Slashdot Mirror
FTC and JD Holding Hearings on IP
hondo77 writes "The U.S. Federal Trade Commission and the Justice Department are holding hearings on intellectual property laws over the next few weeks (the first one was Feb 6). They're looking at the balance between IP rights and the free market."
I'd tend to agree on abolishing many of the copyrights, IP, etc... on the internet, but the fact still remains that someone somewhere must be paid for something to be developed or innovated and that particular person/company will want people to know and maybe even pay for something that has taken them so much time to develop. Think about the music industry, if someone said, OK you can copy the music as much as you like then the recording industry would simply stop releasing music, then there would be nothing to copy! maybe im on completely the wrong track here, but the way id understand this particular article is that everything should be free, I just dont know if that could be, as i said, someone somewhere has to foot the bill to pay someones wages to develop whatever is being trade marked.
http://www.webhostingtalk.com
Make it idiot proof and someone will make a better idiot.
And the great masses of slashdotters arose and took the first step upon the great march to their congressmen, then sat down again panting from exertion.
I've heard "Write to your congressman!" too many times on here. Firstly I'm not even a USian so what congressman over there is going to give a damn for hat I've got to say? there's some, I dunno, 50,000 users on slashdot? even if every single one wrote to their congressman... well, they might notice the issue only to have their local RIAA "Public Funding Officer" hand them a wad of fifties and tell em to piss off.
If the great masses don't even know or care about this you don't have a hope. A better strategy would be to launch a mass campaign against every person in power who you dislike. Dig up all the records of who's funding who, and crosscheck it against what libery-violating statutes those people voted for. Boil it down to a level that can incense and anger the common voter; going after IP law is like trying to take the Reichstag when you're retreating from Normandy. Pull out the corruption and corporate puppeteering of the political process and make the people in power damn sure that this sort of thing is not going to be good for them, then worry about IP law, for now be content with the hope that some landmark ruling may overturn the DMCA.
But then, there's hardly any hope of that happening, so why even bother telling people to write to their congressman? *sigh* and I can't exactly talk as if I'm on high ground either; I live in the UK and no doubt we're the next in line to be bent over and rammed until we look like the goatse.cx guy =/
Total agreement here, even with the Enron fartcloud envolping Washington, after that "Axis of evil" comment by Bush, I'm convinced the cherry is off the "war on terrorism" victory and W. is back to halfwit status. Particularly with the extremely soft stance with regard to Microsoft and the DoJ and M$ wanting to get the whole thing wrapped up fast so they can get back into the bedroom and continue screwing people. The current administration is a bunch of coldwarriors, corporate whores and dingbats, Colin Powell the notable exception, but tainted by association, nonetheless. If anything comes out of this it's probably the FTC and DoJ looking for any wrangling room left over Intellectual Property that they can lock up in favor of the GOP's big campaign donors.
While you're writing to your reps, tell them to vote for the campaign finance reform act to bring an end to the charade of people you've never heard of having $70 million before a presidential campaign even gets started.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Take a good look around what happens when you are a fan and make a fansite, the way IP attorneys gorge themselves encouraging the MPAA and RIAA in their folly of copy protection, or Rambus tried to destroy inexpensive fast memory with an excessive tariff on DDR SDRAM license and using it to get their own RDRAM more accepted.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
...that IP rights are supposed to be balanced with "free market" (what I consider to be a political doctrine on the border of being a religious belief) and not consumer protection, freedom of expression, advance of technology, science and human thought, or other real things that are threatened by overbroad patents and other kinds IP abuse.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
James Rogan, director of the U.S. patent office:
> "The entry of patent law into these areas was
> greeted with predictions of disaster,"
> said "Yet the United States is the
> international leader in [software] and other
> technological areas."
The U.S. is the richest nation in the world. It was the international leader in software and other technological areas long before software patents reared their ugly head. But Mr. Rogan sounds surprised...
"How can this be? The U.S. has passed laws that allow us to arrest foreign programmers whose code we dislike and throw them in jail! We put export restrictions on encryption software! We grant patents on algorithms that are then included in ISO standards! We allow corporations to rip off huge quantities of code and call it "the Windows (R) network stack", and give them laws to allow the prosecution of anyone who makes unauthorised copies of it! How come we're the world leader?"
> "A return by competition regulators to viewing
> IP rights with a 1970s-era suspicion would risk
> interfering with these market-based incentives
> to innovate."
Market-based incentives to innovate are only incentives to the people involved in the marketing. You can't persuade an inventor to "invent more" by offering cash. You can only persuade firms to invest more in R&D, which isn't quite the same. Just as musical people would write and perform music whether or not they ever had a chance of becoming millionaires, so creative people would continue to create and invent. This is particularly true of software, where the cost of distribution is virtually nil. The deal is - money is (or should be) the means of exchange, not an end in itself.
The crunch comes with patents on drugs, where the initial investment is so large. There will never be (if you like to think in these terms) a medical-research Linus Torvalds to play the role of nemesis to the evil Glaxo-Smithkline, because you need more than a couple of PCs and some skill to cure cancer. I think this is a much more interesting and important area, and one that's a lot less easy to solve in the long run.
I dunno.
These sigs are more interesting tha
I'll reply to this in reverse order, if you don't mind.
Whens it going to end? Capitalism is fine, but too much of anything is bad. When will people figure out, too much capitalism, too much competition, and not enough sharing is bad? Yes moderate competition fuels innovation, too much competition however makes the enviornment so competitive that no one can innovate.
Care to explain how does an extremely competitive environment make innovation impossible?
