Should we change how we approach copyright law, and IP?

[Malkuth]

For patent/copyright supporters... except maintaining the status quo, is there any argument to support them... and let me be extremely simplistic about it... should copyright law apply in 10000 BC we would have to pay in order to legally talk to each other... or 40000 BC pay for the patent of breathing

Now a little bit more seriously, for insignificant matters these laws are not problematic, but what concerns common good, like inventions, art, literature, limiting accessibility can only lead to oligarchies first, and totalitarianism later... independent of what ideological cover they take.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Malkuth

For patent/copyright supporters... except maintaining the status quo, is there any argument to support them... and let me be extremely simplistic about it... should copyright law apply in 10000 BC we would have to pay in order to legally talk to each other... or 40000 BC pay for the patent of breathing

Now a little bit more seriously, for insignificant matters these laws are not problematic, but what concerns common good, like inventions, art, literature, limiting accessibility can only lead to oligarchies first, and totalitarianism later... independent of what ideological cover they take.

It boils down to one: people need a reason to invest in research.

For a new drug, for example, we're talking about dozens or hundreds of millions of dollars upfront, before you can even think of trying to get it patented. And the whole thing can and often does fail before you get to that point.

Without patents and their licensing fees, they'll have to resort to just trying to keep stuff secret, when it's doable - that means, actually, less sharing. When it's not, they'll resort to not researching at all.

Copyright's iffier. People will create for free. The complete end of copyright might spell the end of blockbuster movies... or anime... or big concerts... but there'll still be plenty of entertainment available. And of course there's all that's already existing, far greater than what could consume in a single life.

[aohige]

Originally Posted by Malkuth

For patent/copyright supporters... except maintaining the status quo, is there any argument to support them... and let me be extremely simplistic about it... should copyright law apply in 10000 BC we would have to pay in order to legally talk to each other... or 40000 BC pay for the patent of breathing

Now a little bit more seriously, for insignificant matters these laws are not problematic, but what concerns common good, like inventions, art, literature, limiting accessibility can only lead to oligarchies first, and totalitarianism later... independent of what ideological cover they take.

Would you rather have these innovations happen at much lesser pace, due to lack of motivation?

You completely assume the progress is a static reality, but it is not.
These things, which we may take for granted, do not just appear out of thin air.
That's why certain eras have much more progress than others.

"intellectual communism" would only work if everyone who invents an idea is willing to not be rewarded.
Yeah, maybe, when we all stop being actual human beings.


EDIT: what Anh says.

[Vexx]

One patents devices or plans for devices - the US erred when it decided that practices and algorithms were "patentable". Last I checked, hardly anyone else allows that kind of patent.
One has a *reasonable* length of time for copyright - currently copyright is fundamentally broken.
Trademarks seem to be in relatively good shape.

"Intellectual property" is a stupid hypothesis, the idea that an idea can be "owned" when the instant it is exposed it is replicated. It is an indication of what was a temporary blip on innovation when some corporations were able to act as content gatekeepers and make a profit off of the creators and the consumers.

[aohige]

But Vexx, it's catch 22.
We have seen many instances in human history, where a briliiant inventor could not get his idea funded or popularized, and the man dies in poverty... only to be appreciated way later.
Corporations may gain fortune off a man's idea, but without the large support of the corporation, there's little chance the man could have elevated his work to such high degree on his own. The concept is benefitial to both parties.

It's easy to say, a record company is "stealing profits" the cretor deserves.
A man write a song that can potentially be a world-wide hit. Is he on his own to get it off the ground then?
Print CDs on his own investment, and try to promote them to each and every retailers?
What if the man is simply an artist, and has no talent in business?
A distributor such as a record company is a necessary entity for his success.
It's all a matter of "how much". How much stake should be in the investment, and how much return each party should recieve.

