Slashdot Mirror

I would like to see actual details. You also realize there are farmers paying to grow their crops, and that coders are working for less than $1 a day?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... , also I remember reading many blog articles by artists detailing how they had trouble to make any profit. Lesser known artists are especially vulnerable because they're in very poor bargaining position and can be easily replaced. Then same practices are slowly extended to more important artists, because doing otherwise would be unfair, no? This exists only due to this nonsensical idea of art as "industry".

Yeah, that's basically to screw people out of royalties by whomever owns the right using company. That's also mostly the fault of those selling the rights, no one else. Get your money up front, be happy.

There are holes all over. You just refuse to see them. That doesn't make them any less present. My position, based on historical evidence is that with no copyright, there are no protections, and everything is a free for all. We've been there. It results in less works available and certainly nothing that has significant costs associated with it.

You failed to conclusively show any holes. And historical precedents either. There's this one book studying (lack of) copyright effects on availability of works: http://www.dklevine.com/genera... . Do you know any others studying same question?

I'm not pushing an idealogical utopia that depends upon people willingly supporting artists just because, and that completely neglects others stealing the results of their creativity so I don't need supporting studies. I have approximately 7000 years of history on my side. Outside the last 200 or so with active copyright, creative works were few and far between, and mostly made to please someone that wanted a specific thing. Charts, maps, books, music - all were relatively poor in comparison to what came after copyright. We can also see the results of your particular track on sites like YouTube and those served by the Creative Commons. While the creators of one hope to be discovered while the other appears to do it purely out of their own nobility, not much of worth has come from either.

But how would you actually convince lawmakers to ease copyright excesses without having abolition as a fallback solution rather than status quo? So far extending copyright terms were seen by them as safer options.

It's not lawmakers that should lead it here, but the courts. The SC specifically should throw out the current law as unconstitutional, that they haven't shows either that they have a different interpretation than either of us and we haven't made a sufficient legal challenge to successfully contest the law, or that potentially they're at least partially corrupt. I would have wavered on the second suggestion except for the last 20 years have shown me that at least 1 group only cares about a small set of goals, laws be damned.

I would like to see actual details. You also realize there are farmers paying to grow their crops, and that coders are working for less than $1 a day?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... , also I remember reading many blog articles by artists detailing how they had trouble to make any profit. Lesser known artists are especially vulnerable because they're in very poor bargaining position and can be easily replaced. Then same practices are slowly extended to more important artists, because doing otherwise would be unfair, no? This exists only due to this nonsensical idea of art as "industry".

There are holes all over. You just refuse to see them. That doesn't make them any less present. My position, based on historical evidence is that with no copyright, there are no protections, and everything is a free for all. We've been there. It results in less works available and certainly nothing that has significant costs associated with it.

You failed to conclusively show any holes. And historical precedents either. There's this one book studying (lack of) copyright effects on availability of works: http://www.dklevine.com/genera... . Do you know any others studying same question?

I don't care about whether I am labeled an enemy of authors. It is irrelevant and nothing more than a smear campaign catering to a specific special interest group. I am concerned about constitutionality and the intent of the clause in the Constitution. That clause was not written to promote the welfare of authors et al, but to promote the progress of science and the useful arts. And don't begin by citing SC decisions over time that slowly warped the original intent, as the SC has been provably wrong in the past by their own contradictory rulings and nothing prevents them from reversing course on copyright and returning some semblance of constitutional intent to copyright law.

But how would you actually convince lawmakers to ease copyright excesses without having abolition as a fallback solution rather than status quo? So far extending copyright terms were seen by them as safer options.

Also be aware of the attempts to turn computers into locked-down content rental/consumption devices. Support open hardware and software platforms where available, if you want to continue to own your own computing devices and software. The idea of ownership doesn't have to give way to rental, but too many people are ignorant and willingly chaining themselves within the walled gardens of large corporations. These entities desire to rent all works in perpetuity, and will continue to strip your rights until none remain. If you haven't already, please spend a few minutes to absorb The Right to Read.

