Intellectual Property Laws bad for business

mshiltonj writes "The NYTimes has a story called "Report Raises Questions About Fighting Online Piracy" that talks about how the stringent enforcement of current Intellectual Property laws (see: RIAA) may acutally be bad for business. It's the not EFF or FSF saying this, it's professors at Harvard Business School and Cardozo Law School. The professors say, "The ideas of copy-left, or of a more liberal regime of copyright, are receiving wider and wider support, It's no longer a wacky idea cloistered in the ivory tower; it's become a more mainstream idea that we need a different kind of copyright regime to support the wide range of activities in cyberspace." and "Bits are not the same as atoms. We need to reframe the legal discussion to treat the differences of bits and atoms in a more thoughtful way.""

Comments

bad for economy too

[stonebeat.org]

Intellectual Property Laws bad for business
not just that, but they dad for economy too. All the major corporations are moving their operations to overseas, and the only leftover jobs will be for Lawyers and other PR personnel. Which cant be too good.

Re:bad for economy too

[BillFarber]

All the major corporations are moving their operations to overseas, and the only leftover jobs will be for Lawyers and other PR personnel.

This is FUD. While it is true that a lot of jobs are moving to other countries, the US is still the world's largest EXPORTER. This would obviously be impossible if the US were not producing goods. Therefore, there are still many, many jobs in the US.

Re:bad for economy too

[gid13]

I don't know for sure, but it seems quite likely to me that the US is the world's largest exporter of intellectual property, the export stats might even include that.

In any case, it seems to me that IP laws are "good" for the movie and recording industries in the US, and that is why the US is so hell-bent on enforcing their IP laws on other countries. I think it was Marx that said Capitalism is Imperialism. In my books, IP laws are just another weapon on that front.

Re:bad for economy too

[Dausha]

All the major corporations are moving their operations to overseas . . .

Corporations are not moving their operations overseas because of IP issues. They still have to sell their wares in the US, which would still hold them liable for IP compliance. So I can't see how parent is so insightful.

Corporations move overseas to avoid paying higher taxes and higher wages. Since higher wages are an issue, perhaps over-unionization and price floors on wages are more to blame?

Re:bad for economy too

[mAineAc]

Oh you are so very right. There are lots of jobs here that export products. That is why trailer parks are full of people people renting sub standard housing. Do you want to work at a rope factory for $8.00 an hr just so that the company can afford to try to be competitive to a country that has workers producing rope for .75 a day? Work is definitely going over seas, what is left is jobs that many people do just to get by. It is not satisfying work, it is not well paying work, it is just something to feed the kids and get by because they can't afford to get an education or they are just uneducatable. The amount of jobs like this is shrinking all the time and the ones that are out there still do not pay near as much as they need to feed and house the family.

Re:bad for economy too

[Technician]

All that realy needs done is to provide value. I bought a program to make lables with barcodes on them. It's called Lables Unlimited. It was less than $15 off the shelf. Before I found it, I found fonts for $200, Label programs from $50-600. Needless to say most stuff was way overpriced as they were trying to sell automation solutions instead of a simple version of Printshop. When the choices were part with lots of money or do without, I did without. When a reasonable priced program came out, I bought 2 copies. One for home and one for work. (It can be registered either way. I did both.) After that with word of mouth advertising, (the best kind) I bought and re-sold 5 more to coworkers.

Trying to own and sell automation using barcodes (the concept, not the product) is viewed by most as open seas type piracy. One of the major bar code manufactures was sued for patent infringement for providing factory automation solutions which used barcodes with a workflow database. Somehow someone thought the concept of tracking with a database and barcodes instead of hand entry was a violation of IP. It got thrown out (thank goodness). Unfortunately more and more stuff is being tyed up in a concept as IP rights, not product rights. This started with songwriters as far as I can tell. A band records a song. I respect their recording. Another band sings their song (produces new product). They can either pay for what they produced or are prohibited from distributing or performing it in public. Somehow this seems wrong to lots of people.

Imagine if the concept were copied to the building industry. Someone makes nails. Someone else makes screws. Someone else makes glue. Someone makes 2X4's. They all patent the idea. Do you know the problems this would create for the building industry. Screws and screwdrivers only from International Fastener, Nails only from National Wire, 2X4's only from Georga Pacific.. etc. Some in the fastener industry have already done some of this. Posi-drive screws, Torx tm., etc.

Building materials are much cheaper if there is not a single vendor choice. Market forces set prices.

I see Open Source, Creative Commons, Public Domain, and the internet as a great equalizer. We just have to wean ourselves off the **AA licensed stuff. Tonight I was downloading free Public Domain radio programs. Laurel and Hardy, Fibber McGee, and Jack Benny are great alternitves to much of the high priced stuff. Don't pirate. Shop for the deals. They are out there.

There are lots of sites dedicated to collecting the material, selling or trading for very reasonable prices. Why can't BMI, Capitol, etc. sell MP3 CD's full of over 20 year old stuff for $5 each? You just can't tell me it's the cost of production and distribution. They would rather sell a couple of copies of $100 CD collections of old stuff than sell thousands at $5. They are also unwilling to use MP3's. Funny but the competion is using MP3's. All the radio programms I downloaded tonight are unencumbered MP3's. They will work in my MP3 CD player unlike what they are selling.

Do a search of Old Time Radio MP3's. You can literaly get days worth of material on MP3 CD's for under $10. Hey RIAA, are you listening? Want to sell from your old catalog? Naw, they would rather sit on their archive while I shop the competion. Their artificaly scarce material is being diluted by the competion. Piracy isn't their only competion. Games, movies, Public domain, Creative Commons, and freebies are their competion. Killing piracy won't make it go away.

Re:bad for economy too

[Anonymous Coward]

Lables? How about "labels"?

Re:bad for economy too

[symbolic]

All that realy needs done is to provide value.

If I still had mod points, I'd mod this up. Someone gets it. I have a hard time understanding why the only side of the equation in the "information wants to be free" crowd is the cost of production. As far as I'm concerned, if it allows you to do something cheaper, faster, or something that you simply couldn't do before, compensation is due its owner. If you don't like the terms, do something else. These things are subject to the same market forces as anything else- if its owner wants to make money, he will balance market demand with the price he charges. If you don't want to pay simply because you can copy it, you are engaging in theft- it's no different than any other good in the marketplace.

Re:bad for economy too

[Trolling4Dollars]

My god! Is the U.S.A. Becoming the "B Ark"? ;P

Re:bad for economy too

[Ironica]

Corporations move overseas to avoid paying higher taxes and higher wages. Since higher wages are an issue, perhaps over-unionization and price floors on wages are more to blame?

Unionization in the private sector has been steadily declining over the last 30 years, and minimum wages have been losing value relative to the CPI. So probably it's just that it's cheaper to manufacture your goods in countries where the government doesn't care how you treat workers, as long as they get tax revenue from it.

Re:bad for economy too

[Ironica]

This started with songwriters as far as I can tell. A band records a song. I respect their recording. Another band sings their song (produces new product). They can either pay for what they produced or are prohibited from distributing or performing it in public. Somehow this seems wrong to lots of people.

I'm not sure why. Your analogy about building materials doesn't hold up. Two companies can make 2x4's with very different processes, even different types of wood, and come out with a comparable product. A song (one worth covering, anyway) is a unique product. If you're a fabulous songwriter and a crappy singer, you should still be able to get *some* compensation for writing a great song, even if someone else performs it better than you do.

Granted, the current methods are overly cumbersome for most people to use, and the intimidation tactics used by lawyers for the IP owners are atrocious. But I don't agree that there's no justification for someone to hold a right on a song they wrote in the event someone else performs it.

Re:bad for economy too

[Endive4Ever]

I don't see the 'decline in Unionization' as what' s lead to job loss. At least here, locally, the biggest plant in this small town is now closing because it was unionized, and because the Union wouldn't budge. All those former Union employees are now going to be non-Union and unemployed, thanks to the International. But as long as the union bosses have shiny desks in their office in New York, I guess things are okay.

Re:bad for economy too

[Endive4Ever]

Imagine if the concept were copied to the building industry. Someone makes nails. Someone else makes screws. Someone else makes glue. Someone makes 2X4's. They all patent the idea. Do you know the problems this would create for the building industry.

That wouldn't be possible. No technology that steeped in building tradition can be 'cornered' by a patent holder. Patents expire after awhile, ya know, and the technologies you described are ones the industry evolved around because they're not patented. Now, if an entity came out with a new fastening technology to replace nails, that let the builders save 20% on labor, all power to them in charging whatever they can get for their new patented product. Until it's patent expires, of course.

So you've thrown up a scarecrow arguement. Thank goodness we're not all ignorant crows.

Re:bad for economy too

[runderwo]

If you don't want to pay simply because you can copy it, you are engaging in theft- it's no different than any other good in the marketplace.

Wrong. It _is_ different, because patent law is not property law. Perhaps you are arguing that ideas _should_ be no different than any other physical good in the marketplace, but not spreading misconceptions while presenting your opinion would be preferable.

Also, consider the possibility that the same process was independently developed. Is it still "theft"? It doesn't map as easily onto property law now, does it? Yet independently developing a process which happens to be covered by a patent is still a breach of patent law.

Re:bad for economy too

[yourmom16]

As far as I'm concerned, if it allows you to do something cheaper, faster, or something that you simply couldn't do before, compensation is due its owner.

You cannot own an idea. One major difference between 'intellectual property' and physical property is that ideas have unlimited use; Everyone in the world can think about something all they want without preventing others from doing the same, causing wear, etc. If physical goods had these characteristics, we would have no justification for property either. The reason for property rights is that multiple people cannot use it at once, and thus using someone else's property without permission reduces their rights to it. Physical objects cannot benefit everyone, so they must be owned to provide any benefit other than squabbles as to who's turn it is to use it.

If you don't like the terms, do something else.

Why? Ideas often are developed independently. For example, Newton developed calculus, but didnt publish it. A few years later Liebniz developed it and published it. If I come up with an idea, just because you thought of it first should not give you a right to force my to accept your conditions to use my own thoughts.

These things are subject to the same market forces as anything else- if its owner wants to make money, he will balance market demand with the price he charges.

They are subject to the same market forces as monopolies, not competitive goods. DeBeers for instance must balance market demand with the price it charges. If it decided to charge 1 billion dollars for a small diamond, no one would buy it, because they have the choice to do without. However they can sell a diamond that in a competitive market would be worth well under a dollar for a thousand dollars. Just because they are subject to some market forces does not mean they do not have a monopoly. Intellectual property is a monopoly on an idea, which is, unlike physical property, a true monopoly in the sense that their are no competitors. A physical object is for all practical purposes the same as another object of the same design, except that they are different objects, and thus most of the time different people's property. Intellectual property laws on the other hand prevent copying, meaning in the analogy between physical and intellectual property, that another object of the same design cannot be made without the owners permission.

If you don't want to pay simply because you can copy it, you are engaging in theft- it's no different than any other good in the marketplace.

It is different; you cannot take that particular copy, but there is no law preventing you from making copies of physical objects, and if it were as easy as it is with ideas, we would all be living like kings, and anyone who suggested it was morally wrong would be laughed at or even thrown in an asylum.

Re:bad for economy too

[symbolic]

Wrong. It _is_ different, because patent law is not property law.

Actually, it's copyright law, but that's not even relevant because the fundamental concept is the same - you buy something because you (presumably) get value in exchange for your money. Within the context of any potential transaction, you have two options: you either PAY for what you're getting, or you simply forego the purchase (and benefit you'd receive if you had made the purchase). You do not just TAKE it.

Also, consider the possibility that the same process was independently developed. Is it still "theft"

Of course not. In one instance, you've got an effort geared toward unlawful acquisition, while in the other, you've got an honest effort to develop something that just happens to yield the same result achieved by someone else. They are very different circumstances.

Re:bad for economy too

[runderwo]

Parent was referring to patents, so I assumed you were too. Of course physical property makes more sense as a analogue for copyright law. But it is still flawed; in most cases involving copyright infringement (example: downloading a song) you have not harmed the copyright holder in any measurable way, whereas with theft they have lost what you have gained. See this previous post for clarification.

There are many facets innate to copyright that do not allow it to neatly fit within a property rights context (though it can certainly be shoe-horned into property rights if that sort of treatment reflects politicians' desires).

Re:bad for economy too

[vanix]

Hey, yourmom16, there's an inaccuracy in your sig. I also quite enjoyed L. Neil Smiths's _The_Probability_Broach_, but it is Robert Lefevre who deserves the credit for the line you quote.

Here's another instance of L. Neil quoting Robert Lefevre.

Re:bad for economy too

[symbolic]

But it is still flawed; in most cases involving copyright infringement (example: downloading a song) you have not harmed the copyright holder in any measurable way, whereas with theft they have lost what you have gained.

I would argue that they have been harmed, since you now have their property, are benefitting from your possession thereof, and they have received nothing in return. In other words, you are receiving undue benefit from their effort.

This obviously wasn't an issue when copyright law was first established, because acquiring, maintaining, and distributing copyrighted material required a much greater effort. This being the case, I think to compare the modern-day music pirate with someone who merely "violates copyright", given the ease with which this can be accomplished, is at best, unfair.

Re:bad for economy too

[Ironica]

I don't see the 'decline in Unionization' as what' s lead to job loss.

Neither do I. But I can't see either blaming current job loss in this country on unionization, since unionization is on the decline and the jobs that are going overseas these days are mostly non-union.

wired article

[Anonymous Coward]

There's an article like this in this month's Wired too.
It is pretty clear that an idea is not something that someone can "own", because it doesn't exist in space and time. Property laws were developed because there is only a limited amount of material objects in the universe, but everyone can "own" ideas without "taking" anything from anybody else. In fact, it is better to spread good ideas around, for the same reason that it is better to live in a good neighborhood than a bad one.

Re:wired article

[DoofusOfDeath]

How do we actually *know* why property laws were invented.

I mean, yes we certainly see their utility in our lives.

But when you get right down to it, we inherited the ideas. And property laws originated so long ago that we probably can only *guess* at why their originators created them.

So what's my point? My point is that we just conject, not know, why property laws first came into effect.

(And for that matter, there may have been multiple societies that introduced them independently, so there could be multiple, different reasons for introducing them.)

Re:wired article

[jafuser]

I think a lot of this has to do with the continuious copyright extensions. If copyright were left alone and implemented as it was originally, it wouldn't seem like such an oppressive system.

Basically the copyright extension lobbyists are killing themselves slowly by stretching out copyright terms longer and longer. Each time they stretch it, the thinner it's importance becomes to the general population who see it as unfair to the common good.

Re:wired article

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, Copyright law is designed so that artists, inventors, etc.. have some kind of incentive for creating. The idea is that if you take that protection away artists won't bother creating because they can't sell their product without someone stealing it and selling it. Or that you invent something and someone else copies your idea thus taking away some or all of your ability to make money. Since we (at least here in the US) live in a capitalist society the idea is that people work to gain, in our case they work or create to gain money. Copyright law has nothing to do with protecting matter. However this is not to say I do not agree that music and art should be copyrighted for a hundred years either. A reasonable amount of time to profit from your work is all that is needed to give artists a reason to create, not what is likely to be longer than their lifetime so that greedy leeches can continue to sell their creations indefinately.

Re:wired article

[Telluride]

This is exactly what the SlipHead Idea Board has been trying to say. Check it out, they really understand that the free exchange of ideas creates more than any one person or company could do on its own.

Re:wired article

[orkysoft]

You young whippersnappers. I remember when the property laws were introduced. I remember!

It was to enable those powerful bastards to own more stuff than they need, in order to prevent the poor people from benefiting from it! Property laws are a tool of oppression, but everyone just accepts them as just nowadays.

Ah, things aren't as they used to be...

Re:wired article

[I am Kobayashi]

Here is the link to the full report (101 page .pdf) if anyone is interested:
CED Report

Re:wired article

[DoofusOfDeath]

While I'm no fan of oligopolies, it should be noted that communism / socialism hasn't exactly done a great job of feeding everyone either.

Re:wired article

[Hal-9001]

Mod parent up!

Re:wired article

[trezor]

• should be noted that communism / socialism hasn't exactly done a great job of feeding everyone either.

I hate to be be a bitch and point it out, but it works fine in Norway. And I believe that Sweden, Denmark and other socialistic democarcys are doing rather fine as well.

You guys just got to realise socialism is an idea, and a not a totalerian system. Socialism is about that the wealthy/resourcefull in society is obligated to help the less fortunate.

It might not be obvious, but this actually saves society money. Say, for example, if people aren't left to starve (actual, working social security), they won't have to steal or resort to crime in order to survive. And thus, less police is needed. Money saved.

I guess I can go on, but this post is probably offtopic enough allready.

So for a practical (and working) socialistic system, Norway and it's democracy is a good example.