The whole idea of utopian society where people work hard simply "for the better of humanity", as Gene Roddenberry dreamd, is unfortunately a broken idea.
Our primal motive is for self preservation and prosperity. That buddha-level enlightment is simply not realistic.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by aohige

But Vexx, it's catch 22.
We have seen many instances in human history, where a briliiant inventor could not get his idea funded or popularized, and the man dies in poverty... only to be appreciated way later.
Corporations may gain fortune off a man's idea, but without the large support of the corporation, there's little chance the man could have elevated his work to such high degree on his own. The concept is benefitial to both parties.

It's easy to say, a record company is "stealing profits" the cretor deserves.
A man write a song that can potentially be a world-wide hit. Is he on his own to get it off the ground then?
Print CDs on his own investment, and try to promote them to each and every retailers?
What if the man is simply an artist, and has no talent in business?
A distributor such as a record company is a necessary entity for his success.
It's all a matter of "how much". How much stake should be in the investment, and how much return each party should recieve.

The whole idea of utopian society where people work hard simply "for the better of humanity", as Gene Roddenberry dreamd, is unfortunately a broken idea.
Our primal motive is for self preservation and prosperity. That buddha-level enlightment is simply not realistic.

I don't deny the partnerships necessary to make ideas happen ... but I don't think you're arguing that the situation isn't currently diseased and unbalanced ... are you? I'm not arguing for the destruction of patent/copyright/trademark, I'm arguing that the system has become sick and needs a rebalancing.

OTOH, I'm entirely against the bogus hypothesis of "intellectual property". Its a term that never existed in law and is an attempt to conflate very different concepts in real property and the three bodies of law in patent/trademark/copyright.

[aohige]

Oh, of course not.
I think the margin of return is skewed, and should be addressed.

I'm just hesitent to go as far as what a lot of people believe, that everything should be public property and shared with no return to the creator. That's what a lot of people are proposing, and only thing that will lead to is destruction of content, and complete halting of progress.

I will go ahead and open a can of worm and say, many use this as an excuse to "justify" their actions.

[Mr Hat and Clogs]

Personally I find the idea of a musician *needing* record companies to be successful these days to be borderline absurd. There are many professional artists these days that go out on their own without a record companies backing, even going so far as to start their own little label (with one or two other bands). This is to say nothing of the impact of the internet. With the ease of sharing stuff these days new artists can start up a site (ie. Facebook) to host their own songs like many indy artists, and rely of word of mouth over the net (and programs like Triple J's: Unearthed, down here in Australia) to spread the word.

Record companies will try and say and promote differently however, since it means less money for them otherwise.



I'm fine with creators getting money, and distributors to an extent as well. However the distributors dislike the internet because it is far to fluid and they don't have the control over their products like they used to. The products people want these days are not physical and these distributors for whatever reason, ignorance maybe, have failed to adapt. Far as I'm concerned, Darwinism should apply to these companies as well. They failed or are in the process of and now they can make way for someone else.

edit: if this doesn't make sense, its because I've been driving all day and I'm le tired.

[Malkuth]

@aohige/anh_minh/vexx: If witnessing a problematic situation and understanding that it leads to a dead end, does not justify taking action, then what does? Divine (or enlightened) intervention? We know where that has lead historically.

Also the concept of intellectual property is rendered in practice useless. It's not a matter of belief, rather one of adaptation and evolution. There are new mediums and lawmakers are funded and by certain interests to fit them in their own old business models. Conceptually this is against the principles of competition and free market, as well as a conservative approach, which like any other of its kind attempts to withhold progress, and promote useless oligarchies.

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.

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.

Live action movies... USA had an amazing underground/independent film scene, almost unknown to its local population and currently crushed by competition.

TL;DR: I can simply not think of a single creative process, that has not degenerated when money became the motivation for work. Limiting copyright/patent to the individual is a feasible and realistic painkiller the current downward spiral, but eventually abolishing these concepts from any productive process will be necessary to evade the inevitable decay they are generating.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Malkuth

@aohige/anh_minh/vexx: If witnessing a problematic situation and understanding that it leads to a dead end, does not justify taking action, then what does? Divine (or enlightened) intervention? We know where that has lead historically.