We have choices. Support creators that use a donation model, or at least sell their works in DRM-free formats. Paying for works that strip or violate your rights should be avoided if possible. Violating copyright is the moral option in these cases, or avoiding such works entirely. Publisher's including Disney have effectively stolen the public domain, and people should resist, or it will only get much worse. Copyright should be reformed or preferably abolished, as "intellectual property" is a highly regressive concept. See Everything Is a Remix and Against Intellectual Monopoly.

Clearly IP laws are needed and useful.

That's debatable.

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

But here's the question I have never, not even once, seen a patent advocate address: where is the evidence that patents actually promote innovation (i.e., that they cause a net increase in inventions, discoveries, etc.)? Indeed, there are some compelling arguments being made against patents and other forms of intellectual property, like Boldrin and Levine's Against Intellectual Monopoly, mentioned previously on Slashdot. Should we not demand that such a costly and disruptive regime as the patent system be supported by hard evidence that it actually does what it's intended to do?

It is common to argue that intellectual property in the form of copyright and patent is necessary for the innovation and creation of ideas and inventions such as machines, drugs, computer software, books, music, literature and movies. In fact intellectual property is a government grant of a costly and dangerous private monopoly over ideas. We show through theory and example that intellectual monopoly is not necessary for innovation and as a practical matter is damaging to growth, prosperity and liberty.

Don't worry, all the USA has to do is convince the entire world that its ridiculous imaginary property laws give americans the right to control all research. Problem solved.

Remember, I"P" acitively hinders innovation.

http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm

The USA's response to date of ever more draconian copyright and patent laws is a "beatings will continue until morale improves" solution.

Nothing less is satisfactory. Copyright and patent monopolies are a cancer growing in western civilisation. We need to excise them before it's too late.

• http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm
• http://mises.org/against.pdf
• http://piratpartiet.se/international

> People shoplift. Does this mean that we should abolish our current system of commerce?
1. Apples and Oranges. You are comparing with the act of physical removing an object preventing another person from using that resource, vs the act of copying something that allows BOTH people to enjoy the use of that resource.
2. Economy/Commerce is nethanderal thinking -- literally buying into the false belief that "There is Never Enough." Its time to end archaic thinking.

> and unlike the other forms of intellectual property
1. Intellectual Property, is neither intellectual, nor property
See:
If Intellectual Property Is Neither Intellectual, Nor Property, What Is It?
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080306/003240458.shtml
and
Against Intellectual Monopoly
http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm

2. The fact that is is illegal to share a number is insane. The fact that a number can be used to _represent_ audio, video, text, etc. created by someone who doesn't want others to share that number is irrelevant. The basis of civilization is FOUNDED upon the fact that people SHARE.

3. Those who charge for "I.P." are doing it out of greed. It is time the human race grows up, and realizes there is more to life then money -- more then just getting, but giving.

Actually, copyright doesn't even do that. See Boldrin & Levine's "Against Intellectual Monopoly".

Why shouldn't we abolish IP entirely? The science says it's a net harm to society, and history says we get on fine without it.

http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/against.htm

So the Treo was a dumbphone? I had that before Apple's iPhone. I had a SonyErricson smart phone before the iPhone. The Sony phone had pretty good speech recognition, too. The Android phone has been a hotbed of innovation without any patent protection and they executed the product rather well with plenty of money behind it.

You seem to be making a giant assumption about whether or not a company would execute on the idea of a smart phone without patents. There is no conclusive evidence that innovation would fail to occur absent patents. Near as I can tell, most of the innovation we have witnessed so far has been in spite of patents. For some interesting documentation on this point, check out "Against Intellectual Monopoly", by Boldrin and Levine.

http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/against.htm

And no, I'm not nuts. I simply hold a viewpoint you disagree with.