Re:wired article

[red floyd]

So how do the current copyright laws provide an incentive for Elvis to continue creating music?

Re:wired article

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally, I would love to get rid of the "life" part of life+70 years in copyright law.

Just make it a fixed amount of time, preferably no more than 30 years (this is, after all, for *copyright* not patents), then it all goes into the public domain.

Yes, I'm well aware of how the record companies would hate to lose some of their classic hits from the 60s and 70s, but I doubt they sell much from there but a small selection of the very best albums and whatnot.

This would also make it MUCH easier to determine when the copyright was over, rather than having to figure out when the author died, figure out if it was a joint work, or a company owned one, etc. Might also allow them to have an unpublished period of five years or something, too, and other bits like that.

But still, making copyright last forever is rediculous. I'm kinda glad that the 'freezing' of Walt Disney was mythical, because I'd hate to see them argue that since he's still "alive" (theoretically, at any rate), his copyright will live as long as he stays frozen... (e.g. forever, because it would cut into profits to bring him back, even if it were thought possible to in the far future...)

While we're at it, ditch software & business process patents entirely, make normal ones a bit more narrow, and possibly cut the time on them a bit.

One other thing we need to address, though, is the "IP vampire" companies with no actual products who buy up "IP" from dead companies and use it to extort normal companies, making them the living dead of the business world, since they can't be stopped with defensive patents... I'd like to think that open source/free software ideals can help fend them off, if applied more broadly. They are within the current laws, but they certainly don't advance the original purposes of those laws at all... (This, ironically, is one "business method" that I wish had been patented defensively... alas, it is probably too late...)

Re:wired article

[Dinglenuts]

The problem with intellectual property is that it is a fallacy. Property is derived from scarcity, but an idea is scarce only so long as no one else knows it.

Furthermore, I can learn an idea from you, but I am not "taking" anything from you the same way as I would with real property. You still retain the original idea.

Copyrights and patents are restraints on society's advancement, not aids.

Re:wired article

[Anonymous Coward]

"Yes, I'm well aware of how the record companies would hate to lose some of their classic hits from the 60s and 70s" they can always remaster them and copyright the rmasters.

Re:wired article

[orkysoft]

Hah! In my days, we had to eat the brains of our teachers to gain their knowledge, so don't say they didn't lose anything by teaching us!

You young whippersnappers... grumble grumble...

Re:wired article

[geekee]

"It is pretty clear that an idea is not something that someone can "own", because it doesn't exist in space and time. Property laws were developed because there is only a limited amount of material objects in the universe, but everyone can "own" ideas without "taking" anything from anybody else. In fact, it is better to spread good ideas around, for the same reason that it is better to live in a good neighborhood than a bad one."

It's attitudes like this that threaten to destroy live-saving drug development. If you've invested billions in developing a new drug and getting FDA approval, and then a competitor simply reverse-engineers it, they have taken something from you. You'll think twice about spending the billion dollars next time. As it is, the US is the dominates the drug development market because they are one of the few countries left that actually supports drug patents without regulating prices. The rest of the world thinks the immediate needs of people outweigh the rights of companies to free market, and the effect is obvious. No research money for drug development because the risk is too great for the paltry reward in a country that regulates prices.

Re:wired article

[jafac]

Copyright extension and legislation is nothing but a mechanism for the brokering of power and influence. Period.

There IS a fundamentally valid reason for both copyright and patents (and trademarks) to exist. But the scope has been blown way out of proportion by the power brokers, who are only in government to make a buck.

Re:wired article

[Anonymous Coward]

Communism and public domain are two very different things.

The theory behind Communism is that there is a fixed pie of naturally scarce goods, and the job of the Government is to equally divide that pie. Communism compounds this with highly inefficient central planning, and totalitarian enforcement that betrays the suppoesed goal (remember: "some animals are more equal than other animals").

Ideas and expressions "cannot in nature be the subject of property". Making more copies of the wheel, or the Bible, or the Constitution, is NOT simply a redistribution of a fixed-size pie. The act of copying increases total wealth.

Re:wired article

[Frizzle Fry]

The problem with intellectual property is that it is a fallacy. Property is derived from scarcity, but an idea is scarce only so long as no one else knows it.

There's no fallacy here. The value of property is derived from its scarcity. Thus, it is necessary to impose scarcity on things that do not naturally have it, otherwise they would have no economic value. Intellectual property laws serve this function. Without them, everything could be copied freely and would have no value, which would mean to incentive to product it, which ultimately is bad for society.

Re:wired article

[uncoveror]

Indeed. Copyright and patent were created to "promote the progress of science and the useful arts" to quote the U.S. Constitution, but how can censorship do that? It doesn't. If I can't express an idea that has been expressed bfore without getting permission, and/or paying a royalty, then I don't have freedom of speech, or freedom of the press.

Re:wired article

[dryeo]

It also works the other way. Drug companies do not research promising drugs if the profit margin is too low and actively help illegalize drugs that aren't patentable. Think of hemp, not patentable so illegal to grow or use or even to make a pair of jeans outof. You get the stupidity of a country claiming to be free and yet it is illegal to self medicate yourself. Yet plants such as Cicuta occidentilis are legal.

Re:wired article

[Anonymous Coward]

Copyright extension and legislation is nothing but a mechanism for the brokering of power and influence. Period.

So is communication. What did you intend to accomplish by your post? It is different only in degree.

Re:wired article

[RzUpAnmsCwrds]

"I hate to be be a bitch and point it out, but it works fine in Norway. And I believe that Sweden, Denmark and other socialistic democarcys are doing rather fine as well."

They are "doing fine" because of huge mineral resources that can be cheaply used and sold by the government. When those run out, taxes will have to compensate. Suddenly, your taxes go up to 65%.

Still working?

"It might not be obvious, but this actually saves society money."

"It might not be obvious, but this actually saves society money. Say, for example, if people aren't left to starve (actual, working social security), they won't have to steal or resort to crime in order to survive. And thus, less police is needed. Money saved."

No argument there. In the US, we wonder why we have such a high crime rate. Primarily, it has to do with our mandatory minimums on drug crimes, but the fact that the minimum wage isn't really enough to live on doesn't help out at all.

"So for a practical (and working) socialistic system, Norway and it's democracy is a good example."

Perhaps. But I wouldn't want to live in a country which takes 45% of my paycheck and spends it for "my benefit". Not that what we have in the US is any better.

Re:wired article

[Anonymous Coward]

Although interesting, your end conclusion is flase.

Allowing ideas to flow freely is NOT bad for society. There is and always will be an incentive to produce. We are human and we have our wants and needs. IP laws in America did not exist during the very beginning and in fact, the U.S. ignored those from overseas. Now why is this? When the U.S. economy started to grow, the IP laws finally came into play here. IP is protectionism. It does little to nothing to produce. Do some deep research into the most well known scientists, engineers, artists, musicians, etc. and you will see that IP laws, money, and creating an economic value of their work was NOT what ultimately gave them the urge to pursue what they did. There is only one true fact to all of this and that is that because wealth is currently held by a minority, investment drives technology. An engineer will not survive tinkering in a basement, so one must work within the system to become an employee. Who ultimately pays these employees and for the resources they need is the reason IP laws are so important to investors and corporations. It is NOT what drives people though.

Re:wired article

[Frizzle Fry]

Allowing ideas to flow freely is NOT bad for society

Ok, I'd agree with that. But stopping people from sharing ideas is not the same as stopping them from copying movies, albums, etc. Just because you should be able to freely discuss and share the ideas contained in a film or book doesn't mean you need to be able to freely copy the specific expression of those ideas that is the book or film itself. Ideally, intellectual property would protect books, movies, software, etc., but not "ideas". No one should be able to own an idea (in my opinion) or stop others from discussing it.

Yes, stringent enforcement is bad...

[DragonMagic]

Yes, stringent enforcement is bad, but so is blatant infringement. Companies should allow some latitude with infringing properties of their works, and some basic trading between friends. However, I also believe, both as a creator and a reseller of intellectual property, that placing your 300 CD Collection on Kazaa is going way too far as well.

Copyright should always be a balance. Promotion should be allowed, but only on an intimate level with people you know, not the entire world, unless the creator or publisher says it's all right. Region codes on DVDs, encryptions, copy prevention methods, etc., are all just profits and ineffective in what they're named to do.

I love libraries, borrow from friends and let them borrow from me, and will take DVDs over to parties so we can watch movies. Some publishers, studios and organizations will call me a pirate, but I would like to think that I'm a consumer and a citizen of the USA who prefers to share what he rightfully paid for with those who would also enjoy it.

Just my opinion and observations.

Re:Yes, stringent enforcement is bad...

[radja]

>Companies should allow some latitude with infringing properties of their works, and some basic trading between friends. However, I also believe, both as a creator and a reseller of intellectual property, that placing your 300 CD Collection on Kazaa is going way too far as well.

what I really think is going way too far is companies deciding who can or cannot be my friend. I have no problem whatsoever with treating everybody as a friend (yes, there are different 'levels' of friend, like all other friends.), and I have no trouble sharing with all my friends.

Re:Yes, stringent enforcement is bad...

[orthogonal]

I have no problem whatsoever with treating everybody as a friend [for the purposes of sharing copyrighted materials via p2p] (yes, there are different 'levels' of friend, like all other friends.), and I have no trouble sharing with all my friends.

Great! Friends, I need to "borrow" $20.

Unfortunately, this time you'll have to share your own money, not an evil record company's money, and I don't actually plan to give it back to you.

I mean, as long as you can re-define "friends" to mean "people I've never met who share my musical tastes and my ethical blind spots", can't I be as intellectually (dis)honest and re-define "borrow" too?

(I am reminded of the Cowbirds in Walt Kelly's Pogo, socialist agitators whose motto was "To share! To share what others' have!")

Re:Yes, stringent enforcement is bad...

[ticklemeozmo]

Companies should allow some latitude with infringing properties of their works
I whole-heartedly and utterly DISAGREE. This is why we have the stupid ass laws in rural states like "It's illegal to have sex with a dead kitten" or "you may not wash your hand on a Wednesday after sundown."

We don't need MORE laws, we need LESS, but ENFORCEABLE laws. Otherwise, this happens. We have billions of laws and it's up to the whim of the controlling body to decide which one they want to enforce that day.

Re:Yes, stringent enforcement is bad...

[CaptainTux]

what I really think is going way too far is companies deciding who can or cannot be my friend. I have no problem whatsoever with treating everybody as a friend (yes, there are different 'levels' of friend, like all other friends.), and I have no trouble sharing with all my friends.

I've heard arguments like this before and, I have to say, it's one of the weakest one's I've heard used to try to justify copyright infringment.

I think that most *rational* people would agree on a common definition of the term "friend". Additionally, I think most people would agree that someone you've never met, never chatted with, and never had any type of contact with except to trade stuff is *not* a "friend". That is why we have the term "stranger".

When people try to use the argument "I am willing to view/treat anyone as a friend so really when I share my stuff on Kazaa I am sharing with friends" they really don't mean it. Take it to the next level. Since I'm your friend, would you please lend me $5,000? Can I come stay at your house for a few months? Can I borrow your credit card to go buy some computer stuff? I promise, I'll stick to a limit you set. No? Why? I thought we were friends?

Re:Yes, stringent enforcement is bad...

[Anomalous Coward]

Let's follow this analogy to its conclusion. If I have $20 dollars, let you "borrow" $20, but still have my original $20, well... Yes. I would have no problem with you "borrowing" my $20. I wouldn't need it back, because I still had the one $20 I started with.

Not that I necessarily agree with the parent, but if you are going to pick an analogy, at least pick one that makes sense.

Re:Yes, stringent enforcement is bad...

[Felinoid]

Annother thought is that it's not ALL IP laws per say but the ones we have today.
(Ohh that rymes even)

Patent laws in the past were used pritty much as intended with a few exceptions. Today those laws are being abused left and right and our legeslation hasn't done a thing about it.

IP law was intended to be an evolving thing. It was always known there'd be new kinds of IP and there'd be abuses of IP it was up to congress to address the problems as they came up.
For example: Software copyrights. To me it seams quite reasonable but untill the 1980s it wasn't made clear.

Also refinements in IP law made in the 1990s screwed things up instead of making them better.
The Regan admin extended patents and copyrights when they needed to be shortened.
The Clinton admin changed the laws to sereously break the intent of IP laws.
It seams to me Bush jr will only make things worse.

I have my own ideas as to what IP should be like. I don't intend to clame that IP laws should be eliminated.

When IP laws work you have inventers creating all kinds of things. This is the way it was in the 40's and 50's. Indeed patents meant something back then.

Today IP laws keep people from doing anything. Companys and individuals patenting things they did not invent and worse dose not yet exist.

I can't find it now but I remember reading recently how an inventer was denied a patent on the camcorder becouse it wasn't possable to create one yet (in the patent officers opinion) sadly this was shortly before the first camcorders hit the market so it appears the patent officer was wrong.

What this single situation demonstrates is that at one time patents were in fact issued on merit. The patent officer also had to understand how the technology could be applied.

The solution for me seams reasonably simple and that is requiring that a working prototype already exist. This was a requirment once apon a time. This way you could demonstrate the invention under current technology.

Today patents are being used to patent
Future technology: Obveous or not companys are getting patents for devices they themselfs do not produce sit on those patents and sue decades later when someone else invents it.
(It is known if one person dose not invent someone else will. An invention often passes through at least 5 heads before someone actually bothers to build it. If the first 4 patent it the 5th guy is repaid for his work with lawsutes and the first four are repaid for lazyness with money.)

There is no deffense of public domain today so companys often obtain "defessive" patents of other peoples consepts. As a result todays tech bubble companys may end up suing the original inventors simply becouse the original guy didn't get a patent.

IP laws are the greatest defence against plagerism however todays laws make plagerism easier rather than harder.

I'd use SCO as an example but they are breaking IP laws so badly they are more of an explenation as to why IP laws are broken rather than of how broken they are.
People like Darol McBride have had fingers in the laws. If McBride has his way public domain would be illegal.

Re:Yes, stringent enforcement is bad...

[91degrees]

That's not the analogy. Come to think of it, tt wasn't an analogy in the first place.

The fact is, if you're going to justofy sharing on Kazaa as sharing between friends, you should also justify lending a complete stranger 20 as lending it to a friend. The poster was somply redefining terms to make it into the same level of dishonest argument.

Re:Yes, stringent enforcement is bad...

[91degrees]

And this is why they're so stringent with their protection. any leeway they give will be abused by people who will nitpick and redefine basic terms.

Re:Yes, stringent enforcement is bad...

[Erasmus Darwin]

"Let's follow this analogy to its conclusion. If I have $20 dollars, let you "borrow" $20, but still have my original $20, well... Yes. I would have no problem with you "borrowing" my $20."

That's all nice and good until everyone does it, and you discover that your system results in runaway inflation.

Surprisingly enough, despite the absurdity of the analogy, we can compare it back to intellectual property. As less people purchase IP-based products and more people simply "borrow" them from "friends", the incentive for people to spend time, money, and effort on creating new IP goes down.

Re:Yes, stringent enforcement is bad...

[Anonymous Coward]

Companies should allow some latitude with infringing properties of their works

I believe that it shouldn't be a case of companies "allowing some latitude", but the law "allowing some latitude". When companies can selectively prosecute any particular person, they hold something over everybody. Better not criticise their new film, or you might get hit with an infringement suit.

However, I also believe, both as a creator and a reseller of intellectual property, that placing your 300 CD Collection on Kazaa is going way too far as well.

Which CDs? If they are all albums released in, say, the 80s, then I have no problem with that. If they are all CDs you bought this year, then I do have a problem with that.

I disagree with copyright terms that last longer than about two decades, it varies based upon what medium it is. Music, I would say that 12-17 years is fair. Software, I would say that 8-10 years is fair. Films, I would say that 15-20 years is fair.

Would somebody still write a song, if they thought it wouldn't make them any money after 12 years? Of course. The monetary incentive is still there. Would somebody still make a film if it wouldn't make any money after 12 years? Perhaps not, it costs a lot of money to bring a film to market and promote it and so on. Then again, how strong is the market for 12-year-old films? What accounts for most of your film buying - films made before 1992 or films made after 1992?

Re:Yes, stringent enforcement is bad...

[Yartrebo]

My beef is that copyright is both unfair and economically bad.

It's unfair because it widens the gap between rich and poor, as money is taken from working class people, particularly the poor, and given to rich people (artists, programmers, authors, etc get a rather small piece of the pie, about 1% in the case of music, and even this money is quite inequally distributed).

Even assuming that people require an incentive other than fame to create (false for music, but probably true for a big-budget film), the current system is horribly inefficient.

A simple free market supply-demand curve will give an ideal price of $0 for anything that can be made for free and in infinite quantity. Any other price will lead to a less efficient economy, particularly if the good is elastic (as most copyright-related industries are).

