News Stories

[synaesthetic]

Originally Posted by Malkuth

Both would be fine if they were not resalable, inheritable, etc. In other words, if someone would profit financially, it should be the creator/invetor/etc. not an array of leeches who inflate prices and hide behind protectionist laws that harm the masses.

This. Patents shouldn't be transferable, and they should not belong to corporations, but to the people who did the work.

Secondly, software patents should not exist. Copyright protection is sufficient for software. Patents do nothing in this area but hinder innovation and progress.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by ganbaru

Edit: The truth about the Fast and Furious scandal
http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.co...furious-truth/

And who voted thoses weak laws...

*My comments are directed at Fortune/CNN, not you ganbaru, just clarifying. *

I've followed this story since Bushie Jr. started this crap with his "Operations Wide Receiver and GunWalker."
The ATF has been selling guns to Mexican gangs supposedly to "track" them since Bush Jr. authorized them to do so.
The difference between the Bush operations and Obama's is that under Obama ATF did the selling instead of just monitoring.
So for them to now say they were still only monitoring gun transfers to smugglers is a straight up lie on their part and it's because they've gotten caught doing something illegal.
Now they need the media to help bail them out again just like with what happened when the ATF got caught at the "good Ol boy" roundup in the 1990s handing out "Nigger Hunting Licenses."
The DOJ ran a puff piece to discredit the witnesses, and cover up the misconduct of the ATF.
They're a prohibition era agency that has been trying to justify its existence for over 90 years. It's high time they are abolished just like the prohibition they were created to enforce.

From the article:

A Fortune investigation reveals that the ATF never intentionally allowed guns to fall into the hands of Mexican drug cartels. How the world came to believe just the opposite is a tale of rivalry, murder, and political bloodlust.

Wow, that's quite the propaganda piece of bullshit.
The CBS piece on this issue in November of 2011 solidified the fact that ATF was selling guns to Mexican drug cartels, it is clear the Fortune/CNN piece is a feeble attempt at rewriting the truth.

From the CBS article:
Holder denounced the tactics used in the operation, telling senators, “This operation was flawed in its concept and flawed in its execution. And unfortunately, we will feel the effects for years to come, as guns that were lost during this operation continue to show up at crime scenes, both here and in Mexico. This should never have happened, and it must never happen again.”

Now that it looks like Holder's ass may go into a sling, and the ATF is in trouble, it's time to do damage control.

Also, I might add that Eric Holder is not solely responsible here. Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales also knew about this kind of ATF operation and did nothing to curb what was clearly a very bad idea.

Now we have Republicans blaming Democrats for a problem started by Bush and the Democrats lying about it because they modified it and made the situation worse.
The corrupt mindset required to pull this kind of nonsense off and then try and cover it up with lies just boggles the mind.

[mangamuscle]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Also, I might add that Eric Holder is not solely responsible here. Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales also knew about this kind of ATF operation and did nothing to curb what was clearly a very bad idea.

I would like to believe this was just a bad idea, because bad ideas die quickly and are forgotten. This stunt went on for YEARS. The only reason I can find is that the USA goverment is trying to destabilize the Mexican goverment. I even recall Anderson Cooper from CNN calling the drug smuglers "insurgents", I was like, WTF, isn't it obvious this is about dirty money and NOT about political uprising? If the bush administration went to war in iraq for control of oil (and Romney would no doubt declare war on Iran ASAP) I see no reason they would not try to wreck another democracy to later on "save them" by invading. The sad part is that if Obama wasn't all talk he would have stopped the ATF, but he is like some unholy appendage of bush jr that keeps doing the same things.

[Malkuth]

After yesterdays preparatory meeting between Merkel and Holland for the EU summit...



Notice the German councilor's expression when the French president talks about growth and against austerity.

Who among other things, raised the minimum national wage by 2%

[mangamuscle]

Originally Posted by Malkuth

After yesterdays preparatory meeting between Merkel and Holland for the EU summit...

You forgot to add a theme song

[Vexx]

Ah... French and German for the hilarity ala Monty Python.

[aohige]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Patents are more or less fine (if they are only like 17 years). Copyright for 75 is likely excessive.

I'd say 15-20 years is fair.
For it to go on for three generations is ludiculous.

[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.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by AnimeFan188

Uncle Sam Wants You! … to Combat Online Piracy:

"The Obama administration is apparently out of ideas on how to protect Big Content
from online piracy. So now it’s asking for your help.

Victoria Espinel, the nation’s copyright czar, reached out to Wired late Monday to
explain that Uncle Sam is seeking the public’s input for ideas on how to combat
intellectual property theft."

See:

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/201...le-sam-piracy/

My idea.... go back to the original length for copyright duration and the movement of ideas into the public domain. Stop using the words "intellectual property" and "intellectual property theft" -- neither have any meaning when examined critically.

[mangamuscle]

Originally Posted by Vexx

My idea.... go back to the original length for copyright duration and the movement of ideas into the public domain. Stop using the words "intellectual property" and "intellectual property theft" -- neither have any meaning when examined critically.

Sadly Disney would walk again on earth (as a zombie must likely) before such legislation would pass, the system MUST break down for legislators to pick the pieces and legislate something that really works.

[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.

[MrTerrorist]

Megaupload raid warrant 'invalid', New Zealand judge says

[ganbaru]

Shenzhen's "mini-Hong Kong" to test China's financial ambitions
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...85Q0Z520120627

[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.