Oh rubbish. The author made HIS copy, not all copies. Only copies exist. Only copies are physical things. If you don't want something copied further, don't fucking release it. Copyight monopoly is a market-destroying privilege, not a right.

http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm

Your understanding of value is also primitive. Things don't have one value, value is subjective.

http://mises.org/austecon/chap4.asp

Book related.

That's an argument for hardware not to be patentable, not for software to be patentable. As an engineer turned programmer, I say neither should be patentable. Patent monopolies steal from us all. It's time to abolish the whole patent system, and fuck you you fascist theiving bastard if you disagree.

http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm

There are very though and well supported analysises that contradict your assertion if you care to look for them (Against Intellectual Monopoly) http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/against.htm is one

95% of rents for 95% of the works are extracted within the first 5 years. Also the vast majority of authors don't see a penny for their work unless sponsored by the publisher (and only the mega-authors are). Royalties are first applied to cover production setup costs. Most publishers require authors to transfer copyright to them, which prevents the authors from making derivatives of their own works without permission. In addition there are alternative models for such authors. If anyone can copy the work the value of the first goes up considerably and the main competition comes from being able to publish first. In addition there are alternative publishing and revenue models that have been successfully used. One such alternative is the maker endorsed mark

Lastly the historical examples do not show that literature languished without copyrights. At the very least copyright should be reduced to a term less than ten years.

Why would anybody be against copyright?

In Against Intellectual Monopoly, economists Michele Boldrin and David Levine make a case against copyrights. Read it here.

Patients can and do support innovation.

No, they don't.

At least, that's what the evidence seems to say. Here's some reading on the matter:

http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/against.htm

Exactly how much research into the subject have you done to achieve a little bit of a balanced perspective?

I'm guessing none because the only studies I've seen have pointed in the direction that medical patents do not encourage innovation or even a strong industry. Also, you're assuming that competition is a lesser motivator than profits.

Here's one: http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstnew.htm

A far better solution to copyright violations: abolish copyright entirely.

Look, everyone here can make up plenty of reasons for why they deserve free content, but in a capitalist economy I have yet to hear a single good one.

Here.

Short version: Copyright is the intellectual monopoly. Multiple studies failed to produce even as much as a shred of evidence that copyright increases creativity. On the contrary, it is routinely being used as an anti-competitive device, as the means to forbid an improved version of an idea, as a censorship tool. If the market was truly free and competitive, the price of those copies would be orders of magnitude smaller, while recouping the cost of producing the first copy would still be quite possible. These are compelling economic and moral reasons to resist the intellectual monopoly, which basically means (1) boycotting their outlets and (2) ignoring an unjust and largely unenforceable law.

Ever tried Jarnal?

It feels kludgy, I'll admit, but it does get the job done.

Note, you probably want to know how to get rid of the lined paper. Intuitively enough, it is under Format, Paper and Background (you'd probably have found it without my help). Change "Lined" to "Plain" and apply to all pages.

Note also, you probably want to know how to open a PDF to annotate it. This one isn't intuitive at all, but you have to go to File, Open Background. (The PDF is opened as a background image. Unfortunately this means you cannot edit, only annotate.)

To save, either Export to PDF or Print as PDF – I'm entirely clueless as to whether there is any difference between the two or why there are two options to do the same thing.

As a bonus, you can also download the zip, unzip to a flash drive, and run it portably.

we should note that patents on solid, useful technologies are valid and are vital to spurring innovation.

seems like a contentious idea stated as a fact. I recomend reading this book which is freely downloadable, since it may help you see the other side of the "usefulness of patents". Although I do agree sometimes patents are useful, such as in the pharmaceutical industry, where formulae must be published and bringing the product to market is a phenomenally large investment, I do not think your blanket assertion is valid.

I agree with your statements on software, but I disagree with your statements concerning innovation in health care without patents. Here is a case in point: China. For 5,000 years, they developed a highly success philosophy of medicine that is still practiced today, without patents. We don't see them seeking patents on plants or molecules to support their industry (or least we didn't until they joined the WTO). And besides, the statement "patents encourage innovation" is *still* an assumption. There are simply no studies that prove that patents are a net benefit to society.