In certain industries (movies, TV, music, video games), 3:1 advertisement to productions budget ratios are not unheard of. Advertisement is a form of superwaste, where the loss to society is greater than just the dollar cost, as it not only ties up resources making the ads, but also ties up people's time watching them and distorts their spending, among other effects.

For profit production requires much 'wasted' overhead expenses such as lawyers and executives. For profit production also requires that money changes hands and that a controlled distribution system be used, which both incur costs which range from a few percent (large site licenses for software) to 30%+ (consumer items bought in a store).

Litigation and the fear of litigation over copyrights heavily limits certain art (particularly software), and imposes yet another expense to production (the risk of being sued).

The overall efficiency of our copyright industries can be under 1% in extreme cases (recorded music), and is rarely above 20%.

What is really needed is a more efficient way of getting art produced. While 100% efficiency is ideal and in some cases (music, much software) it is possible, anything halfway efficient is better than the current system.

In the cases where people are willing to do it for free or because they need it for their business, copyright or no copyright, the government and the public should say a big 'thank you' and stop at that. It is extremely efficient and expedient, and the authors must have been motivated by something, since they weren't forced to produce. With broadcasting and P2P, efficiencies are often 95%+.

In the cases where works are not made without copyright incentives (big-budget movies), money can be provided by taxation. One way could be to have a 'moving picture [TV and movie] development fund', and to have people vote on what they want to see produced. The system could be only 25% efficient (distribution, waste, and politicians take 75% of the money) and still beat Hollywood by a wide margin.

As an example of efficiency, PBS has an annual budget of around $2B. This pays for the production and broadcasting of hundreds of programs of many genres. The Pokemon craze cost the US public over $5B (whereas in a copyright-free world, the cost would have been much lower since all the merchandise would have been reasonably priced, the way scooters and yo-yos are).

Re:Yes, stringent enforcement is bad...

[sprekken]

Take it to the next level. Since I'm your friend, would you please lend me $5,000? Can I come stay at your house for a few months? Can I borrow your credit card to go buy some computer stuff? I promise, I'll stick to a limit you set. No? Why? I thought we were friends?

Aw, come on! Man this lame group of posts has been sitting here for more than long enough for someone to come up with an intelligent reply for me to mod up... but no, I'll have to do it myself it seems.

Ok, first of all, everyone in this section who has posted with some stupid ass comment like "ok, you're all my friends, give me 500 bucks" or like the parent who says "give me your credit card, we're friends right?" in response to the grandparent who said that he shares files with all of his friends (ie. everyone) has really got to get some psychological help to undo all of the brainwashing they have subjected themselves to. That, or just get a fucking clue.

Giving or lending people money implies that I am without that money until (if) the borrower gives it back. Sharing bits does not come with that implication, I am free to continue to use it as long as I wish.

I am against copyright infringement, but I do absofuckinglutely hate it when stupid people try to spew out their uninformed and nonsensical philosophies without really thinking about the issue.

Wake up people! Open your eyes and make that little brain think!

Re:Yes, stringent enforcement is bad...

[monique]

Take it to the next level. Since I'm your friend, would you please lend me $5,000? Can I come stay at your house for a few months? Can I borrow your credit card to go buy some computer stuff? I promise, I'll stick to a limit you set. No? Why? I thought we were friends?

I think I agree with you in general, but this example is stretching it. I have very few relatives, let alone friends, to whom I would loan more than $100 (and even that's stretching it), who would be welcome at my house for months at a time, or to whom I would extend credit card priveleges. In all of the above examples, even with my closest friends and family members, there had better be a good reason for the request.

By the same token, I wouldn't feel comfortable borrowing large amounts of money from most of my friends, staying at their house for a long time, or borrowing their credit cards. I don't want that level of responsibility for someone else's stuff.

Re:Yes, stringent enforcement is bad...

[FroMan]

Ah yes. But you don't have $20 anymore. You only have $19.99 (or some value less than $20), since you have now devalued the Jackson through inflation.

This is what the RIAA and MPAA and other IP owners are so concerned with when people freely trade other people's content. The devaluation of their product because is has been mass produced through invalid channels. I'd imagine the government will get pretty pissed off if you start copying Jacksons also.

Re:Yes, stringent enforcement is bad...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yea, because noone creates for the sake of creating. Noone creates for the sake of enjoyment. Noone creates because it's what they want to do.

Holy shit. Every single person I know who cares about music (as in, PERFORMING) does it because they love music. They want to make a buck, to be sure, but let me tell you something..

Strictly controlling your works when you are a new outfit doesn't get you ANYWHERE!

People make music for the love of the game, they give it away so that it gets spread around, and they hope and pray that one day, just maybe, someone will actually want to give up money for that creativity.

New artists don't get into it knowing they will make money doing it.

This is more than just music too. Literature is very similar. Copyright does mean something, the problem is the people who believe copyright means everything, thereby losing touch with the creative process itself.

Re:Yes, stringent enforcement is bad...

[squiggleslash]

Kind of like Taxster?

Re:Yes, stringent enforcement is bad...

[Frizzle Fry]

Strictly controlling your works when you are a new outfit doesn't get you ANYWHERE!

Fine. So don't strictly control your works. The law doesn't require you do so, it only lets you if you want to. If you would rather give away your music and literature, go ahead. That doesn't mean you have the right to stop people who produce music and literature and don't want to give it away for free. Even if you think that they would be better off doing so, that's their decision, not yours.

Re:Yes, stringent enforcement is bad...

[lyphorm]

So when you hear a good joke or learn some humorous cliche, do you only share it with close friends or anyone who is willing to listen?

all your base are belong to us

imagine a beowulf cluster of those

how do you keep a blonde in suspense?

It's all someone's intellectual property. Recorded music is much more elaborate but still very much the same. Where is the line drawn? Does it become theft just because someone is asking for money?

I'm not sure there's an easy answer...

then don't complain

[Anonymous Coward]

when [large corp] comes along and just takes your idea to market without giving you a bean, they make billions all the execs get to live in bliss and you can eat dirt out of the sidewalk

sounds fair to me, yeah "do away with copyright ! say already financially secure professors and stock trading buisness tutors"

of course you can just watch [large corp] spend billions on developing widget X then just steal it saving $$$$!
yeah sounds fair to me !!

A>S

Re:then don't complain

[millahtime]

"when [large corp] comes along and just takes your idea to market without giving you a bean"

That's what a lot of large corps do now if you work for them. If you work for a large auto manufacutrer and design something you'll be lucky if you get a thing for it. While the company and execs make a killing on it. This is not something new.

Re:then don't complain

[kalja]

Sorry, but how are you supposed to be able to steal/sell something without acquire a copyright? The copyright is for being able to buy/re-ship stuff, if it wasnt for the copyright we would all own everything we did for an eternity and not being able to share anything at all.

Re:then don't complain

[olethrosdc]

Ideas deployment is usually incremental - and the ideas that are newly deployed are pretty obvious.

Less obvious ideas are discussed in the public domain long before they are introduced as products. I like to give ADSL as an example - the original idea was that you have to split your band into many (ideally infinite) subbands to send information. The problem was that until the development of fast DSPs it was impossible to do it - and it was certainly impossible to do it when the idea was first mentioned.. since it was the days of analog filtering.

Nevertheless, there are numerous patents on ADSL, which are about very specific parts of the overall ITU-T standard rather than the idea of splitting the band in subbands to send information..

Furthermore, an individual has little or no protection against predatory companies that want to steal his ideas even with the patent system in place. The reason that a patent costs much more than an individual can possibly afford. What people do, is they give the idea to a patent attorney/firm, who agrees to pay for the upfront cost in return for a percentage on any profit made from the patent.

Re:then don't complain

[neural cooker]

Remember that when you work for a company and make something for them they are paying you for your work and time. It is known that your work for them is owned by the company and not owned by you.

This is far from the same thing as a company taking work from you when you are not affiliated with them.

Re:then don't complain

[Joseff]

You must do all the work on your own time. Including Patents and such under your own name. Best if you don't even tell your company that you are creating something.

Re:then don't complain

[Anonymous Coward]

The thing that most slashbots don't seems to understand is that patents and to a degree also copyright is most valuable to individuals so that large companies can't rip them off.

For large companies branding and other kinds of name-recognision is a lot more important. Not that patents and copyright is insignificant for them but it's not at all as important as it is for individuals.

Re:then don't complain

[Bendebecker]

Then what about companies that demand ownership of everything you create while you work for them, regardless of whether you are creating it during your working hours or doing the thing at home by yourself with only your own resources, not the companies. Hard to make any type of justification argument for that...

Re:then don't complain

[Frizzle Fry]

If the law said that everything you invented belonged to your employer, that would be hard to justify. But it doesn't say that at all. They own your inventions by virtue of an employment contract you willingly signed that explicitly gave them that ownership. If you don't like it, you shouldn't have signed the contract. But they are compensating you with salary and benefits if you do. Those of us who view this as a fair deal should not be legally prevented from doing taking it, even if you think we are making a mistake.

Re:then don't complain

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know about you, but i was paid on salary. And that included all of my work.

In practice, I'd just type out a quick letter with my manager's name on it granting me permission to work on whatever little thing I wanted to outside of company hours and get him to sign it. No big deal. But that way, everyone's backside was covered.

ivory tower?

[awb131]

If it's now being said by the Harvard Business School and Cardozo Law School, you might say that it's no longer just being said by the long-haired hackers, but now it is also coming from the ivory tower.

Re:ivory tower?

[millahtime]

"...being said by the Harvard Business School and Cardozo Law School...."

These two schools tend to be on the more liberal side of things and tend to be closer to "long-haired hackers" than a majority of the "ivory tower". What they say doesn't necessairly match what most business believes at all.

Re:ivory tower?

[espo812]

These two schools tend to be on the more liberal side of things and tend to be closer to "long-haired hackers" than a majority of the "ivory tower".

Same goes for the NYT.

Re:ivory tower?

[awb131]

Maybe, but a lot more "regular" business people read the Harvard Business Review than read EFF publications or RMS' stuff.

Re:ivory tower?

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't belive anything unless it's been covered in Fox news?

Re:ivory tower?

[Anonymous Coward]

You must not believe anything thats been covered by Fox news.

Re:ivory tower?

[turnstyle]

"These two schools tend to be on the more liberal side of things"

Not sure if I'd really agree -- Harvard Law certainly, but Business?

In any case, the problem with this article, as with the EFF/FSF position, is that it simply pays no mind to the perspective of the working artist.

Re:ivory tower?

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm, Harvard and Cardozo are Jewish schools. They are only liberal in the sense they advocate policies which disrupt gentile societies.

They will oppose free software because there is no way for Jews to make money from it.

The term IP itself is misleading

[Anonymous Coward]

The use of the word "property" in "intellectual property" is itself misleading. It is similar to the common lie of calling copyright infringement "theft". I prefer the term "copyrighted material".

It is just hard to apply the term "property" to something that is so easily duplicated and propagates so easily.

Re:The term IP itself is misleading

[nutznboltz]

from http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html# IntellectualProperty

``Intellectual property''
Publishers and lawyers like to describe copyright as ``intellectual property''---a term that also includes patents, trademarks, and other more obscure areas of law. These laws have so little in common, and differ so much, that it is ill-advised to generalize about them. It is best to talk specifically about ``copyright,'' or about ``patents,'' or about ``trademarks.''

The term ``intellectual property'' carries a hidden assumption---that the way to think about all these disparate issues is based on an analogy with physical objects, and our ideas of physical property.

When it comes to copying, this analogy disregards the crucial difference between material objects and information: information can be copied and shared almost effortlessly, while material objects can't be. Basing your thinking on this analogy is tantamount to ignoring that difference. (Even the US legal system does not entirely accept the analogy, since it does not treat copyrights or patents like physical object property rights.)

If you don't want to limit yourself to this way of thinking, it is best to avoid using the term ``intellectual property'' in your words and thoughts.

``Intellectual property'' is also an unwise generalization. The term is a catch-all that lumps together several disparate legal systems, including copyright, patents, trademarks, and others, which have very little in common. These systems of law originated separately, cover different activities, operate in different ways, and raise different public policy issues. If you learn a fact about copyright law, you would do well to assume it does not apply to patent law, since that is almost always so.

Since these laws are so different, the term ``intellectual property'' is an invitation to simplistic thinking. It leads people to focus on the meager common aspect of these disparate laws, which is that they establish monopolies that can be bought and sold, and ignore their substance--the different restrictions they place on the public and the different consequences that result. At that broad level, you can't even see the specific public policy issues raised by copyright law, or the different issues raised by patent law, or any of the others. Thus, any opinion about ``intellectual property'' is almost surely foolish.

If you want to think clearly about the issues raised by patents, copyrights and trademarks, or even learn what these laws require, the first step is to forget that you ever heard the term ``intellectual property'' and treat them as unrelated subjects. To give clear information and encourage clear thinking, never speak or write about ``intellectual property''; instead, present the topic as copyright, patents, or whichever specific law you are discussing.

According to Professor Mark Lemley of the University of Texas Law School, the widespread use of term "intellectual property" is a recent fad, arising from the 1967 founding of the World Intellectual Property Organization. (See footnote 123 in his March 1997 book review, in the Texas Law Review, of Romantic Authorship and the Rhetoric of Property by James Boyle.) WIPO represents the interests of the holders of copyrights, patents and trademarks, and lobbies governments to increase their power. One WIPO treaty follows the lines of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which has been used to censor useful free software packages in the US. See http://www.wipout.net/ for a counter-WIPO campaign.

The hypocrisy of calling these powers "rights" is starting to make WIPO embarassed.

Re:The term IP itself is misleading

[Dun Malg]

Excellent reference. I'll have to save that link.

...``Intellectual property'' is also an unwise generalization. The term is a catch-all that lumps together several disparate legal systems, including copyright, patents, trademarks, and others, which have very little in common.

As I see it, the only thing they have in common as "intellectual property" is that they are all things that aren't property, but are treated by some as if they are.

Re:The term IP itself is misleading

[quisph]

The use of the word "property" in "intellectual property" is itself misleading. It is similar to the common lie of calling copyright infringement "theft". I prefer the term "copyrighted material".

That's odd, since to me the word "material" usually implies a physical substance.

Yes, there are other definitions of "material," but there are other definitions of "property," too.

Re:The term IP itself is misleading

[grvsmth]

So intellectual property is intellectual theft?

Re:The term IP itself is misleading

[torokun]

"Property" does not mean the same thing to lawyers as it does in the common vernacular.

To a lawyer, property does not mean "physical objects." It is purely a "bundle of rights" enforced by the government for many historical and philosophical reasons. "Real property", i.e. land, is not what you think it is. It is a set of rights in land, but not all possible rights. For instance, you may not have the right to maintain extremely hazardous items or conditions on your land. You do not have the absolute right to keep people off your land. If someone uses part of your land for long enough, they may obtain a prescriptive easement on your land, a right to use it for certain well-defined purposes in a well-defined area.

You may split your "property" into time-limited interests, or defeasible interests, which may be divested automatically from the holder upon the occurrence of a specified condition.

There are tons of issues with real property that are not what they seem to the average person. The point is that real property is just a bunch of rights enforced by the government. Intellectual property is the same thing. We also refer to "property rights" or "property rules" in law in relation to our own bodies and what we may/may not do, or with respect to all sorts of other interactions...

So the moniker, in my opinion, makes perfect sense when you understand how it is meant to be used. It is a legal term... it's just like when a physicist uses the word "momentum" or "force"... You might say their usage is "misleading", but that would be a strange position in my opinion. Rather, they are using the terms in a more specific manner that is more useful and meaningful within the context of their field.

Re:The term IP itself is misleading

[ryanjensen]

Well, if we're just going to throw out quotes, let me enter the fray:

"Every type of productive work involves a combination of mental and physical effort: of thought and of physical action to translate that thought into a material form. The proportion of these two elements varies in different types of work. At the lowest end of the scale, the mental effort required to perform unskilled manual labor is minimal. At the other end, what the patent and copyright laws acknowledge is the paramount role of mental effort in the production of material values; these laws protect the mind's contribution in its purest form: the origination of an idea."

- Ayn Rand

The term "intellectual property" therefore deliniates effort that is mostly mental from effort that is mostly physical. Value from intellectual property is not derived from the physical effort that went into creating copies of the work (say, pressing a CD or binding a book), but from the mental effort that went into creating the idea (composing a song or writing a story).

When you violate one's intellectual property rights, you disregard the high amount of mental effort (relative to physical effort) that went into creating that work. The "intellectual" modifier does not in fact change the definition property (you can no more use my car without compensating me than you can my music), it simply identifies the proportion of physical and mental effort involved in its creation.

DMCA aside..

[Anonymous Coward]

Existing copyright laws are not the major problem. It's the 'over-enforcement' of copyrights, and the ridiculous nature of the patent system that are really the major problems with IP laws in the US.