Not all actions are equal. There's a difference between operating on someone who needs it, and going to town on him with an ax.

Also the concept of intellectual property is rendered in practice useless.

Of course it's not. Pharmaceutical companies? Still around. So are plenty of other industries relying on innovation. And the publishing industry. And god knows what else.

It's not a matter of belief, rather one of adaptation and evolution. There are new mediums and lawmakers are funded and by certain interests to fit them in their own old business models.

Yeah, and some people use knives to commit crimes. You want to get rid of all knives?

Conceptually this is against the principles of competition and free market,

Fuck those. They're means, not ends.

as well as a conservative approach, which like any other of its kind attempts to withhold progress, and promote useless oligarchies.

So the system is sick. That doesn't tell us who's going to fork over the billions of dollars needed for research when there's no hope for a return.

Before copyright, patent, and all that jazz, innovation had the same pace, and was more accessible from the masses.

When was that? When most people had no access to running water? When craftsmen gathered in guilds for the express purpose of keeping their secrets?

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.

And you think making it legal to just copy what they need for nothing is going to make them invest in innovation? If all products are technologically equal, if innovating just means doing your competitors a favor, they'll spend all their budgets on marketing. That's what you want?

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.

Live action movies... USA had an amazing underground/independent film scene, almost unknown to its local population and currently crushed by competition.

As I said, art is iffier. Since I'm easy when it comes to music, I wouldn't suffer much on that front. Movies? Too bad, I like big budget ones with lots of explosions, and amateurs aren't going to do those.

TL;DR: I can simply not think of a single creative process, that has not degenerated when money became the motivation for work. Limiting copyright/patent to the individual is a feasible and realistic painkiller the current downward spiral, but eventually abolishing these concepts from any productive process will be necessary to evade the inevitable decay they are generating.

Begging the question, again, of who's going to fork over the money needed to invest. I don't give a damn about your musical tastes. I don't know good from bad when it comes to music, so I probably wouldn't miss the music industry if it disappeared. But I would miss anime. How many man hours do you think go into a twenty minutes episodes? Just making it, forget about marketing it or doing the accounting or stuff like that. And that's not even going into the material costs, or the real estate...

And technology? Nowadays, you need countless man hours of highly educated people to make a new gizmo. Sure, governments fund a lot of fundamental research, but there's already not enough money for everyone. And you want them to fund the next iPhone, too?

[Malkuth]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Not all actions are equal. There's a difference between operating on someone who needs it, and going to town on him with an ax.

Sometimes reserved approaches are just not enough. Software companies and departments for example have degraded into 90/10 useless leeches to productive personnel, in order to deal with competition. They spend more money to buy the rights to use a technology already ready to deploy, because another company bought the rights when they could do nothing with it.

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Of course it's not. Pharmaceutical companies? Still around. So are plenty of other industries relying on innovation. And the publishing industry. And god knows what else.

Great example... do not produce cheaper medicine (by competing firms) but hide behind legal nonsense and have people dying... great stuff indeed!

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Yeah, and some people use knives to commit crimes. You want to get rid of all knives?

I don't see how this analogy is relevant. None was ever able to stop piracy of overpriced goods.

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Fuck those. They're means, not ends.

So patents and copyrights that you try to defend are ends, not means

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

So the system is sick. That doesn't tell us who's going to fork over the billions of dollars needed for research when there's no hope for a return.

Those millions do not go to the productive personnel, but get recycled into the cogs of this sick machine (lawyers, advertisers, promoters, managers, bankers, investors). 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.

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

When was that? When most people had no access to running water? When craftsmen gathered in guilds for the express purpose of keeping their secrets?

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

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

And you think making it legal to just copy what they need for nothing is going to make them invest in innovation? If all products are technologically equal, if innovating just means doing your competitors a favor, they'll spend all their budgets on marketing. That's what you want?