On the other hand, it might be that the facilities and the investment required for innovation in medicine should be paid for by the government and treated like a utility. The really smart people will still get paid, but not like the patent lottery that we have now. One question I never see asked is this: when drug companies patent medicine and accept the benefits, are they willing to lose the patent if the medicine kills people? I know, it seems to be a bit of a pedantic question. But all too often, I see corporations reaching for the benefits but being unwilling to accept the liabilities.

And there is one last point I'd like to offer for consideration: patents are essentially government intervention in the markets. A medicine for which the marginal cost of manufacture is $4, is sold for $1000. This is partly due to the cost of testing required to get the drug approved. This is also a part of the rent-seeking behavior of patentees. Once a drug is patented, we're treated to an endless medley of melancholy drug commercials, ruthless marketing of the same drug to doctors, and lawsuits. I would like to see the Bayh-Dole Act repealed and have government research put into the public domain. If private entities want patent royalties, they can do it with their own money.

I can't say that I know the answer, but what we're doing isn't working too well. I'd like to see how it works without patents at all.

I totally agree with your post, but I thought it was worth mentioning the following quote from the article:

David Berg, president of American Crystal Sugar Company, the nationâ(TM)s largest sugar beet processor, said food companies had accepted sugar from the biotech beets. âoeTheyâ(TM)ve been a big nonevent in terms of customer acceptance,â he said.

A "nonevent", eh? I bet there would most certainly be an "event" if there were labels on the food.

This is just one more reason to abolish the patent system. Rent-seeking is out of control, particularly with respect to the desire for a captured market. Sure, let's get rid of software patents and gene patents and business method patents. Let's see how long that will last. As long as there is a patent system, incumbents will always seek more protection. Best to blast it out completely, at the roots.

Ok, I know that was more than you asked for, but I just needed to vent.

Proceed as you were. :)

If i4i wins the appeal, the court can make Microsoft pay for the unlicensed use of the patent. This way the patent still does what patents are supposed to do in most general terms: reward the inventor for sharing his inventor with the public. If Microsoft wins, i4i might not be able to reimburse them for lost sales.

This said, I think software patents are counterproductive and should be abolished. And maybe patents in general. For an interesting e-book on this topic, see http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/against.htm

But it still would be fun to see Microsoft's cash cow whacked with the patent hammer. Especially after their petty lawsuit against TomTom.

Get real.

If i4i wins the appeal, the court can make Microsoft pay for the unlicensed use of the patent. This way the patent still does what patents are supposed to do in most general terms: reward the inventor for sharing his inventor with the public. If Microsoft wins, i4i might not be able to reimburse them for lost sales.

This said, I think software patents are counterproductive and should be abolished. And maybe patents in general. For an interesting e-book on this topic, see http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/against.htm

But it still would be fun to see Microsoft's cash cow whacked with the patent hammer. Especially after their petty lawsuit against TomTom.

To begin with, you can always make money on your idea with first mover advantage. What most patentees want is to have residual income from their work, you know, like multilevel marketing. In other words, they should be able to sit back, relax and watch the checks roll in. Patents have a strong tendency to replace R & D efforts, especially in large organizations (see Bessen and Hunt, 2004).

The problems with patents are many, but mainly attributable to the fact that human insecurity and greed get in the way. The book, "Against Intellectual Monopoly" by Michelle Boldrin and David Levine, details an incredibly unflattering history of our many attempts to get it right with both patents and copyrights. And Thomas Jefferson, one of the framers of our Constitution, had serious reservations about patents, almost 200 years ago. His observations still hold true to this day.