Re:DMCA aside..

[Daniel Boisvert]

Existing copyright laws are not the major problem. It's the 'over-enforcement' of copyrights

While I agree with the spirit of what I understand you to be saying here, I think it's important to note that a law which is only good when marginally enforced is a lousy law.

I certainly do not expect that framing a better law will be easy, but I think it's clear that settling for ones that are pretty-not-too-bad has largely contributed to the mess we're in right now. The blood, sweat, and tears should go into the framing of appropriate laws, not the decision of whether to enforce them.

Dan

Re:DMCA aside..

[Anonymous Coward]

Most laws are made for ease of enforcement it seems. I was thinking of the over use of speed cameras on roads. They are despised because they deal with one symptom not the general problem and so easy to get around. Other enforcement is expensive but probably superior and hard to prosecute.

In a similar manner consider a law that says "punish infringements that intend to deprive copyright holder and lawful distributor of income". In this case B might take a DVD over to watch with C. Some companies might try to claim that this is a crime. If C has a clear record of only evey buying DVDs with Bruce Willis starring and B's DVD does not have him in it is easy to show B might actually be risking increasing the income of the companies because C could never otherwise buy a none Bruce DVD but if he watches it he might.

How hard would cases in those most common realms be to prosecute.

too complex

[Tirel]

The issues here are too complex for one to argue either for or against IP laws. The simple matter of fact is that it does benefit some businesses and it hurts others. I could find cases of both and this kind of arguing over if it is really fruitless and only serves to deepen the pockets of the media which distributes such articles.

in the end, the free market will decide.

Re:too complex

[wesman83]

"in the end, the free market will decide." or we can decide we dont want our lives run unfairly by competition and greed, dictated by the free market... parecon

Re:too complex

[Wintergrey]

The problems here are being caused by the rules laid down by government that restrict the free market. A market restricted by law cannot be considered free. The real problem stems from those unscrupulous characters within the business community, like the RIAA, that push for the restriction of the free market through law and then use it to expand their profits through racketeering. Lessening these restrictions, or doing away with them entirely would leave people like the RIAA with no leg to stand on.

Re:too complex

[PurpleWizard]

Maybe that is the level that law should be measured by. If it hurts people (considering companies as legal persons) then it is wrong. Better to have a nominal benefit and no one hurt than attempt to determine the impossible balance of the scales in weighing "does it hurt more than it benefits". It's one possible solution to the complex equations I don't doubt there are others.

I think much more complex issues and problems are actually dealt with successfully this is just different because the people with the most sway have too much wealth and future wealth to lose.

Re:too complex

[hypnagogue]

The issues here are too complex for one to argue either for or against IP laws. The simple matter of fact is that it does benefit some businesses and it hurts others.

Actually, I would argue that the current legal climate hurts all businesses. If you ask a company that is actively pursuing the acquisition of silly patents why they are doing it, they will uniformly respond that it is for their "War Chest". Wha? Yeah -- silly patents held in order defend against silly patent suits.

The end result feeds the lawyers' children, and hurts everyone else.

in the end, the free market will decide.

A free market doesn't have enforced monopolies. When we are talking IP law, we are NOT talking about anything vaguely similar to a free market.

Re:too complex

[jnicholson]

A market unrestricted by law would be a riot. 'Customers' would be there to take whatever they could get, and 'Vendors' would be trying to force them to pay for it. Nobody would be guaranteed rights to something they had just purchased, because those are concepts enshrined in law.

radical rethinking of IP?

[cagle_.25]

From the article,

"Bits are not the same as atoms. We need to reframe the legal discussion to treat the differences of bits and atoms in a more thoughtful way."

The current P2P swapping debacle that RIAA is facing was inevitable. Back in the day (i.e., when the printing press was invented), people funded their own printings of books on the theory that ideas were for disseminating. Nowadays, people ask readers to fund "printings" of various media on the theory that ideas are for making money. Nonsense! How can you "copyright" an algorithm? An idea? A mathematical theorem? Only by creating an unstable system of "intellectual property" which will inevitably collapse under its own weight. Consider: every theorem (including algorithms) in existence today was already contained implicitly in the fundamental axioms and definitions by which it was proved. So who gets the credit?

Jeff Cagle

Re:radical rethinking of IP?

[nate1138]

P2P swapping debacle that RIAA is facing was inevitable

And deliciously ironic. Most people don't realize that Hollywood was LITERALLY founded on piracy. Edison had very strict controls on the equipment that was used to produce and show movies. He formed an organization to enforce his rights. This organization was so onerous that scores of soon-to-be movie producers/directors/etc packed up their lives and moved to the "wild wild west" AKA California. California was so wild and remote that Edison's patents couldn't be enforced, and the movie industry grew and flourished. By the time the law got things settled down, the patents had expired (the patent limit was 17 or 18 years at that time).

Next time you have to sit through those annoying anti-piracy bits before the movie, just remember that it it were't for wholesale disregard for the "Intellectual Property" of others, Hollywood might have never came to be.

Re:radical rethinking of IP?

[Anonymous Coward]

And every English book is contained in the ASCII character set, but I still give credit to Shakespeare for writing Hamlet. The author gets the credit, with algorithms as much as books, and copyright is essential to protect this credit. If an author wishes to relax the rights they are given, they can do so - there are many "GPL-like" licenses for writing, or you can simply give your work to the public domain. The current system works fine, but just needs the term that copyright is granted for reduced to something more sensible.

Re:radical rethinking of IP?

[bruce_the_moose]

While these acedemics may be doing the hero's task of rethinking IP, I'm also concerned about this comment by a copyright professor who read the report:

Jane C. Ginsburg, a law professor at Columbia University and a copyright expert, had a more mixed view of the report.....it "makes unsubstantiated, misleading, or misinformed statements about copyright law." In fact, she said, "A little less preaching to the technologist 'choir' might have made this a better 'sell' to copyright owners and, perhaps, to lawmakers."

Sloppy scholarship helps no one. Given how much bad research, lack of fact-checking, and fabricated hearsay (Jane Fonda and John Kerry photos anyone?) floats around on the net, the moment I encounter anything that I know is untrue or wrong in any piece, I stop reading and file the whole thing in the Intellectually Suspect folder.

The Committee for Economic Development has a spotty track record. Marshall Plan: Good. World Bank and IMF: iffy. Setting standards for public schools through testing: bad (and, yes, I am a parent).

Re:radical rethinking of IP?

[Anonymous Coward]

Many others (business, professionals, average joe) will eventually discover the myriad burden (costs) these philosophies will place upon their existing, often huge, incumbent, and $$ valuable systems of their own monopolies. Never mind their future opportunities and activities.

Why is that it Business earns/gives the ultimate credibility and not the liberal ivory-tower who have considered such things for a long time? There seems to never be a penalty for being late to the game(philosophical understanding) in their world, at least that they would admit. Late is better than never, I guess.

Re:radical rethinking of IP?

[VIIseven7]

Consider: every theorem (including algorithms) in existence today was already contained implicitly in the fundamental axioms and definitions by which it was proved. So who gets the credit?

The person who ties it all together and gives it a pretty name, of course. That's perfectly fine when it comes to theorems, since (AFAIK) there's nothing to prohibit anyone else from using the new information, as long as the original author gets credit. The problem arises when we start mixing the word "property" in with ideas.

Re:radical rethinking of IP?

[puppet10]

California was so wild and remote that Edison's patents couldn't be enforced

It was also because it was close to another country so they could occasionally flee to Mexico to avoid the law.

Re:radical rethinking of IP?

[cybergrue]

This was one of the many reasons the movie industry moved to California. Other reasosn were the dry conditions (early film was affected by humidity), the natural light (early lights were not as strong as the sun), and the year round 'mild' weather (no snow). It also helped that land was cheap at the time.

Re:radical rethinking of IP?

[PurpleWizard]

"anything that I know is untrue or wrong in any piece"

I suspect you don't read many articles to their conclusion on that basis.

I totally agree with the sentiment though. As a result every few weeks I spend more time responding to articles, listing their errors, than reading them. It is tiring and tiresome. I mainly focus on BBC tech articles in case you fancy splitting the corrections:-)

Re:radical rethinking of IP?

[lxs]

Sloppy scholarship helps no one.

You're absolutely right. However, sloppy journalism is just as bad. A statement like:

it "makes unsubstantiated, misleading, or misinformed statements about copyright law."

needs to be clarified. A competent journalist would ask further, demanding to know which statements are considered unsubstantiated misinformed or misleading. Without clarification this is just an opinion from one source and considering the phrasing of the rest of the comment, probably a biased source.

Re:radical rethinking of IP?

[Mycroft_VIII]

I wouldn't give them 'ultimate credidibility' myself. But thier opions, especialy when thier biases are taken into account, should weigh fairly heavily. Because while the accademics have put alot of thought and reason, backed by education in critical thought and such, they often don't have the practical experience bussiness has with these issues. (and vice versa) Of course it's a bit more complicated than that as both sets of ideas exist within the framework and thus are affected thereby. (blinded of the forrest by the trees from time to time)
Then of course there is the difficulty of shifting to a better paradigm whith a minimum of chaos and other troubles.

Mycroft

Re:radical rethinking of IP?

[cagle_.25]

Clever retort, but consider the discussion of analytic vs. synthetic knowledge here

Re:radical rethinking of IP?

[runderwo]

Consider: every theorem (including algorithms) in existence today was already contained implicitly in the fundamental axioms and definitions by which it was proved. So who gets the credit?

The universe is not based upon the "fundamental" axioms and definitions that we use to model its behavior. It is arguable that by observation we will never be able to determine what the true fundamentals of the universe are, because there for every n observed behaviors, the (n+1)'th behavior might break the model that we established for the first n events.

People spend their time observing physical events to derive the set of universal models known to us, of which a certain subset are useful models for a given application. It is this time spent in research and thought that we seek to reward, because having a more diverse and accurate range of models available for use is valuable to industries that use them.

As long as we don't have a hotline to the Creator of the Universe (if the Universe was a planned thing, that is), there will be a demand for people to create those models. If we allow people that are predisposed toward that line of work to protect their creations for a limited time so that they may live securely, they will be more inclined to pursue the higher education and immense amounts of experimental time necessary to devise the models that industry wants. Otherwise, who would bother? I'm going to spend 10 years after a PhD on the hopes that some company will hire me, because I can't protect the work I produce on my own? That's not a good formula for incentive, at least as far as human motivation goes.

Re:radical rethinking of IP?

[torokun]

I guess it would have been impossible to make a deal with Edison...

Or, maybe they just wanted to take the product of his labors and use them for free...

Re:radical rethinking of IP?

[cagle_.25]

I had to think about your last paragraph for a while. First off, I completely agree with your assertion that

The universe is not based upon the "fundamental" axioms and definitions that we use to model its behavior. It is arguable that by observation we will never be able to determine what the true fundamentals of the universe are, because there for every n observed behaviors, the (n+1)'th behavior might break the model that we established for the first n events.

My skepticism about IP has much more to do with mathematical (analytic) knowledge, such as algorithms, than it does with scientific (synthetic) knowledge.

Second, I conditionally agree that there is a need to protect people's work.

Here is the problem: with any other kind of property besides IP, possession and infringement are fairly clear-cut issues. This occurs because property is made of atoms, located in space, or can be readily modeled as such by extension. I can clearly state whether or not an item or a piece of real-estate is in my possession and the law clearly states what rights others have with respect to that item or piece of real-estate. By extension, I can do the same with a bank account.

Furthermore, my possession of item A in no way prevents your possession of identical item B, so that there is little confusion caused by simultaneous possession of identical items.

This clear-cut situation totally breaks down with IP. For example, if I am an English mathematician/physicist working on motion of cannonballs and invent something called "Calculus" to do the trick, and you are a German mathematician who does the same thing, independently of me, then do I have possession of your ideas, or do you have possession of mine? As you no doubt know, this exact scenario was played out between Isaac Newton and Gottfried Leibniz, and the fight over "credit" for the Calculus helped no-one.

To my mind, this scenario illustrates the problem: IP has the singular unfortunate property that my possessing an idea places a lock on anyone else's possessing the identical idea. Obviously, this is unworkable; thus, all sorts of exceptions have been created under law (e.g., exemptions for "clean-room" reverse-engineering of software, but not so close as to have the same "look-and-feel"). But the exceptions create what seems to me to be an unstable system which will collapse as more and more energy gets spent trying to decide whose ideas were whose to begin with. Meanwhile, less and less time gets spent on using the best ideas out there.

So what happens to the PhD's of the world? I don't know. My fear is that, long-term, the market for ideas will turn out to be a bust. But I'm not a prophet!

no way!

[AssProphet]

You mean threatening people into agreeing with your absurd ideals isn't a successful business model?

Re:no way!

[sleepnmojo]

It worked for my mom, but I wouldn't call that business.

Over and over

[savagedome]

It's been said umpteen times but these folks at RIAA just don't seem to get it.

Its good that these reports are coming from schools that might have a louder voice in getting the point through.

When Joe Sixpack buys the CD, there is no ulterior motive behind that buy. He is not thinking about ripping the songs and sharing it for free. The DRM/copy protection/encryption/blah and all other technologies only make the experience of listening to music bittersweet when you put the CD into the player and it refuses to recognize it. And no digital protection is good enough for the Black Hats who would get around it, no matter what.

I will say it one more time. I have bought MORE music after I listen to it online before buying it. ARE YOU LISTENING RIAA?
BR 10 years down the line, I am sure we will all look back and laugh at RIAA tactics.

Re:Over and over

[Speare]

10 years down the line, I am sure we will all look back and laugh at RIAA tactics.

Only if we can get the Congress to listen to us, and not to the rich and powerful media interests. Media influence is hard to ignore. "Never pick a fight with a guy who buys ink by the barrel."

Re:Over and over

[quisph]

I will say it one more time. I have bought MORE music after I listen to it online before buying it.

The problem is, not everyone is like you. Other people use p2p as a way to avoid paying for music and movies altogether. It's not entirely clear which is the more typical behavior, but I have a hunch it's the latter.

Re:Over and over

[jnicholson]

If sales of an album overall go up after it's shared online, then enough people are like the grandparent poster to make the RIAA's stance ridiculous. I've been told it is the case that sales trend upwards in this circumstance, but I don't know for certain whether it's true. I do know the RIAA don't even consider that argument.

In NZ, we don't get a lot of the good TV series shown here. When they are, they are usually at 3.00pm on a Sunday afternoon, they get moved around frequently and not well advertised, they're usually 2 years behind the original US showing and they're never repeated. I can occasionally download an episode I've missed. Given that it's possible to make money out of free-to-air TV, it must be possible to release a legally downloadable version, complete with advertisements. I wish that the idiot studio executives would realise this. If they encode something with exceptional quality (instead of the rather crappy quality of ripped videotapes) and take the time to get a lot of compression, many people would put up with the advertisements and download the smaller, better, legal copy. If they only put the episode up after a delay of a few weeks, people wouldn't skip the original broadcast in favour of the download. If you space the advertisements right, people won't bother to FF past them. I simply don't understand why this approach wouldn't work.

Maybe I should patent the idea. That might make someone want to do it just so they can fight the patent, since that seems to be the latest sport...

It is Just Logical

[Anonymous Coward]

The virtual, computer, software world is just too malleable and flexible to be treated the same as real-world stuff (that is why computers get used in the first place), although with TCG/TCPA/Trusted Computing some people are having a really good go at trying to make this happen by building 'rules' into hardware.

Some people will need to learn this the hard way, and there is going to be a lot of kicking and screaming.

Fear for the future

[IamGarageGuy 2]

The mainstream press and acedemics are now saying what /. has been ranting about for years. This is not necessarily a good thing. I believe IP should be reformed, but great care should be taken lest we shoot ourselves in the foot. There are a lot of programmers as well as artists here that could stand to lose their livlihood. Be careful what you wish for, you may get it.

Re:Fear for the future

[richie2000]

He was a scrawny calf who looked rather woozy, no-one suspected he was packin' an Uzi.

He mooed we must fight, escape or we'll die
Cows gathered around, cause the steaks were so high
Bad cow pun

We will fight for bovine freedom
We will run free with the Buffalo, or die
Cows with guns

Re:Fear for the future

[IamGarageGuy 2]

We will fight for bovine freedom And hold our large heads high We will run free with the Buffalo, or die Cows with guns

No kidding? People prefer free?

[FreeLinux]

The ideas of copy-left, or of a more liberal regime of copyright, are receiving wider and wider support

Really? What a surprising finding. I would never have guessed that the vast majority of people, who happen to be the consumers of copyrighted material, would actually prefer the copy-left concept where that material was available to them free.

All sarcasm aside, people have always preferred free to paying for something but, the creators of the copyrighted material do deserve to make a living off of their work. The RIAA may be going to extremes with draconian practices but, the presently unspoken idea that "music wants to be free" is not justifiable. When I create a work, what ever it may be, I should have the right to determine how and by whom it may be used. The fact that someone else would rather have it for free is not an adequate reason for me to give it away if I choose not to.