After all, an extremely competitive environment implies cut-throat competition where any company can take over the market at any time with a new product. That tends to favor innovation.
I can think of restriction of innovation when some players in the market have an enormous power-base to strangle innovative competitors. But that, by definition, is not a competitive environment.
Criminals and organized crime taking advantage of capitalism, people being killed for a buck, and wars being faught over money issues.
Wars are fought over power issues. They have always been, they will always be, as long as each nation represents an interest opposed to the other one and sufficient power is at stake.
In capitalism money is power. In other systems, the exchange unit is something else. The principle of war is not worsened by capitalism. Rather, capitalism has discouraged war since its conception because trade favors peaceful countries, and capitalism promotes more efficient ways to obtain resources than robbing it from someone else.
War has been fought for territory, plantations, gold, slaves, or to eliminate a potential threat.
Have you read your history lately?
Government controlled by companies like Enron who take advantage of the flaws in the system.
The government was not controlled by Enron just because it had money (although it helped). It was controlled by Enron because it was closely tied to the presidential clique by personal connections.
We could say the same about socialism being taken too far, communism being taken too far, monarchy being taken too far, etc if you just replace Enron with "the Party", "the military", "X family", etc.
Such oligarchical concentrations of power are older than capitalism, and orthogonal to it. Corruption is more of a social disease than a monetary issue, power is just translated into money these days to facilitate exchange.
The consequences in a capitalistic society tend to be anti-capitalistic (if you take capitalism as "free market") in nature.
The influential corporation(s) dictates regulation and starts to play government, restricting competition, disguising its own lack of competitivity, and trying to manipulate the market. Just what monopolies and/or cartels do. But since it's OK for the government to regulate, it can be done.
Innovation controlled by big corperations using patents, and all for a profit, milk the old technology for 40 years or more until profits force you to change.
What are they supposed to do? Not milk the old technology? They will milk the old technology, and will research new technology quickly because they want to milk it more.
Do they only change when forced by potential profit? Sure. But potential profit has proven to be the best way to force quick development of applied technology. What other motivation would you have for technological development? Development by need is much, much, much slower, cannot predict emergent consequences, and will not waste resources on risky non-essential technologies.
That's why almost all successful technological development is made in/for consumer societies: Europe, Japan, US.
If you want to see a weakness in pure capitalism there, is that you need remarkable foresight as a corporation to sponsor pure theoretical research, which is needed to foster future applied tech research. But technology is certainly not capitalism's failure.
Kids and adults lacking intelligence due to patents on information which could enlighten the world.
Uh?!
I have problems understanding your point here. I don't think you got the concepts of "intelligence", "information", "enlighten" and quite possibly "patent" clear in here.
How could a patent on a method restrict information, how could said information enlighten the world, and enlighten on what respect, and how could said enlightenment increase human intelligence beyond its natural limit?
Are there some patents related to genetic engineering and/or neurochemistry I'm not aware of?
Millions of people in third world countries dying because of patents on drugs.
I'll give you this one. I don't think it's a matter of capitalism here, but of a clueless management of the IP system, and the rather stupid attitude of the parties involved.
The IP system is broken. No doubt about that. But the IP system is a case of compromising capitalism for the sake of innovation: don't forget that. It was created precisely because someone said "maybe too much capitalism is bad", and "maybe we should give an artificial monopoly to someone for the sake of information sharing".
My opinion is, more focus should be on sharing information, less focus on competiton, more focus on ways to earn money from hard work and not from information, ideas, or earning money from having money.
Earn money from hard work and not from information... sure.
Also, if we just put the means of production in the hands of the workers, progress will automatically follow.
Do you realize that by removing ways of achieving profit (be it in money, influence, government positions, or whatever is the currency in your system) by the use of the intellect and favoring "hard work", you make mechanical, unintellectual endeavors the only viable course for survival?
In other words, you condemn your innovators (scientists, artists, geeks) to earn their living doing things they're untalented for, and only using their talents at the whim of their benefactors. Innovators become beggars, pets; at best, starved romantic fools.
People of ideas need to be able to earn a comfortable living from their ideas, not be punished for their talents.
The argument that "the best innovators don't do it for the money, but for the love of their art" falls flat on itself when you study the situation in those admired golden ages before someone could earn their living with IP. Back when the most talented writers, painters, inventors, had to pander to pompous rich people to live off their crumbs (we don't even know the best artists of the Renaissance, we only know about the ones that painted the most portraits for powerful people).
Do you realize that by removing the ability of earning money from having money in capitalism (by loaning it with interest directly or through banks), you remove all incentive for investment of resources? Welcome back to merchantilism. Not only have you not actually removed the ability to stay rich if you're rich, you have indirectly destroyed most ways of becoming rich if you're poor.
Freedom is the freedom to say 2+2=4, everything else follows...
I'm sorry, but this is bullshit. Money is not speech. Paying money to politicians in exchange for privledged access is bribery. If you want to spend your money buying a newspaper ad in support of a politician, that's free speech. Handing him an envelope of money at a dinner so that he'll give you special treatment is bribery. Giving large sums of money to both parties, which is what a lot of the big doners do, is especially blatent bribery.
If your little sound bite money is speach were true, then income tax would be unconstitutional. After all, how can you tax a person's first amendment rights? Face it, the whole 'money is speech' is a load of crap that the crooks use to cover up their crimes. You want to support a politician? Buy an ad yourself. Volunteer some time. Make phone calls. Go door to door. Get the word out. That's free speech. Passing bribes is a crime, not speech. Until folks like you open your eyes to the blatent corruption going on, nothing is going to improve.