The same problems seen then, are seen now. No one can say for sure what is patentable. Lawyers will always write claims so broad it takes a court to figure it out. And patentees will always seek stronger enforcement without providing a clear way to give notice to everyone that they own a particular idea. Worse, they devise submarine patents to let others work until there is enough money to sue for. The only cure is to remove patents altogether and watch innovation take off (inventors would rather tinker than to search for patents). As far as I can tell, the notion that "patents encourage innovation" is an assumption made by economists and nothing more. There are no studies that show conclusively, that patents actually encourage innovation. None.

The fugitive fermentations of a brain belong to no one and are shared by all once divulged, for their inspirations come from all of us. Patentees need to read up on the word Ubuntu, which means I am me because of all of you. And considering the size and quantity of problems facing the human race, cooperation and collaboration is a lot more important than claiming the prize while our Earth dies.

So there.

If you're on the fence as to the usefulness of patents to society, this book (pdf) will probably push you off the fence.
Patents may have been conceived as a way to increase innovation, but they have become a way to consolidate wealth to a few people at the expense of the public. And ultimately that is why there is such strong support for them: the rich want to stay rich. And as long as the rich control the laws instead of science, reason and public interest patents are not going anywhere...

This research doesn't seem to agree with your hypothesis: (pdf warning)

Well I'll be damned if it isn't Ayn Rand. Didn't anyone ever tell you that sex and capitalism don't mix?
First mover advantage? Not a chance. Read about it here.
Patent thickets? Just innovate around it. And read about it here.
Socialized medicine? A phrase coined by a PR group working for the AMA. Hear the full story. Health care is every man for himself here in the US. And don't forget the cost of patents in all health care innovations, including the time spent searching for patent databases, litigation and patent prosecution. I guess patenting genes is okay if you own the patent.

Oh, wait. You mean to say that patent monopolies have a place in a free market? Funny how conservatives love monopolies if they are the beneficiaries.

Copyright itself is theft from the public domain. So we steal back because we don't have the big monies to lobby for the right thing -- ABOLISH COPYRIGHT.

Most studies I've seen show that Intellectual Property tends to slow down the economy, innovation and artistic expression. Do musicians make music for the money or the sheer joy of it? Do inventors create an invention for the riches promised in the patent lottery? Or do they just like to tinker? Doesn't it seem like more than a coincidence that a very large economic downturn occurred after a period of serious intellectual property rights legislation that increases the reach of those rights?

Here's a book that provides statistical, historical and anecdotal evidence of the harms of IP. If you can find a study that shows that IP is good for the economy, I'd love to read it. Good luck.

if they get to complete freedom to pirate everything then they've taken it too far the other way

Why?

A good book to read on copyrights and other IP related matters would be Boldrin and Levine's Against Intellectual Monopoly.

Is there somewhere I can download that book for free?

Yes

You might enjoy reading this, too. BTW, if you can recommend another book along the same lines, I'm interested in reading it.

I'd suggest you also look at jarnal – a free java-based PDF annotation tool.

It's a bit kludgy, but once you know its two main idiosyncrasies it gets the job done:

• get rid of the lined paper background: Format - Paper and Background (change from lined to plain)
• Open the PDF to annotate: File - Open Background (oddly you can't just "open" a PDF, you must open it as a background)

To mark up PDFs, I've used Jarnal. I'll readily admit, however, that it's clunky and not very user-friendly.

If you want to use it, there are 2 things I'd point out:

(1) first, Format - Paper and Background, change the paper from the default "lined" to "plain"
(2) to annotate a PDF, you have to File - Open Background then import the PDF as a background image

As I said, fairly non-user-friendly, but it does get the job done after that.

To get back to a PDF after you've annotated, you have to File - Export - Export to PDF, but that's fairly intuitive I thought (similar to the usual Print to PDF that I'm used to from other applications).

What to do with copyright? GET RID OF IT. Seriously.