Re:No kidding? People prefer free?

[Queuetue]

Yes, people prefer free. And the people are who the laws are here for.

the creators of the copyrighted material do deserve to make a living off of their work

Yes. The creators. The RIAA does not create music - it finds, harvests, markets , controls and charges for music, giving the slightest hint of what it makes (wastes) back to the original artist.

Courtney Love herself said that the average artist would do a lot better working for tips. That's what copylefting music does - it allows the artists to survive very well on tips, not on hoarding. This is the way artists have survived since the dawn of humanity.

Re:No kidding? People prefer free?

[savagedome]

The RIAA may be going to extremes with draconian practices but, the presently unspoken idea that "music wants to be free" is not justifiable

Music wants to be free is not justifiable. It never was. Although, the tactics are being criticized because there is no alternative provided to the 'buy the whole cd or don't buy it'. I DO NOT want to spend 14/15/16/17 dollars on a CD if there is only a couple of songs that I would like to listen. iTunes is an example that Apple got this sentiment right and its a small step in right direction.

I am not defending people who want the music for free or who are sharing/downloading for free. All I am saying that beating up with a stick without giving an alternative is not right. This is only going to alienate customers and push them to do the wrong thing.

The distribution methods have changed with the P2P technologies and its time to build a business model around it.

ARE YOU READING THIS RIAA???

Re:No kidding? People prefer free?

[Anonymous Coward]

So artists who choose to should copyleft their music, and those who choose to should copyright it. Just like we have at the moment.

Saying "the laws are for the people" is the "tyranny of the majority". I imagine most people would like to take stuff from shops without paying for it - should we let them, since the laws are for the people?

Re:No kidding? People prefer free?

[Realistic_Dragon]

Courtney Love herself said that the average artist would do a lot better working for tips. That's what copylefting music does - it allows the artists to survive very well on tips, not on hoarding.

The added bonus of course is that the good artists get paid and the crap artists have to find something else to do. It's more efficient (in an economic sense) than the current system which can drive sales for groups with no musical talent.

Re:No kidding? People prefer free?

[esme]

When I create a work, what ever it may be, I should have the right to determine how and by whom it may be used.

and that right should end when you perform that work in public.

that system worked very well for thousands of years, and would still work today if we totally abandoned copyright law. all but a handful of musicians already make all of their profits from live performances. patronage (government or private) can support artists who require more financing (opera and architecture come to mind) than they can get based on expectations of future performance revenues.

i do think there is a role for protecting artists from having their work plagiarized or bastardized (some european countries have laws like these). but copyright as it stands now hurts consumers, and doesn't help artists.

-esme

Re:No kidding? People prefer free?

[goldspider]

"Courtney Love herself said that the average artist would do a lot better working for tips."

Then perhaps they should. No company ever forced a musician into a record contract. There's enough information readily available for up-and-coming musicians to make responsible career decisions.

If they choose to sign a bad contract with an RIAA label, they can no longer claim deception. Ignorance is no longer an excuse.

Re:No kidding? People prefer free?

[richie2000]

the creators of the copyrighted material do deserve to make a living off of their work.

So pay them. Don't pay the RIAA. And make a note of this and hang it on the wall: If no one wants to pay them, they don't deserve getting paid.

Artists want to be free.

Re:No kidding? People prefer free?

[Waffle Iron]

All sarcasm aside, people have always preferred free to paying for something but, the creators of the copyrighted material do deserve to make a living off of their work.

That's not the reason that copyright was created. It was created to "promote useful arts and sciences". If changes in technology were to make it possible for the optimal amount of useful arts and sciences to be generated without the creators making a direct living off of controlling copies, then logic would dictate that copyright should be curtailed. Whether the creators "deserve" anything is irrelevant.

Copyright is a restriction on the freedom of the people. It was instituted as a tradeoff to generate more content. If it can be demonstrated that the content will be created anyway, then there is no need for it. So, if you wish to argue for copyrights, you need to somehow demonstrate that they increase the amount of content available to the public compared to any less intrusive system, and that the quantity and quality of the increased content outweighs the burdens and costs that the system imposes.

The fact that someone else would rather have it for free is not an adequate reason for me to give it away if I choose not to.

Conversely, the fact that you don't want to give something away for free is not in itself adequate reason to give broad and intrusive police powers to the government (and now private vigilante groups). If you don't want to give it away, you can always keep it secret. The government was given these powers so that more content would be created, the goal was not to create a personal enforcement squad for your wishes.

Re:No kidding? People prefer free?

[John the Kiwi]

"This is the way artists have survived since the dawn of humanity"

And this is exactly the point. The very concept of coyright goes against thousands of years of humanity copying and using whatever they find useful to better their lives.

While the Greeks did not invent writing, they copied the concept from somewhere else and their society benefitted greatly from it. The Romans used pumps that were invented elsewhere and without which their aquaducts would have been useless.

I believe that every invention and improvement made in the modern era is a direct result of the education and knowledge that our ancestors invented for us. Seriously, sdo you think Bill Gates could have written Windows without all of the work others had done before him? Without the ability to read and write or do complex mathematic calculations if those ideas and principals had been copyrighted throughout all this time? Of course not, we take what knowledge we can and we build upon it. The end result is the result of work done by thousands (if not millions) of individuals throughout time and it took all of our learning and knowledge to get where we are today. IP laws never helped humanity then and they are not helping humanity now.

I believe that people should be compensated for their intellectual work, but IP laws as they are now don't benefit people, they benefit nobody but companies. IMO IP laws are not natural, they do not add to society and they certainly do not encourage the sharing of knowledge which, in turn would increase research times...

Well I'm at work and in a hurry. I'll stop my rant, sorry if it makes no sense. But all we have, we have because of the collective works of humanity - IP laws bastardise the right of the public to learn and research whatever they like which is a fundamental right our ancestors have always had.

John the Kiwi

Re:No kidding? People prefer free?

[Queuetue]

In the U.S., that depends on what "the people" want. If you're asking me if it's wrong to take someone's belongings, I'd definitely say yes.

If you're asking if it's wrong to take things from a corporation - no, I don't think it is. It's illegal, but not wrong, and hopefully some day laws will come into parity with the reality: People matter, corporations don't. Until then, common sense says follow the laws to avoid punishment.

Re:No kidding? People prefer free?

[dbc001]

I realize that you're not supposed to feed trolls like the parent post, but I'll humor him just to make a point.

Full disclosure: I am an amateur musician. Many of my close friends are artists of some sort, and many make some or all of their income from art or creative works. I've sold several hundred CDs, and I make sure that I always share my own stuff, and I encourage my friends to do the same.

When I create a work, what ever it may be, I should have the right to determine how and by whom it may be used.
You do have that right, as do all creators. You can either distribute your work, or you can keep it to yourself. You have a great deal of control over any works you create. In fact, you have 100% control until you do something like release it to the public.

Music does not "want to be free". But ideas are inherently free, and no matter how many laws are made, no matter how many patents are taken out, ideas will always be free. They can't be stopped or prevented or controlled or stolen or borrowed.

On a slightly related note, apparently the Martin Luther King heirs tried to claim ownership of the "I have a dream" speech. Mr. Troll, do you honestly believe that anyone should be able to claim ownership of that particular piece of "intellectual property"? Should the King heirs "have the right to determine how and by whom it may be used"?
In the English language, we say that someone "gives" a speech. Or "gives" a performance. Once you give a speech, you can't have it back! Now it belongs to everyone, just like all the other ideas! No one can control it, or restrict it, or determine how and by whom it may be used.

Re:No kidding? People prefer free?

[Anonymous Coward]

You know that you're on a slippery slope when it's "The government", and not "Our government" ...

Re:No kidding? People prefer free?

[Anonymous Coward]

What free?

I pay for a computer and other hardware to listen to my music files. I pay for electricity to run it. I pay an ISP so I can get onto the Internet. I pay for support books and coursework so I can understand new technologies. I pay for blank videotapes and audiotapes and CD and DVD disks. The list goes on and on...

Oh, you mean the CONTENT can be duplicated without harming the original content? So, change your business model, charge for enhanced experiences. Sell me a paper book or an e-book so I can hold that content in my hands. Sell me a concert ticket so I can hear that music live. Sell me a movie ticket so I can see that movie in a theater on the big screen.

Wide distribution of content drives increasing peripheral demand such as the demand for hardware. Apple understands this - I-Tunes is a loss leader for them. The content doesn't matter, it's just a mechanism for the sale of the I-Pod hardware.

Why is it so hard to understand that content is dumb, content is raw material. Less DRM means more sales of hardware etc. Less DRM is good for the economy. It's a no-brainer.

Re:No kidding? People prefer free?

[quisph]

"the creators of the copyrighted material do deserve to make a living off of their work"

Yes. The creators. The RIAA does not create music

What a non-answer. You're throwing out the baby with the bath water if you would eliminate copyright just to spite the RIAA.

Courtney Love herself said that the average artist would do a lot better working for tips.

But don't you see, she wasn't arguing in favor of tips. She was trying to illustrate how bad the average record deal is for the artist. "Worse than tips" is not an argument in favor of tips.

Besides, do you really want to base your entire solution to the problem on something that Courtney Love said?

Re:No kidding? People prefer free?

[The Queen]

the current system which can drive sales for groups with no musical talent.

Bingo! Bands like mine have no chance at getting signed by a major label, because #1, we were not poured and shaped in the mold of Britney by the company brass, and #2, there are no more talent scouts. There are scouts, but they don't hear the music, they see T&A or hunk-meat prospects.

And LONG gone are the days when you could buy an album based on how cool its cover was, and have a good shot at liking the music. (But now I would go on a graphic design rant, which would be offtopic...)

Re:No kidding? People prefer free?

[Queuetue]

First of all...

Yes, the Courtney Love thing bothered me. I wrote my initial post twice trying to avoid her name, but figured I'd sound like I was making it up if I didn't. :)

I haven't read the article in wuite a while, but my take on it (if not her point) was that the artistic comuunity as a whole would make a lot more based on a globalized 'tipping' scenario, like the Street Performer Protocol. I also forsee a 'patron' scenario, producing specific music for advertisements, event, movies, etc.

I'm not suggesting giving up copyright - and the copyleft idea does not do that. I suggest doing something else to with that copyright than turning it over to a predator company - maybe keeping it for yourself (see patron idea), or maybe giving it to your fans that support you instead of the monolithic organization that lives off of you until it burns you out or destroys your craft.

Fans get more, musician gets more, RIAA gets nothing, because they can't add value anymore.

Re:No kidding? People prefer free?

[glesga_kiss]

Music wants to be free is not justifiable. It never was.

Excuse me? Music is reckoned to be the oldest art form created by mankind. Money came along a lot later.

Remember, the "record labels" (look at the name) exist from the manufacture of LPs. Before LPs, they did not exist. Music still existed, composers wrote symphonies and bands played live. Don't tell me music doesn't want to be free. It's always been free; only in the last 50 years has it become a commodity. And the RIAA is going to great lengths to indoctrinate that belief into everyone.

Re:No kidding? People prefer free?

[jnicholson]

If you're asking if it's wrong to take things from a corporation - no, I don't think it is. It's illegal, but not wrong, and hopefully some day laws will come into parity with the reality: People matter, corporations don't.

Corporations are made of people - the shareholders. If you are taking something from a corporation, you are depriving people who own shares in that corporation. Many retirement investments - and in fact, state pension schemes - contain shares in their portfolio. Just because you can't see the people, doesn't mean you're not taking things from people.

Re:No kidding? People prefer free?

[Queuetue]

No, they aren't. Corporations are legal entities unto themselves that exist with or without their shareholders, as a shell to protect those shareholders from taxation, prosecution and litigation. Corporations are entities that aren't don't act with citizenship, because they don't have any.

That so many people tie thier lives and successes to these organizations that have no interest in them is a shame, but it doesn't improve the organization's status. Taking from a company is still not wrong - putting faith in one is. It is illegal, though, and once again - the laws should be changed, we shouldn't be breaking them.

Re:No kidding? People prefer free?

[runderwo]

All sarcasm aside, people have always preferred free to paying for something but, the creators of the copyrighted material do deserve to make a living off of their work.

No. They deserve the _opportunity_ to make a living off of their work. They do not deserve a free ride just because they are "creators of copyrighted material". What if their creation sucks? Of course, in a planned economy, your argument would probably have more weight.

In this country, I think it is a better idea to allow competition. Even if that competition sells a competing product for a lower price. Even if it means Kid Rock will be starving in the street because people preferred to listen to local bands at the coffee house for free instead of buying his latest album. If we reject the necessity of competition and consumer alternatives in avoiding societal stagnation, we might as well throw away capitalism and start over.

Re:No kidding? People prefer free?

[Anonymous Coward]

When I create a work, what ever it may be, I should have the right to determine how and by whom it may be used. The fact that someone else would rather have it for free is not an adequate reason for me to give it away if I choose not to.

I totally disagree. When you create a piece of knowledge, and you decide to share that knowledge with the public, you have no right to charge an admission fee. If I hear a joke from Seinfeld, should I have to pay Seinfeld a quarter every time I think of the joke, or every time I tell it to someone else? I don't think so. I should ackowledge that he was the one who came up with the joke, but I shouldn't have to pay him every time I tell it to a buddy.

Same for music, books, etc released to the public. Imagine a kid going home and telling his mom that he heard a great story at school, but he can't tell it too her because he doesn't own a copy.

However, trying to profit off of someone's work IS crossing the line. So sharing knowledge is OK, but trying to sell it is wrong. Only the creator should have the right to sell their creation (for a limited time of course).

Re:No kidding? People prefer free?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do people keep insisting that only the copyright owner can determine how and by whom a work may be used? That's fine and well if you never distribute the work, but selling copies of the work means that the buyer gains many rights. If you write a book and sell copies, you have no right to prevent people from loaning the book, reviewing the book, copying limited portions of the book for certain limited purposes, reselling the book (possibly below the initial sale price), and such.

It's easy to lose track of the point of copyright when people forget that it is for the benefit of both owner and licensee, not for the exclusive protection of the owner.

Not bad for business...

[WIAKywbfatw]

...if you're Amazon and you're talking about one click ordering, or RAMBUS if you're talking about royalties on DDR RAM, etc. Obviously, if you're not the one holding the patents then you're not so lucky. But if you are that guy then you're laughing all the way to the bank.

This isn't a post about how good patents are. On the contrary, it's a post about how patents can be misused or abused to give one company an unfair advantage over its rivals.

I don't know where you draw the line between good patents and bad ones but it seems to me that a patent should at least illustrate a degree of innovation and invention beyond "Let's take this old idea and put it together with that old idea and have ourselves a licence to print money!", which is where we're at now with the USPTO handing out patents to overly-broad, far from unique ideas to anyone who ponies up the relevant filing fees.

Re:Not bad for business...

[muonzoo]

On the contrary, it's a post about how patents can be misused or abused to give one company an [unfair] advantage over its rivals.

That was the whole idea behind them. It might be just that a 20 year term of protection is too stringent for things like computer science innovations. However, withness the revolution in textiles when the original Gore patent rant our on Gore-Tex a few years back. Radical improvement in the quality of the 'competeing' fabrics, many of which were simply Teflon-laminate membranes made by someone other than Gore.

You could build an argument that Gore deserved to earn significant revenues for their pioneering work in the textiles field. That's what the patent process is supposed to look like. Since the innovation is clearly documented, at the end of the term, everyone benefits. It's definately a double edged sword.

Patents might have problems, especially when someone is granted a patent for non-novel techniques, or worse, something with demonstrable prior-art. This is when the system starts to break down. Combined with the Bog Business technique of cross licensing you can really lock out the little guys. Those practises are more a problem that the underlying concept.

Re:Not bad for business...

[wfberg]

...if you're Amazon and you're talking about one click ordering, or RAMBUS if you're talking about royalties on DDR RAM, etc. Obviously, if you're not the one holding the patents then you're not so lucky. But if you are that guy then you're laughing all the way to the bank.

But everyone else gets screwed. That's fine as long as it encourages people to come up with new stuff, but it's bad in the long term; which is exactly why patents and copyrights should be for a limited time only. Your comment is like saying that inflation is good, because some people benefit from inflation (e.g. borrowers with a fixed interest rate, etc.) at the same rate that other people suffer. But in the long run, you don't want runaway inflation or runaway intellectual monopolies; because it destabalizes the economy, and breaks the fundamental quid-pro-quo of copyright/patent/trademark law.