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 compatition 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.

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

As I said, art is iffier. Since I'm easy when it comes to music, I wouldn't suffer much on that front. Movies? Too bad, I like big budget ones with lots of explosions, and amateurs aren't going to do those.

Another victim to advertisement, power of habit and convenience Try 70s french cinema, with your love for NoitaminA it is definitely more accessible... the rest will follow

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Begging the question, again, of who's going to fork over the money needed to invest. I don't give a damn about your musical tastes. I don't know good from bad when it comes to music, so I probably wouldn't miss the music industry if it disappeared. But I would miss anime. How many man hours do you think go into a twenty minutes episodes? Just making it, forget about marketing it or doing the accounting or stuff like that. And that's not even going into the material costs, or the real estate...

And technology? Nowadays, you need countless man hours of highly educated people to make a new gizmo. Sure, governments fund a lot of fundamental research, but there's already not enough money for everyone. And you want them to fund the next iPhone, too?

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.

[aohige]

Malkuth, your problem with this... fantasy world you envision, is you raise concerns of a problem but offers no solid solutions.
None of your ideas hold any realistic value, and you're simply expecting humanity to be enlightended.

Ain't happenin' bro.

It's like crying about capitalism, but criticize socialism, cry foul of human greed, yet have nothing to offer in exchange.
Complaining is so much easier than actual innovating, and innovation is exactly what the current subject is.

[Malkuth]

Originally Posted by aohige

Malkuth, your problem with this... fantasy world you envision, is you raise concerns of a problem but offers no solid solutions.
None of your ideas hold any realistic value, and you're simply expecting humanity to be enlightended.

Ain't happenin' bro.

Indeed, in my fantasy world iPhones, the internet, reading/writing, running water, etc. don't exist... it's all thanks to corporate patents

And I prefer these fantasies to the alternative of defending a decadent system

[aohige]

Well, that's why we watch Star Trek.

Earth Federation is a utopia that will never be.

But we live in a real world, not in the minds of Roddenberry.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Malkuth

Sometimes reserved approaches are just not enough. Software companies and departments for example have degraded into 90/10 useless leeches to productive personnel, in order to deal with competition. They spend more money to buy the rights to use a technology already ready to deploy, because another company bought the rights when they could do nothing with it.

I'd contest your numbers, but whatever. That's not important.

Software's a strange animal in that it's not only possible but common to make money just by tailoring existing work precisely to the need of a particular client. And in that a lot of the innovation can be done quite cheaply, by hobbyists.

Great example... do not produce cheaper medicine (by competing firms) but hide behind legal nonsense and have people dying... great stuff indeed!

What do you think will happen without patents? Seriously? Why spend millions or billions, when you can just wait for some other sucker to do it and copy him? That means two things can happen:
- no research.
- if and where they can get away with it, companies will just keep their formulas and processes secret.
It's sad that people are dying, but get real: if there was no money in it, almost nobody would get into pharmaceutical research. Nobody would build the expensive machinery that's necessary for it. Nobody would pay for the animals or people new drugs are tested on.

Sure, there'll still be money in drug making. And yes, the prices of some drugs (those that aren't already in the public domain) would plummet. But the actual research? It'd grind to halt.

I don't see how this analogy is relevant. None was ever able to stop piracy of overpriced goods.

I'm saying that a few people misusing patent laws is no reason to throw the whole system away. Reform it, sure. But get rid of it while offering no alternative? No.

So patents and copyrights that you try to defend are ends, not means

No, they're means too. But until and unless you present viable alternative means to those ends - to promote innovation and the sharing of ideas - we're all going to have to put up with them.

Those millions do not go to the productive personnel, but get recycled into the cogs of this sick machine (lawyers, advertisers, promoters, managers, bankers, investors). 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.

Getting rid of patents will only slash the lawyer budget. And, as I said before, shift it to advertisers and promoters. All the other guys? Still necessary, and thus still drawing money from the system.