According to the book "Against Intellectual Monopoly", p1, ch.1, "During the period of Watt's patents the U.K. added about 750 horsepower of steam engines per year. In the thirty years following Watt's patents, additional horsepower was added at a rate of more than 4,000 per year. Moreover, the fuel efficiency of steam engines changed little during the period of Watt's patent; while between 1810 and 1835 it is estimated to have increased by a factor of five." (emphasis mine)

The book makes reference to "Capital and Steam Power", by John Lord, London, 1923, and says that, "The history of the firm of Boulton & Watt is interesting for another reason. From 1775 to 1800 they possessed a monopoly of steam-engine construction, and, therefore, their output comprises practically all the engines that were erected in Great Britain before the year 1800." Lord provides detailed records as to the production of the steam engines in England during that time.

During the time of their monopoly, there couldn't have been that much innovation and production given the incredible burst in output following the expiration of the patents. In fact, other inventors were held back or holding back until the patents expired, see for example, the story of John Hornblower.

I agree with you that Watt didn't invent the steam engine, an error on the part of the education I received. However, I disagree that his contributions to the advancement to the steam engine were anywhere as great as you make them out to be. And I still maintain that he used his patents to hold down the competition and thus, innovation.

Actually, most countries didn't have patents in the current form before the late 18th/early 19th century. And for many industries patenting is not much older than the average /. poster (e.g. pharmacy, software, business methods).

Uh, no. Most industrialized countries had patents in the early 17th century. You can certainly hedge and say that most countries overall didn't have patents. For instance, I'm sure the tiny island nation of Tuvalu doesn't yet have patents. And Somali isn't yet a signatory to the PCT.
But since this is the context of "the craft renaissance" that the GP mentioned, then we're clearly talking about Europe and the Mediterranean countries and their respective colonies.

As for the other things you mention - patents on pharmaceuticals have been around for centuries, long before it became a big industry. Patents on genetic engineering, much more recently, but then, it wasn't even conceived of. Patents on business methods are more recent, as is software. But neither of those have anything to do with the hypothetical "patent-free renaissance of the craft inventor" the GP claimed existed at one point in history.

And a lot of innovation in the last 500 years was either in "young industries" that were not covered by current patent laws or despite patents. One good example is software industry.

"A lot of innovation in the last 500 years... One good example is the software industry." Uh... You do realize that software has only been around for a tenth of that time, right? That's equivalent to saying "a lot of advances in human civilization have occurred in the last 10 million years."

Another is the steam engine, which hardly made any progress while it Watt had his patent/monopoly, but made huge jumps shortly after.

Huge jumps were made concurrently, actually. Many others were designing around the steam engine, and many spur industries were spawned. There was this whole event - perhaps you've heard of it? The "industrial revolution"?

If patents are soo good for an industry, where are all the amazing new software products developed since the USPTO started giving out software patents? All I see is a big mine field and "innovations" like the one-click-patent.

Yeah, gosh, where are those amazing new software products? Anyways, if you'll excuse me, I've got to add some new variety to Pandora's neural net, double-check my auctions in WoW, research some stock trades through 3D market and industry maps, and set up playback of a movie from Netflix over an accelerated, TCP-multiplexed streaming connection to my AppleTV via 802.11n. Sure is a shame we're still stuck on these TRS-80 computers, since no one is willing to innovate ever since the PTO started issuing software patents.

Reading tip: http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/against.htm

Reality tip: Look at the box in front of you that you're typing this "where are all the amazing new software products" crap on.

He did not hold back progress, he made that progress available to anybody who paid for it and more than 500 factories and mines had his engines by the time his patents expired.

How about actually reading the source linked in the post you reply to? And maybe even the sources listed in that source? Then you would know that Watt indeed hindered progress (see Hornblower for an example). And that the progress in those 17 years of his patents on the steam engine was rather low compared to that in the next few years.

Sorry, but Watt was not the hero many people believe he was. Neither was Edison.

He also ended up a wealthy man, so the litigation is irrelevant.

I don't quite see the logical connection between "one person got rich on his patents" and "patents are good for society and increase innovation". Maybe you can enlighten me?

Actually, most countries didn't have patents in the current form before the late 18th/early 19th century. And for many industries patenting is not much older than the average /. poster (e.g. pharmacy, software, business methods).