Just to give an example; if you want to make an album full of samples (like the Beasty Boys' second album) these days.. well.. you can't! Because it would be too expensive to license all those 1 second samples, even though they have questionable artistic merit per se, and combining them into a new work is an artistic endeavor which results in a holistic new work. And that holds true even for those with pretty sweet record deals; record companies won't even crosslicense between their own artists. This is an enormous barrier-to-entry for sampling artists, which the established rightsholders don't care about because it's not their model of either business or art. And you can count on none of those copyrights expiring any time soon, because they're retroactively being renewed by paid-for laws.

I don't know where you draw the line between good patents and bad ones but it seems to me that a patent should at least illustrate a degree of innovation and invention beyond "Let's take this old idea and put it together with that old idea and have ourselves a licence to print money!", which is where we're at now with the USPTO handing out patents to overly-broad, far from unique ideas to anyone who ponies up the relevant filing fees.

The fees themselves, and the costs of contesting bad patents, and their running time, are as much of a problem as the USPTO's whoring for dimes.
If applying for patents was really cheap, the FSF would hold hundreds of them; if contesting them was cheap and easy (just mail the USPTO some prior art or explain why it's trivial), most of the patents that come up on /. would be invalidated in a day. If e-online.intarweb patents had a running time of a year, we'd all pony up some one-click cash just fine, or we'd wait for it to expire.

None of this is true though; applying for a patent is costly, contesting one (either through the USPTO or the courts) is fiendishly complicated and costly, and patents run for years and years. The rubberstamping is little more than aiding and abetting.

Re:Academia ....

[indros]

Yeah, but how much longer until the Gov't figures it out?

RIAA

[molafson]

Copy-left software is conceptually different from the intellectual property that RIAA so stingily guards. I don't see what one has to do with the other. To associate the two categories weakens by association the legitimacy of copy-left (since "file trading" is legally actionable, if not altogether wrong).

IPR isnt a problem in itself...

[D-Cypell]

Its a double edged sword this one...

A startup requires some kind of protection from companies that are bigger and more established from taking their idea and using their extra resources to get the product to market first. The IPR laws were orginally designed to protect the small guy and give him a fighting chance... in this case they add competition to the market.

The problem is that they are being used as bargining chips by huge global-hyper-mega corps as the corperate equivilant of a nuclear deterant (You sue me for this and i'll sue you for that!). This is absolutely NOT what they are designed for.

It would be great to come up with some hard and fast rule that prevents this abuse, but I cant think of one. Perhaps some kind of patent lifespan restriction based on company net worth (to prevent a company with ample resources to develop a patented technology from just sitting on the idea).

Any other suggestions?

Re:IPR isnt a problem in itself...

[Dun Malg]

It would be great to come up with some hard and fast rule that prevents this abuse, but I cant think of one. Perhaps some kind of patent lifespan restriction based on company net worth (to prevent a company with ample resources to develop a patented technology from just sitting on the idea).

Wouldn't work. Any big company with significant resources would have little trouble spinning off a subsidiary company with very little net worth whose entire purpose was to hold all the patents and license them and/or hammer competitors with lawsuits. And if you say "any company a big company has controlling interest in" as a caveat to get around this, you run into a catch-22 for small startups: their patents are gone if they get too much investment, but without investment their patents are useless....

Re:IPR isnt a problem in itself...

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if the real answer lies in trusting the free market principles not the perversion of that system which we have in which it is really about profiteering.

I always ask what is the purpose of a company? Is is we are told to make a profit. That might be why people do it now but I think it was and should be to actually serve society.

Genuinne free market approach would allow the big company to take the idea. It would also allow any other big company to take the idea. There would then be serious competition and if they wanted to make a profit they would have to rely purely upon distinguishing their product hopefully by making it cheaper than anyone else. That cheapness makes it affordable for everyone to get hold of.

Re:IPR isnt a problem in itself...

[runderwo]

Yeah. I think the only two sane solutions are:

1) Require the patent to be used within X period of time in a product which is made available for sale. This may or may not work for smaller inventors who might need time to capitalize before offering the product. Or if they try to sell the product to a company, the company can just refuse, knowing the inventor wouldn't be able to market it himself, and just use his idea when the patent short-circuits due to non-use.

2) Simply invalidate patents in areas where patents are being used purely as anticompetitive measures instead of as incentive. Example: patents on software concepts or Internet business models. I think this is a much better approach. Even if patents are granted in these areas, a judge can easily strike them down just by categorical analysis.

Re:IPR isnt a problem in itself...

[Dun Malg]

Simply invalidate patents in areas where patents are being used purely as anticompetitive measures instead of as incentive.

But patents are designed to be anticompetitive measures-- that's why they're an incentive.

Re:IPR isnt a problem in itself...

[runderwo]

I meant incentive in terms of bringing a product to market that would not have otherwise been invented, not incentive to get more patents to use as weapons. If something is brought to market, then society has gained something in trade for that govt-granted monopoly.

A matter of simple economics

[lavalyn]

Once a person decides that a price of $15 is not a good price for a CD, or that $150 is not a good price for Windows XP, the economy as a whole is better off with that person downloading said program. Sure, the RIAA or Microsoft are happy with it, and would fight to the death over it, but that sale would never have been made in the first place.

The access to the infinitely duplicable material destroys the notion of scarcity of the product itself - whereupon the obvious price for such a product is no more than the cost of transport - usage of an Internet account.

We're seeing the destruction of an entire industry; its old guard will cry foul every step of the way, until the market eventually drags it into this new age. Observe the American car industry in the '70s, or of US Steel.

Re:A matter of simple economics

[ryanjensen]

The value of intangible items like songs or software does not come from the physical effort that went into creating another copy, but rather from the mental effort that went into creating the FIRST copy. Like you said, copying an album is trivial, so why pay $15 for a piece of plastic that cost $0.10 to make? Because you're not. You're paying for the ideas/content ON the piece of plastic.

However, to compare the downfall of industries that rely on intellectual property with the downfall of the car industry or the US steel industry is naive. With both of those industries, the ratio of physical-to-mental effort leaned decidedly towards the physical end. Copying a car or forged steel is not a trivial matter. The auto and steel industries faced cheaper competition from abroad, not wholesale misuse/theft by their customers.

Re:Academia ....

[geoffspear]

Well since Stallman has been part of "academia" at MIT for longer you've known about the concept of free software, and probably for longer than you've been alive, you're kind of wrong.

Or did you think all free software has been developed by a bunch of teenage hackers?

But...

[da_anarchist]

Intellectual property laws may be bad for business in general, but they are invaluable to big business. How else could they ensure that upstarts don't come in, undercut them, and take over the market? Yet, as anyone who's taken Economics 101 should know, monopolies are hopelessly inefficient - they restrict output leading to high prices for the consumer, whereas a competive market produces more and can only charge around their cost to produce the product. It's hard to be optimistic that big business interests and their lobbyists will ever allow the status quo to change.

Re:But...

[Daniel Boisvert]

Intellectual property laws may be bad for business in general, but they are invaluable to big business. How else could they ensure that upstarts don't come in, undercut them, and take over the market?

Three words: Economies of scale

I think there's an interesting change happening around us, where folks are starting to rediscover that ideas aren't the be-all, end-all of a successful business. The key in business has always been in the execution. If you can do it better, faster, cheaper, etc. you win. You don't get a guaranteed billion just for coming up with an idea and ambushing somebody with your patent 10 years after they make the business model work.

I'm drawing a bit from my artistic background here, and looking at it from a slightly different perspective. As an artist (dancer), I don't get paid if I don't work. That work can be teaching, it can be choreography, it can be performing. The simple fact is, however, that if I'm not constantly working, I don't get paid. I don't tell my students that they can't use the knowledge I've passed on to them. They can use it however they please.

The key works out to this: If you don't work, you don't eat. You can have all the inspiration you want, but if you can't translate that into something someone else wants, and do it consistently, you're going to be hurting. I'm not sure yet whether I like that idea or not, but it certainly seems fair enough.

Then again, I may just be hallucinating.... ;)

Dan

Re:But...

[Gonarat]

No Copyright or Patent laws may be bad, but going too far the other way is just as bad. I can understand the *AAs wanting to make money on their products, but today's copyright law is about maintaining control (in practical terms) forever.

P2P sharing is just a small part of the picture, technically all fan fiction is illegal without permission from the copyright holder, yet fan fiction is one of the results of "content" becoming part of our culture. Why should (not for profit) fan fiction and fan web sites be illegal? That is why original copyright law was limited to 14 years -- it allowed the creator to profit from his or her work while allowing for the work to be freely used by everyone after a period time.

We should go back to a reasonable (14 year) copyright. Why should works such as D.J. DangerMouse's "Grey Album" be considered "illegal art" or projects such as Star Trek: New Voyages have to exist as long as Paramount doesn't mind (I'm not sure what their arrangement is with Paramount, but 5YM is not for profit).

Businesses and creators can make a reasonable profit without having to own our culture forever. I'm sure the Beatles have made a ton of money on their music in the 30 plus years that it has been around, and I'm sure Paramount has made a load of money off of Kirk, Spock, and the original Enterprise.

It is time to bring "IP" law back to reality.

Re:But...

[jdonovan]

Yet, as anyone who's taken Economics 101 should know, monopolies are hopelessly inefficient - they restrict output leading to high prices for the consumer, whereas a competive market produces more and can only charge around their cost to produce the product. It's hard to be optimistic that big business interests and their lobbyists will ever allow the status quo to change.

Sometimes the monopoly actually helps the little guy, by preventing abuse by larger entities. As an advanced photography student, who has not only spoken to, but assisted pros, copyright is needed by anyone working freelance.

Anyone wanting to work in either the advertising or fashion fields sends out portfolios, to as many art directors as possible. Without a contract (which no one would give to ALL of the portfolios received), what, if not copyright, stands in the way of $COMPANY from taking an artist's work, and using it in an ad campaign, with no compensation for $ARTIST? In this case, copyright law protects the "little guy," and their ability to work as a creative professional.

Furthermore, if I say, decided to expand my artistic horizons, and write a novel, and made it availible online, gratis, what, besides IP laws, would prevent a publisher from printing and selling this work? Yes, I could pay a lawyer to write an air-tight terms of use for my site, but, would have to fight any battles on the basis of contract law, and would be much more likely drawn into a lawsuit which I would lose due to lack of funds, than would occur under copyright laws

Current copyright law allows the copyright holder to allow certain types of distrobution beyond fair-use, as evidenced by the GPL, through liscensing. Thus, one can release their works under rules of their choosing, to better benefit society. Copyrights protect GPL code from the abuse of entities such as Micro$oft, who could easily steal such code without restriction, were it not for copyright.

What I'm trying to say, is that the temporary monopoly given by copyright allows creative professionals, whether artists, or programmers, to avoid becoming prey to "bigger fish." The lack of creative monopoly only serves to hurt those who make creative works, at the benefit of big(ger) business.

However, I do not believe that this monopoly should be anything but very temporary. If any potential heirs of mine want to strike it rich, they had better create something themselves, rather than ride daddy's success. I'd be happy with a 15 year copyright... period., which will allow me to profit off of my work, but prevent most of the abuse of others doing the same. But to eliminate IP laws altogether, would allow megacorps to abuse artists, and likely, programmers.

Re:But...

[ryanjensen]

Dan, even a physically-intensive activity like dancing can be turned into intellectual property. Case in point: Lord of the Dance.

The dancers in that show do not have to constantly work to get paid, because they recorded their performance and sold copies of the recording for a profit. The bulk of their mental effort went into choreographing the performance, and without intellectual property protection anyone can copy their performance and sell it without consequence or cost (or effort for that matter).

That's not to say that another dancer cannot expand upon the ideas and methods in Lord of the Dance and create his own performance -- intellectual law allows for that.

You say that you don't tell your students they can't use the knowledge you've passed on to them. However, I'm sure if you choreographed a routine for one of your students and he turned around the next day claiming the performance as his own, you would be upset.

C|Net News.Com.com Mirror

[Anonymous Coward]

http://news.com.com/2100-1027_3-5167121.html

Correct term is Intellectual Monopoly

[NZheretic]

The term Intellectual Property is a misnomer, a more correct term would be intellectual monopoly
Adam Smith and *Intellectual monopoly* (Score:5, Interesting)
by NZheretic (23872) on Fri 18 Oct 12:11AM (#4467943)

From

The Relevance of Adam Smith by Robert L. Hetzel.
With added commentary by yours truly...

MONOPOLY AND GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES: The principal theme set forth in The Wealth of Nations is that a country most effectively promotes its own wealth by providing a framework of laws that leaves individuals free to pursue the interest they have in their own economic betterment. This self-interest motivates individuals? propensity to truck, barter, and exchange one thing for another and thereby leads them to meet the needs of others through voluntary cooperation in the market place:

...man has almost constant occasion for the help of his brethren, and it is in vain for him to expect it from their benevolence only. He will be more likely to prevail if he can interest their self-love in his favour, and shew them that it is for their own advantage to do for him what he requires of them. Whoever offers to another a bargain of any kind, proposes to do this. Give me that which I want, and you shall have this which you want, is the meaning of every such offer; and it is in this manner that we obtain from one another the far greater part of those good offices which we stand in need of. It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages. (p. 14)

Everyone realises and acknowledges that Microsoft is a business, there to make a profit to share with it's marjor stakeholders, from it's shareholders to it's employees. However ...

Smith also argues that the harmony between private goals and larger socially desirable goals promoted by voluntary cooperation between individuals in the market place is interfered with by monopoly and government subsidies. In contrast to competition, monopoly and government subsidies cause individuals to devote either too few or too many resources to particular markets:

....the private interests and passions of individuals naturally dispose them to turn their stock towards the employments which in ordinary cases are most advantageous to the society. But if from this natural preference they should turn too much of it towards those employments, the fall of profit in them and the rise of it in all others immediately dispose them to alter this faulty distribution. Without any intervention of law, therefore, the private interests and passions of men naturally lead to divide and distribute the stock of every society, among all the different employments carried on in it, as nearly as possible in the proportion which is most agreeable to the interest of the whole society.

All the different regulations of the mercantile system, necessarily derange more or less this natural and most advantageous distribution of stock. (pp. 594-5)
Every derangement of the natural distribution of stock is necessarily hurtful to the society in which it takes place; whether it be by repelling from a particular trade the stock which would otherwise go to it, or by attracting towards a particular trade that which would not otherwise come to it. (p. 597)

.... sometimes, because of the overiding profit motive, the end consumer can be put at a disadvantage, and the natural model can become unbal

Re:Correct term is Intellectual Monopoly

[ryanjensen]

At first, I didn't know quite where you were headed with this post. When I read "sometimes, because of the overiding profit motive, the end consumer can be put at a disadvantage, and the natural model can become unbalanced," I was thoroughly confused. Why? Because it is an exact contradiction of the quote that it references:

Without any intervention of law, therefore, the private interests and passions of men naturally lead to divide and distribute the stock of every society, among all the different employments carried on in it, as nearly as possible in the proportion which is most agreeable to the interest of the whole society.

All the different regulations of the mercantile system, necessarily derange more or less this natural and most advantageous distribution of stock.

So it is not the profit motive that disrupts the natural model, but rather government regulations that restrict the free flow of capital from inefficient to efficient areas of the economy.

But that sidetracked me only a little. Reading on in your post, I see that you do in fact blame the government's intervention for the monopoly created by Microsoft. You equate intellectual propert regulations to the regulations that supported the East India Trading Company. To support this claim, you quote Mr. Hetzel as such:

Free markets make the formation of monopoly difficult because monopoly requires the adherence of all actual and potential sellers in a market. Self-interest makes achievement of such adherence difficult because each seller has an incentive to undercut the monopoly price in order to increase his share of the market. Monopoly power is increased or made possible if enforced by the government.

However, in the special case of intellectual property (copyrights, patents, and trade marks), competitors can reproduce exact and perfect copies of a company's goods with basically zero effort or cost. This is especially true in today's economy, where digital reproduction is costless (except for transportation). This allows competitors to literally undercut the "monopoly" price of intellectual property indefinitely, to nearly zero.

Intellectual property (monopoly) protections exist because the government understands that the value in copyrighted, patented, or trade marked goods lie in the high amount of mental effort that went into creating the first copy, not the subsequent physical effort that goes into making further copies.

To quote Ayn Rand:

Every type of productive work involves a combination of mental and physical effort: of thought and of physical action to translate that thought into a material form. The proportion of these to elements varies in different types of work. At the lowest end of the scale, the mental effort required to perform unskilled manual labor is minimal. At the other end, what the patent and copyright laws acknowledge is the paramount role of mental effort in the production of material values; these laws protect the mind's contribution in its purest form: the origination of an idea.

If there were no copyright ...

[mst76]

I estimate that the iTunes music store holds around 500.000 songs, which requires about 2TB storage. At the moment, it costs only around $1300 in harddisks for consumers to store the entire iTunes collection. It is likely that in a few years, it will only costs about, say $300 bucks. Another few years and it will be affordable (in terms of storage) for consumers to have the entire library of songs ever published in their pocket. Does having copyright on music still make sense then?

