are covered by fair use, and thus not blocked. Not so for straight up plagiarism, but again, I don't see a problem.

Quote:
Long copyright is very very bad for creating more cultural products as it puts more restriction on what new cultural products can be created, and does not push for the creation of more cultural products since a cultural product can be milked indefinitely.
It means people have to come up with their own crap instead of selling their fanfiction. (And even that's not true, have you seen the nameswaps of Harry Potter that got sold?) I don't see how that restricts creation.

Quote:
Short copyright is okay for encouraging creation for now, since some cultural products take a lot of investment that needs to be gotten back somehow, but that is changing as well.

--

As for my stance on copyright. Kill it. A few nukes from orbit, it's the only way to be sure. Additional copies are practically free to make, thus everyone who wants one should get their own copy.
Yes, the first copy costs thousands to millions to make. The others basically nothing. So all you need is one sucker to pay millions so you can get your stuff for free? And you see nothing wrong with that?

Besides, if all you want is access to a product (rather than selling your own version), get your ass to a library or something.

Or heck, just steal it. You want something but don't want to pay for it. Stop making excuses and just try not to get caught.

Quote:
For financing of high cost stuff like big budget movies or games, I suggest a kickstarter-ish system. Patrons who can afford it pay creators to make cultural goods to give out to everyone free of charge.
And how much money do you think can be raised that way? Even without the psychological obstacles of paying something through the nose just so a bunch of entitled kids can get it for free?

Quote:
Of course that isn't happening easily. People too invested in the current system are busily resisting change.
Or maybe it's just a stupid idea. Ever considered that?

Short copyright? That could work. (For "short" being a few years... Long enough for 99% of the works to be safely forgotten.) Though I'm not sure how authors are going to take seeing slash fictions of their characters being sold right along their own work as if they were just as legitimate and genuine. I guess it'll depend.

No copyright: as with patents, someone will have to find some alternative way to make people invest money, or all we'll be left with will be advertisements.

Last edited by Anh_Minh; 2012-06-30 at 19:25.
Anh_Minh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-06-30, 18:46   Link #60
Malkuth
Banned
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: London
Age: 34
Send a message via MSN to Malkuth Send a message via Skype™ to Malkuth
Quote:
Originally Posted by hyl View Post
@malkuth, even you are saying that aohige and Anh_Minh are not listening to your form of constructive criticism, but neither are you trying to listen to theirs while they are giving you some counterarguments against your arguments.
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
Malkuth is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:20.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.