It will also destroy the major incentive for investing (you know, spend money up front and risk having it not pan out...) on, basically, being the first to make something different. Bragging rights are all very nice, but they don't pay the bills. Especially when the other guy has a bigger advertising budget and can just rewrite history.

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

Great, so we'd potentially still have money for public works. I already acknowledged the role of the government. I also said it can't do everything.

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 compatition 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.

I'm assuming people like to get paid for their work. And that they have bills to pay. Supercomputers or prototype cars or whatever don't build themselves.

Another victim to advertisement, power of habit and convenience Try 70s french cinema, with your love for NoitaminA it is definitely more accessible... the rest will follow

My, aren't we condescending. I know what I like, thank you.

Why was iPhone successful? Because billions of dollars were spent into innovation?

Marketing and not going first.

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.

What you're proposing is to remove the incentives for not being Apple. Begging the question of who'll be left to be ripped off.

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.

As I said, software's a strange animal. But even so, a lot of the tech that makes the Internet as we know it possible required multi-million dollars investment, as does the next generation of the stuff. Harder to make a return on that without patents. It'd probably require, haha, secrecy to get a competitive edge out of research. Which as far as sharing goes, is worse than licensing.

[aohige]

Malkuth, you do realize, BECAUSE the human race is a human race, and not the race of Saints, your proposal will not bring about actual utopia.
Instead, your "ideas" would do nothing but bring us back to the dark ages of authoritarian rule and cast of massive division in standard of living.

You may consider this current era hell, but your alternative would bring true hell back on Earth.

Private innovations will instead be held in secrecy with no laws to protect them.
Research that requires massive amount of R&D will not be funded by private entites, since there will be no return from it, and only the government would have the capability of funding such R&D. The world's private progress will come to a halt, and humanity will delve back into the dark ages of the past.

Some paradise.

[Malkuth]

@aohige: Interesting... you perceive the entirety of human history minus the last century or so as science fiction

Also I don't assume humans to be saints, but also not demons that their only objective in life is to see other humans being miserable, like you do. All corporations are not evil, all governments are not totalitarian, and a lot of humans do not live their lives with the sole objective of acquiring material wealth.

@Ahn_Mihn: First of all, like aohige, you also ignore the fact that technology and innovation thrived before patents and copyright... even without the motivation of money or support of the state.

For the alternative to the current decadence caused by those two ends is to limit both of them to actual people, stop reselling, renting, licensing, etc. After half a century of commercialism, I obviously don't expect every human to act selflessly, but at least it will minimize the need for humans whose only goal is to legally steal and cheat.

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.

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.

[aohige]

No, I don't.
You obviously did not understand what I said, becuase it's quite the opposite.

I'm saying, science fiction, such as STAR TREK (do you even know what that is?) is unrealistic.
Instead, the past human history, is REALITY.

You seriously think we were better off in standard of living centuries ago?
You'd RATHER have those dark ages back? YOU THINK WE LIVED IN UTOPIA?

*mind is boggled*

At least the Bible crazies think Garden of Adam and Eve was in ancient times, not the middle ages. This is worse.

Originally Posted by Malkuth

@Ahn_Mihn: First of all, like aohige, you also ignore the fact that technology and innovation thrived before patents and copyright... even without the motivation of money or support of the state.

False. You simply do not know human history.
You think Romans lived in utopia? That their knowlege was NOT controlled by the states? You think the technologies developed by guilds were ideal? That they shared their knowledge like some kind of merciful saints?
Seriously? You really believe this? That human race were some sort of kind, gentle entities that shared their wealth and knowlege with everyone?

Go study human history, and not some fantasy novels, and come back to us.

[Malkuth]

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.

[Anh_Minh]

What Aohige said.

Originally Posted by Malkuth

as well as the fact you're labeling an exception every contemporary example I brought up;

That's because you only brought up one: software.

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.