The primary motivation for copyright is to stimulate more output by giving creators limited-time protection of their work. But do we really need stimulation for more musical output if you can a million songs with you at anytime? If copyright were to be abolished, the amount of new works will undoubtly fall, but it's unlikely to dissappear altogether. The benefits is that everybody can, for little costs, enjoy about the complete published musical output of the past with them. Is this a good tradeoff?

Re:If there were no copyright ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats great we can listen to the same music from the past over and over again. I am getting tired of Ace of Base I want something new.

Re:If there were no copyright ...

[dthree]

I'm sure not the first to say this, but that would lead to a situation I'm fully in favor of: musicians making a living by PLAYING live music for people.

Re:If there were no copyright ...

[Anonymous Coward]

> Thats great we can listen to the same music from the past over and over again. I am getting tired of Ace of Base I want something new.

Assuming 3 min per track, if you have 500.000 songs, you can listen for 8 hours per day for more than eight years without ever repeating a song.

Re:If there were no copyright ...

[jockm]

But not all forms of music are cundusive to live performance. Dance music, for example, is really intended to be played in clubs, so pay-by-live-performance may not work for them.

Re:If there were no copyright ...

[Anonymous Coward]

> But not all forms of music are cundusive to live performance. Dance music, for example, is really intended to be played in clubs, so pay-by-live-performance may not work for them.

As I understand it, DJs are the superstars of dance music, and are payed accordingly.

Re:If there were no copyright ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Imagine there's no copyright,
It's easy if you try,
No RIAA above us,
Below us only files,
Imagine all the people,
Sharing files for free...

Imagine no IP laws,
It isn't hard to do,
No fees for any download,
No subscription too,
Imagine all the people,
Sharing all theirs files...

You may say I'm a dreamer,
but I'm not the only one,
I hope some day you'll join us,
And the world will share as one.

Re:If there were no copyright ...

[glesga_kiss]

Most decent DJs don't even pay for the records in the first place; they get given out as promos. The old "white label" thing comes from this.

Re:If there were no copyright ...

[glesga_kiss]

It's almost that way right now; the only way to make money out of music is to tour. Unless you are as big as Madonna (i.e. lots of negotiating clout), you ain't gonna see any of your album sales.

With free music, bands could give their albums away at concerts, and make money from merchendising. Short of a complete DRM lockdown on the billions of existing PCs out there, this is really the only viable option for the future.

Re:If there were no copyright ...

[Anonymous Coward]

'But do we really need stimulation for more musical output if you can a million songs with you at anytime?'

How do you can songs?

Re:If there were no copyright ...

[hypnagogue]

If copyright were to be abolished, the amount of new works will undoubtly fall, but it's unlikely to dissappear altogether.

As a working songwriter, I can tell you: there is simply no money to be made in the current system. The authors of the creative works simply aren't making any money now... so where's the value of the monopoly?

The "industry" is using their monopoly protection not to increase creative output, but to reduce it. There are hundreds of thousands of performing musicians in this country... how many are represented by "industry" labels? Almost none. Meanwhile the most prolific songwriter I know works at Guitar Center selling knockoff Fenders to teenagers in order to pay the rent.

Re:If there were no copyright ...

[k8er]

They can SELL their albums at concerts. I personally have never ever had a problem buying directly from the artist. And not just because it's less expensive to cut out the middle men, just on principle.

Re:If there were no copyright ...

[glesga_kiss]

I completely agree, but to be honest I think asking more than $5 for a CD might be too much in the post-napster world. Just think, the internet is still in it's infancy. Faster speeds and greater access are going to change everything.

A scene on campus...

[Spoing]

1. The professors say, "The ideas of copy-left, or of a more liberal regime of copyright, are receiving wider and wider support, It's no longer a wacky idea cloistered in the ivory tower; it's become a more mainstream idea that we need a different kind of copyright regime to support the wide range of activities in cyberspace."

Man-on-the-street: "But, aren't you a member of that group of ivory tower theorists?"

Profs: [runs off] "AAHAHAHA! Man the battlements! Back, I say to thee, BACK!"

So you want MORE coercion through force...

[dada21]

Copyrights and Intellectual Property are protected through the use of force by the only monopoly legally allowed to use force: our government.

Copyright makes sense in some ways, but if you look at copyright historically, much of the greatest art and music was produced with no protection for the author. Great literary works and poetry also had no protection under copyright until recently.

In the past 300 years, we decided in order to protect the "rights" of a creator, we need government to step in and threaten anyone who wanted to steal such creations and use them without compensating the artist. Fine.

Our Constitution gave very limited protection (7 years, extendable for another 7 years maximum). To many free thinkers, copyright was a great concern, as it now gave government a new power it didn't have before. As many of the free marketeers here know, every new government power is a slippery slope towards ultimate government power.

Copyright has been made into a monopolizing power for corporations, and now capitalism and the free market is blamed! Capitalism would never allow copyright -- if you create something, don't release it until you have the best way to market or distribute it. Should I have a better tactic, I should be able to move it too. Creating a product or art is only part of the profitability -- marketing, distribution, and other parts of selling the item are just as important.

Copyleft is no better. In the end, you still need some entity to enforce it. If its a free market entity, people will have no reason to support your copyleft as they aren't forced to. If you allow government the ability to enforce it, they will only use coecion through force to protect it, and that again creates a monopoly.

When it boils down to software, there might not be any reason to copyright or copyleft or protect the software through the monopoly of force. There are free market protections in place already!

If you were the author of Windows, and someone wanted to promote the product without your consent, you could submit to the buying public that they should buy your product as they'd get your support. They'd get your updates (as you have the source code) quicker than through your competitor. They'd get the support of knowing they can submit new ideas to you that might get into the code (your competitor wouldn't have that ability, no source code). Your customers would also have the knowledge that they'd be supporting you to continue to make better products.

Where does copyright fit into this? Is copyright preventing rampant piracy? Not a chance. If you want to protect your software from getting copied, force your software to register itself online at every use. Fixed. No pirating.

If you want to protect your software from getting copied, how about hardware locks like in the past? Sure, some have been worked around, but in the end, the pirates would have to work extra hard to do so. If you price it properly, business would have no incentive to pirate.

Copyright and copyleft are both automations created that can only work through force. Only government has the legal mandate to initiate force. And once we allow that power, we have no power to restrain it should it get out of hand.

Re:So you want MORE coercion through force...

[Anonymous Coward]

Not a chance. If you want to protect your software from getting copied, force your software to register itself online at every use. Fixed. No pirating.

Rubbish. All I have to do is find the function call in the binary that does the registering, and either bypass that call or jimmy it to always return that it registered successfully.

Re:So you want MORE coercion through force...

[ConversantShogun]

Our Constitution gave very limited protection (7 years, extendable for another 7 years maximum).

Dude, which Constitution is that? The U.S. Constitution never did that.

Re:So you want MORE coercion through force...

[runderwo]

Uh-huh. Try doing that when your computer no longer runs code that isn't "trusted" (trusted by your friends at MicroSoft, that is). At best, it's a short term kludge around the problem.

The report itself

[VIIseven7]

Don't download this unless you have some free time... the 617 KB, 101 page PDF can be found here on the CED website.

Re:The report itself

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't download this unless you have some free time... the 617 KB, 101 page PDF can be found here on the CED website.

Can someone please put up a torrent of the PDF file?

Science Friday

[Anonymous Coward]

I was recently listening to the NPR archive of a recent Science Friday. The guests were some folks from Xerox PARC who were there are the beginnings of it all. Some happened to be working for Microsoft now and their viewpoints were in line with that. One person (don't remember his name, unfortunately) did mention that Open Source ideals, though it was not called that then, was what allowed all those emerging companies that sprang from the Xerox research to blossom. It was the freedom that created this little industry of the Internet.

So I'd definitely agree that this travesty of laws that have sprung up at the behest of media companies is indeed harming the economy.

Re:Science Friday

[HarveyBirdman]

The guests were some folks from Xerox PARC who were there are the beginnings of it all.

Well, the Stanford Research Institute was where it really got going, but who's counting?

Yes

[4of12]

If you look back, the entire motivation for IP laws was to promote the greater creation of those works.

There doesn't seem to be any reason to believe that the current system of IP laws produces the greatest benefit for the least cost to society.

If not optimized, the laws just preserve some artificial revenue stream protection scheme.

Having invented a patentable idea, I can say that the term of the patent had absolutely nothing to do with my creation of that idea. It might have something to do with how much money the patent is worth to a company that wanted to buy it, but it had nothing to do with the creation of the idea.

In a hypothetical world

[WormholeFiend]

Imagine what would happen if all artists went on strike and stopped publishing music on recordable media, regardless of contracts with their labels.

The equivalent of saying "no more new music for you!"

It'd be funny if it happened, even as a marketing ploy.

Aside from sharing old songs, what would the filesharing masses do?

Re:In a hypothetical world

[sh0rtie]

"no more new music for you!"

It'd be funny if it happened, even as a marketing ploy.

You mean it hasn't happened already ?, all i can hear on the big radio stations and tv are "professional kareoke people" aka "manufactured pop" singing a bad cover of a song that another band from 1980 wrote (inspired by a 1970's band) because the record company can't be bothered to nurture real talent because they now deem its too financially "risky" better to go with what we know right ?

now as a result you have the odd phenomonon of "manufactured garage bands" as in bands that are designed to look like "real" bands (like in the pub/club variety) but really they are completly assembled by a marketing team and dont usually write/play their music (meaning covers) or subcontract it out to "real" songwriters all because "real talent" is too risky

so yep im pretty convinced thats it !, you have heard it all, for the rest of your life you are going to listen to basically the same songs from the same 60-90 eras repeaded ad infinitum, until you end up hating that song and can no longer tolerate it, if its a bad song tough shit, it will be played to you regardless until you do like/buy it (if you play something enough for long enough they will like it MTV method)

same goes for movies too, have all the tales really all been told ? i could go on but i won't, looking at the this centuries film output and what they are planning in the future, i don't hold a lot of confidence.

marketing is clever at being stupid

Re:In a hypothetical world

[WormholeFiend]

I simply meant, what if everyone who has the ability to make or play music decided to go on strike indefinitely, on purpose, to deny everyone any "new" (or sufficiently rehashed as in your comment) music to listen to.

I dont see how I got interpreted as a troll...

It's the logical next step if the RIAAs of this world cannot stem the tide of musical piracy... and if no other means of "rewarding" artists is put in place.

How long could anyone continue to produce anything if all one's products were replicated and distributed freely after a few purchases?

Another example is, what if you own and operate a bus service, but only part of your passengers pay the fare, while the rest gets in the bus through the back door, which is kept open by a paying rider? Wouldnt you be tempted to stop on the side of the road and refuse to drive further?

I would.

Re:In a hypothetical world

[Anonymous Coward]

I simply meant, what if everyone who has the ability to make or play music decided to go on strike indefinitely, on purpose, to deny everyone any "new" (or sufficiently rehashed as in your comment) music to listen to.

But what if the entire historical catalog of music was stripped of copyright protection? Imagine everybody has free access to the entire iTMS collection of half a million songs. If you use a randomizer, and a personal rating system, that should give you enough music for a lifetime. "New" music is what you have not heard before, not what was released this month.

Unamerican!

[Stiletto]

This is unamerican and illegal thought!!! Whether it be atoms or bits, everything needs to be owned and properly licensed for use! The idea that something can be free for all borders on communism and treason! Here in the U$A we must ensure that authors and inventors rule the use of their work with an iron fist! Write your senators and the FBI, these traitorous academics must be silenced and jailed, in order to preserve their freedom!

Re:Unamerican!

[Anonymous Coward]

You couldn't resist, could you?

(You know who)

Re:Unamerican!

[goldspider]

This is greedy and immoral thought!!! Whether it be atoms or bits, everything must be equally divided among the collective! The idea that something can be 'sold' borders on capitalism and fascism! Here in the USSA we must ensure that authors and inventors freely distribute their work without any expectation of financial gain! Write your senators and the FBI, these traitorous academics must have their personal wealth confiscated and redistributed, in order to preserve their freedom!

Re:Academia ....

[Anonymous Coward]

So you respond with a personal attack. Good show. *rolls eyes*.

Monopoly on commercial distribution

[Per Abrahamsen]

I believe a fair compromise protecting both the rights of the consumers and provoding an initiative for the producers would be to make copyright a monopoly on commercial distributions, rather than a monopoly on all distribution.

Re:Monopoly on commercial distribution

[trezor]

• I believe a fair compromise protecting both the rights of the consumers and provoding an initiative for the producers would be to make copyright a monopoly on commercial distributions, rather than a monopoly on all distribution.

While your idea sounds, nice, idealistic yet realistic, somehow it lacks what is needed to make it work. Namely Defintions.

You especially fail to adress the fact that the *AAs seems relentless in the persuit of total domination (tm), aka "monopoly on all distribution".

Even if you define your distinctions, which in effect would be legal or "pirate" distributions, you'd still have the problem of corporate greed.

Your words sounds "interesting", but they represent nothing which can solve this conflict in a peacefull manner.

I'm not going to complain

[Per Abrahamsen]

I certainly don't believe in the implication of the first example, that ideas should be "owned" rather than shared freely.

And ideas aren't copyrightable currently, so I don't see how copyright law would affect them. Patent law mayby, even though ideas in abstract forms wasn't patentable until recently.

The second example is even easier, if [large corp] spend billions developing a widget, they obviously do that in full knowledge of the law, and have an idea how to regain the money within the existing laws. They hardly have any right to complain afterwards.

Of course, any copyright and patent law reform need to take into consideration how widgets that costs billions of dollars to develop, and needs to be developed, will be financed after the reform.

And yet Stallman is the *WORST* person to talk

[Anonymous Coward]

about this topic. Stallman lives off of grants and similar things: He's not running a business. If his livelyhood is based around donations instead of actual market-decided profits then his opinions don't hold much water regarding IP. He deals with philosophy, nothing more.

Re: the "worth" of bits.

[pubjames]

The access to the infinitely duplicable material destroys the notion of scarcity of the product itself

Currently when assessing the "damage" when a copyright violation has taken place, the retail cost of the item is used. However, this doesn't make sense - when a 14 year old kid pirates a movie industry standard $40,000 dollar 3D rendering package - is the damage really $40,000? Of course not, it is really $0. (I'm not saying the kid should go unpunished - that's a different argument).

Cheap

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know why the labels and studios cannot just realize the obvious:

1 - Sell each song on the internet for $1,
they will probably get more money than
trying to sell CDs with 12 songs for $15.
If for no other resason than because you
don't have to leave your house.

iTunes proves that a lot of people prefer
this to just swapping files.

2 - The same goes for movies -- if you could
"order" a high quality copy for $5,
you wouldn't have to go out to the
movie theater, but you will watch at least
4 times the number of movies.
When the networks get faster, to download a
high quality 4GB mpeg for $5 beats
downloading a crappy version for 0

Re:Cheap

[richg74]

I don't know why the labels and studios cannot just realize the obvious

I'm not sure that they don't realize it. For all the twaddle that is spouted about destroying economic incentives, there is one thing that somehow goes unmentioned (although Eben Moglem did touch on it in his recent speech at Harvard). The core of what's going on with all this (and you can add proprietary software companies to the labels and studios) is perfectly explicable from Economics 101: specifically, microeconomics, which says that in an efficient market, price = marginal cost. (Marginal cost is the incremental cost of adding one unit of output; note this is different from average cost!)

Given today's technology, the marginal cost of producing one more CD or DVD or copy of a program is very close to zero. Also, there is no particular benefit to having the physical object (e.g., a CD) for itself, unlike, for example, a beautifully printed, illustrated book.

So I'm not sure that lack of realization or understanding is the problem -- studios, labels, and software companies may well realize it. They just don't like the answer, because it means their business model is broken beyond repair.

"Bits are not the same as atoms."

[mustangsal66]

Right! A bit is 8 electrons.

Re:"Bits are not the same as atoms."

[Anonymous Coward]

and/or holes. With electrons you can only have 1s. Holes give you zeros.

CEOs and children under five...

[hexatron]

CEOs and children under five prefer a whole cupcake to a piece of pie, regardless of the comparative amounts. But isn't it nice to know that corporations are not ruled solely by the desire to increase profits? It seems, at some level of affluence, the desire for more control exceeds the desire for mere gain. And some people claim idealism is dead!

IP is property and downloading is theft.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not a troll. I really am interested in your logic.

How about these.

You bring your car to the garage. It gets fixed and the bill comes to some amount of money. You are expected to pay the mechanic this amount. Lets say it was all labor as well and no parts were replaced. You use your extra key and get your car back some night without paying the mechanic for the work he did. Did you just steal from him or did you just violate his right to collect the money you owe him. What is he no longer in possession of in this example? The car was always yours, you just took it back without paying the bill. If the answer is nothing then you did not steal from him although I think a court would disagree.