And a lot of innovation in the last 500 years was either in "young industries" that were not covered by current patent laws or despite patents. One good example is software industry. Another is the steam engine, which hardly made any progress while it Watt had his patent/monopoly, but made huge jumps shortly after.

If patents are soo good for an industry, where are all the amazing new software products developed since the USPTO started giving out software patents? All I see is a big mine field and "innovations" like the one-click-patent.

Reading tip: http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/against.htm

It's actually pretty well documented that patents retard progress. The extent of retardation depends on which studies you read. And a not so familiar example is James Watt. I say he was not so familiar because when I went to high school, he was painted as the hero who started the industrial revolution. What they didn't tell me in school was that Watt pretty much spent the entire 17 year life of the patent in litigation. Real advances in the steam engine weren't introduced until after the patent expired.

Given what I know now, I can't see how patents can be justified in a free market economy. It's government protection no matter how you slice it. Even free market Thomas Jefferson referred to patents as an "embarrassment".

I should also point out that another book by the same author is not free ( http://www.dklevine.com/papers/contents.htm ) so I take the first sentence of my previous reply back: he is a hypocrite as well.

Try the Against Monopoly website. I think technical discussions concerning circumvention are immediately useful, but the long term goal should be to have public discourse on the merits of the copyright system. It's clear from stories like these that the public benefits of a copyright system are significantly outweighed by their costs. The Against Monopoly website has, for me anyway, painted the clearest picture of what is so wrong with IP laws.

You wanted to know how artists are supposed to support themselves without copyrights? Consider that the "First Mover" advantage can be a serious money maker, even without copyright protection. Take the 9/11 Commission report. Before publication, several publishing houses angled for exclusive rights to be the *first* printer and distributor of the book. The text of the report is not copyrighted, yet someone could see the profits waiting for them as the first printer of the report.

To put it entirely differently, copyrights and patents create a tendency for artists, inventors and the corporations that support them, to sit on their laurels instead of finding ways to stay ahead of the pack with innovation. For a book that provides a lucid description of what life could be like without IP, check out "Against Intellectual Monopoly." It's an up to date analysis of how artists and inventors can still make money without intellectual property rights. I highly recommend it for anyone looking for a way to entertain debate on this issue.

Oh, did I mention that the book is free to download?

Simple solution: abolish copyright.

I know that not paying someone for their work is wrong,

that's a loaded statement that presupposes that if you take a copy of a song that you are not "paying them for their work". If you believe this -- truly believe this -- then everything else does not matter as the RIAA et.al has won.
I personally do not believe this to be true and reject what you are saying. It is only the recording industry (not the music industry) that is pushing your belief.

but I see your 'pain' is much deeper as I read the rest of what you wrote. I debated deleting it all and just (maybe) writing TROLL ...
and then I see more loaded statements like

Artists are now forced to take time out of doing what they want to do

not sure what you really meant here, but shouldn't an artist want for their works to be performed? ...and I'm back to writing TROLL ...
and then I get

we're helping artists by not paying them for their work.

so we're up to strawmen ... I guess that's a just a troll in clothes that chafe....so I'm back to writing TROLL

And the coup-de-grace ? tying the GPL into this.
The GPL is about subverting copyright. Subverting. Read it again. Without Intellectual Monopolies like copyright there never would have need for the GPL.
At this point I'm not responding in hopes of killing the troll, but simply to ensure that those who read the troll are given some real facts about this.

And there are those forming their opinions on this matter. I spent a little more than 2 years of intensive study forming my opinion - from squarely for copyrights to squarely against it and advocating copyright abolition; see The Battle for Ant Hill. "Against Intellectual Monopoly" by Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine goes through much of the arguments behind abolishing copyright.

Here's another interesting place for history and current events: http://www.againstmonopoly.org/. I also highly recommend the books on their website, in particular, "Against Intellectual Monopoly".

Thanks for the links.