The following argument is a bit absurd but the point is made. Don't think about the details, think about the concept. Ignore that the charge uses $20 worth of electricity or the outlet is on the street.

Since many people claim that theft can only occur when a physical object is taken then how about electricity. Assume a city produces their own electricity via a solar grid. Say you are walking down the street. You see an outlet. You decide that you need to give your cell phone a quick charge and plug it in. You leave your cell phone there (because this is a perfect world and it won't get stolen) and it charges. When you get back there is a city employee there holding your cell phone (He unplugged it to plug his whatever in) telling you that you owe the City $20 for the electricity you used (your cell phone takes a lot of juice to charge). Did you just steal from the city or not? You didn't take anything "physical" from them.

Re:IP is property and downloading is theft.

[Brian Ristuccia]

Did you just steal from him or did you just violate his right to collect the money you owe him. What is he no longer in possession of in this example?

Steal means "to take, and carry away, feloniously; to take without right or leave, and with intent to keep wrongfully; as, to steal the personal goods of another." You haven't stolen anything from the mechanic, but you have breached your contract to pay for his work. You've probably also trespassed in his shop or yard while collecting your vehicle. He can sue, and if the state agrees it will use its monopoly on violence to compel you to pay. He may also be able to press criminal charges for your trespass.

Since many people claim that theft can only occur when a physical object is taken then how about electricity.

Electricity is an interesting thing if you try to think of it as a physical object, since the act of consuming it actually involves flowing electrons through a device and then back to the producer. Of course I'm no more entitled to use the city's electrons in my cellphone (even if I send them right back) than the city is entitled to go using random stuff in my home - even if they put it back right away.

Electricity makes a bit more sense if you think of it as a service, like auto repair, but the same principles apply. If you're obtaining electricity without the provider's consent, it's probably through trespass, fraud, or similar unlawful means.

Re:IP is property and downloading is theft.

[Mycroft_VIII]

I AM NOT A LAWYER, but I've done just enough study to be really dangerous :) (A little knowledge and all that).
In the first case it's breach of contract, not theft at all. The contract was your agreement to pay $$$ for work done, the mechanic did the work so you owe the $$$. I don't know how it is outside of Missouri let alone the US (though I suspect most states are simular), but there exists laws on the books which result in the mechanic being able to put a lean on your car in this case. Pay up or he gets to repo the car and sell it to cover the bill plus the costs of having to grab and sell your car.
The second cas is more problematic. In that case there are likely to be ordnance governing use of civic electricity. There is also the real cost of wear and tear on the system that generates that electricy, including the slow degradation of the solar sells, the transmission lines, even the effect (very very little admitedly) of the added heat to environment from line losses, etc..

Mycroft

Re:IP is property and downloading is theft.

[Dun Malg]

Electricity makes a bit more sense if you think of it as a service, like auto repair, but the same principles apply. If you're obtaining electricity without the provider's consent, it's probably through trespass, fraud, or similar unlawful means.

The best way to categorize electricity is as "work for hire". Electricity is quantifiable mathematically as "work", and wages for that work are set by the provider. Not paying your electric bill is basically not paying the electric company for doing work for your benefit.

Re:IP is property and downloading is theft.

[Anonymous Coward]

SO is the electricity use in the second example stealing or not? I am not asking about any other example except the second one the OP asked about. In the case above is the person who charged the cell guilty of stealing. I realize that theft of service does not involve something physical but do you consider theft of service stealing or breach of contract. If it was only breach of contract then why is it called "theft" of service. Which it was called long before the internet, mp3's and warez.

Re:IP is property and downloading is theft.

[Anonymous Coward]

SO is the electricity use in the second example stealing or not?

Electricity is a scarce resource, so basically yes. At the same time, your analogy of electricity and "copyright infringement" is way off base.

If it was only breach of contract then why is it called "theft" of service. Which it was called long before the internet, mp3's and warez.

Because people call it that incorrectly. There are different ways to breach a contract. Theft involves property, not an agreement.

Re:IP is property and downloading is theft.

[Anonymous Coward]

SO theft can apply to a non physical object so long as the resource is scarce?

That makes no sense at all. Please expound on your logic.

Musicaians are not a scarce resource? Music ain and of itself is not a scarce resource. Fo rinstance isn't a Rolling Stones song a scarce resource. It is the only song that will ever sound exactly the way it does. It is the only when that will be recorded and produced at the exact time it was. On that same train of logic isn't time a scarce resource?

Re:IP is property and downloading is theft.

[Anonymous Coward]

Electricity is generated and can be metered. It's "physical-ness" may be a strange concept for for the purposes of this discussion it is a physical object. It's measurable, manufactured, and has market demand. It is possible to steal it. It makes perfect sense.

A song is not a scarce resource. It is no different than an idea or a funny joke your friend told you. If I replay a song, or re-tell a joke, nothing is "lost" or "stolen" that is measurable on a scarcity scale. Sure, there are ethical considerations to, say, claiming a song was created by yourself when in fact it wasn't, but those are ethical concerns and not physical ones. "Musicians" are no more scarce than poets, plumbers, or toilet cleaners. You choose to be a musician, the market doesn't choose it for you.

Re:IP is property and downloading is theft.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Electricity is generated and can be metered. It's "physical-ness" may be a strange concept for for the purposes of this discussion it is a physical object. It's measurable, manufactured, and has market demand. It is possible to steal it. It makes perfect sense."

The electricity that fires the neurons in a musicians brain can be metered, if hooked up to the right equipment. The market demand is obviously very large. Look at the number of CD's sold each year. It is also manufactured, it is the starting point to manufacture music that the musician then sells to the public. How can you say that music is not a scarce resource?

Re:IP is property and downloading is theft.

[Desert Raven]

I AM NOT A LAWYER, but I've done just enough study to be really dangerous :) (A little knowledge and all that). ...
but there exists laws on the books which result in the mechanic being able to put a lean on your car in this case.

Very little knowledge, apparently.

He can put a lien on the car. And in fact, most repair shops have that clause right in the work order you sign. Partly, you're signing permission to do the work. But more importantly to the dealer, you are signing that they have a lien on the vehicle until you pay up.

Re:IP is property and downloading is theft.

[Anonymous Coward]

What certainly isn't scarce is the quantity of pussy your whore mother has available on the street corner.

Re:IP is property and downloading is theft.

[Mycroft_VIII]

Gah, spelling. anything else to justify the 'very little' pejoritive, not that I deny my spelling often sucks, or that my leagle knowledge is at best marginally above John q public, it just seemed a bit of a strong reaction to a sound-alike spelling error. Especially since you basically agreed with my statement. Though it's my understanding that the lien part is by implied by the consent for work in some states, and need not be specifically spelled out (usully is though).

Mycroft

Re:IP is property and downloading is theft.

[greggman]

What do you mean you haven't stolen anything from a mechanic? If you use his services and don't pay him you have stolen is time, something he can NEVER GET BACK. If you stole his money you could at least replace that but you stole his time. Time he could have use for a paying customer.

The analogy follows to IP. If someone spends X hours to make some IP and you take it without permission you have stolen his time.

Re:IP is property and downloading is theft.

[Brian Ristuccia]

What do you mean you haven't stolen anything from a mechanic? If you use his services and don't pay him you have stolen is time, something he can NEVER GET BACK.

Nonperformance under a contract is not the same as stealing, despite your arguments to the contrary. Stealing is a criminal offense. Unless there's fraud, nonperformance is generally a civil matter between the two parties. You won't go to jail for not paying your mechanic, but you almost certainly will if you get caught stealing his tools.

The analogy follows to IP. If someone spends X hours to make some IP and you take it without permission you have stolen his time.

The term "IP" is vague, so I'll assume you mean a copyrighted work of authorship, and that a copy was made without permission. Taking a physical copy without the owner's permission is stealing - making a photocopy without the copyright holder's permission is merely copyright infringement. Just like above, stealing is a criminal matter, copyright infringement is a civil one between the copyright holder and the infringer. You could wind up in jail for stealing the author's book, but there are no criminal penalties for the infringement that occurs when you make a photocopy.

The criminal vs. civil differences may seem trivial, but they're not. A criminal matter can result in government enforced taking of assets and liberty. A civil matter can only affect your assets.

My Take

[ThisIsFred]

My take on it is this.. We shouldn't make a blanket statement about all IP laws. They initially do what they're supposed to: Give the creator control over his property in order to recoup costs of creation. It's also good to let the creator make a profit as well. Pharmaceuticals have a high research and development cost, especially considering the time it takes for FDA approval in the US. Entirely removing IP protections from the area would likely make the industry not want to invest their time.

I feel that tuning the amount of IP protection for different types of industries is helpful for business. Long-term or indefinite-term copyright just doesn't make sense, especially when the original creator is long gone, or the current owner isn't the original creator. Fifty years should really be the maximum, or should be the maximum if the property has been sold by the original owner (thinking of printed materials here). There are some other issues that need to be addressed with the sale of specific types of rights. One example that comes to mind is that of the works of Philip K. Dick. Hollywood basically gave him the "we'll call you later" line while buying movie rights at bargain-basement prices. Now that he is deceased, we've got three big-budget screen adaptations of his work that raked in the dough. There's also the issue of studios which review a script, reject it, then make a movie based on that script (without proper credit) years later. Occasionally a couple of studios will do this, producing similar movies at about the same time. Weakening IP laws in this situation will only hurt the "little guy" even more.

The area that definitely needs the most tuning is IP with regard to technology. There should be some type of orphan clause, if the creator goes bankrupt (or the author dies), and no one had previously made claim to the IP. I'm thinking primarily about software source code lost in limbo. In specialty sofware areas where there isn't a high profit margin this is a major concern when picking the right package: Will this company still be in business 10 years from now? And, of course, (everyone's favorite) tech patents on methods really need an overhaul. Seven years seems to be a bit to long. We really need a new way of reviewing patents. It's not that all of them are overly broad, but a problem that exists because changing a few key words makes something patentable. The "pausing live broadcast" patent should be tossed. The concept has existed and has been implemented since probably the late 1950s for the purposes of "instant replay" during sporting events. Throwing in the words "digital" and "disc", or the amount of time that can be "shifted" shouldn't have a bearing on the validity of the patent. Likewise, the concept of recording in the background shouldn't be patentable either, even if it uses the buzzword "buffer".

Re:My Take

[Todd Knarr]

I'd extend the orphan clause to be more of an in-print requirement for all copyrighted material. Once you've published it openly, the timer is armed. If you let the material go out of print or otherwise become unavailable, the timer starts ticking. If the material stays out-of-print/unavailable for 5 years, copyright expires.

I'd also change the way copyrights are transferred, making them more like a stack. If the author signs over rights to a book to a publisher, the law "remembers" that. If the publisher lets the book go out-of-print, when the 5-year timer expires copyright doesn't terminate, it reverts to the author and another 5-year timer starts to run. The author can then take the book to another publisher, or they can leave it out of print in which case at the end of that second 5 years the author's copyright terminates and the book enters the public domain.

That, I think, would put an end to one of the most egregious misuses of copyright.

Re:My Take

[booch]

Great commentary. I especially like your idea on orphaned code. One way to put that idea into practice would be to require periodic re-registration of copyrights.

As a thought to the profit motive, perhaps we could say that any patent that has created more than 10 times (or whatever number) the amount of profit than the R&D costs loses patent protection. While companies would lie and try to maximize the apparent amount of their R&D, it's likely to spur actual R&D as well. The biggest trick would be detemining when it hits that spot.

SlipHead.com Idea Exchange

[Anonymous Coward]

In light of the exceptional (and continued) success of the Open-Source Software model as well as the proliferation of peer-to-peer networks, I would like to get Slashdot readers' opinions on how a similar fledgling model is being applied to ideas, inventions, and patents. Particularly, I am interested in how advances in 3D and circuit board printers could lead to the 'Napsterization' of commercial products.

We have all had our own version of the Jump to Conclusions mat which never saw the light of day due to our own time and resource commitments. What if implementing that idea were as easy as contributing to an open source project. Ok, what if it were almost that easy?

My reasoning is this: I have noticed a recent rise in "open idea" sites such as Half Bakery, SlipHead, and Should Exist. These sites all have one common theme: put your idea out in a public discussion forum for others to enjoy, contemplate, and critique. My thoughts are that this methodology, coupled with the growing ease of desktop manufacturing, has a potential to revolutionize the way new concepts are created and developed. It also has potentially profound effects on procuring patents, business practices, and intellectual property in general. The question then is: How can these open ideologies and development processes excel within a predominately capitalistic society?

What are your thoughts?

Actually they don't

[Per Abrahamsen]

"need to make a living off their work". Proff: The vast majority of musicians do not make a living off their work. A significant fraction make some money from live performances. These will actually be helped from a more liberal copyright law, as they can more freely borrow from each other. A much smaller minority earn money from royalities. And a very small fraction of *those* are able to make a living of royalities.

The question is how much personal freedom we want to give up to serve the later very small group, and whether we maybe can find a more efficient and less problematic way than the current content distribution monopoly to serve them.

PS: The "surprise finding" is that more and more lawyers and economist supports amore liberal copyright regime. Among ordinary people, the idea of copyleft is not even known.

d'oh!

[whathappenedtomonday]

well, if that correlation comes as a surprise, i'm no longer surprised! just look what prohibition did to the alcohol business! ;)

patents are a monopoly

[droper]

THey are used to protects ones work from being copied but at the same time with enough patents start turning major patent holders into global monopolies. New ideas usually come mixed with old ones and you have to liberate this process as much as possible unless you want to bottle neck it for the sake of $$$ which is what pattents do.

Compare with 19th C England

[Mikkeles]

During the 19th century, England tightened its patent laws to the point that reverse engineering was disallowed (cf. DMCA and some EULAs).
The main result was the decline of new invention and improvement originating out of England and a surge of advancement of invention in the US.
(England continued to 'coast' as a world power by expending its capitol (i.e.: the empire) for another 50 - 100 years before precipitous decline was obviously evident.)

Not FUD, You're Just On A Different Subject

[the_mad_poster]

Egads, you people can be really bizarre.

Why is the grandparent FUD? Because you decided to start a different argument? Just because there are jobs NOW - which is what you said - doesn't mean there will be the same types of jobs in the FUTURE - which is what the grandparent said.

No, the grandparent is making a prediction. Perhaps it's a weak one, but you didn't argue that. You didn't argue with the poster at all. In fact, you started a whole different subject. Please, if you're going to try and refute someone's predictions, think through the post before you do it and make sure you're at least talking about the same thing the person you're trying to refute was.

Bits and atoms is a lousy analogy

[Anonymous Coward]

electrons -vs- atoms would be closer to what they're trying to convey and it's an interesting way to look at it. An atom can lose and gain electrons and still be the same atom.

IP could stifle the Theory Of Everything

[HarveyBirdman]

If Calabi and Yau had gotten a copyright on their spaces, where would string theory be today, huh?

Insightful? Please...

[stewby18]

what I really think is going way too far is companies deciding who can or cannot be my friend. I have no problem whatsoever with treating everybody as a friend (yes, there are different 'levels' of friend, like all other friends.), and I have no trouble sharing with all my friends.

That's not insightful, it's just manipulation of words to thinly veil a support of wholesale piracy. In no meaningful way is a person whom you have never met--and with whom your only interaction ever is the trading of a song file--your "friend". Saying "I'm a friend to the world" doesn't change the fact that wholesale piracy is fundamentally different than sharing music with a close circle of actual friends.

It's pathetic when people try to make this defense of massive online filesharing (as opposed to, say, sharing within an actual, meaningful, community of people, be it online or in the real world). If you are for piracy, say so. Don't try to defend your position using meaningless redefinition of terms. There are grey areas in file swapping--calling everyone your friend is not one of them, and weakens much more legitimate arguments (such as calling a smallish online music discussion group a group of friends with whom sharing should be permissible).

Any crime can be "defended" by relabeling:

• I didn't steal the car: I was borrowing it from my "friend"
• I didn't murder him: I was helping my friend with an assisted suicide
• He wasn't bribing me: I was just listening to the wisdom of my "friend", and he happened to be helping me out of a financial tight spot at the same time
• I'm not a pimp, I just help my "friends" meet when I think they have interests in common

but the relabeling itself doesn't make the defense valid.

"mickey mouse"-right

[SoupGuru]

I think the fact that Disney keeps lobbying/bribing to push copyright length into the future to keep Mickey Mouse from the public domain coincides nicely with their current financial, business, and haven't-made-a-decent-movie-in-how-long woes. But remember, correlation does not denote causation, but...

And what happened to Xerox?

[edremy]

Xerox PARC was a godsend to computer technology. It was an utter disaster for Xerox.

It never managed to commercialize the products it created. The name PARC is known only to a few computer geeks. Xerox itself went into a tailspin during this time, unable to handle competition in the copy industry from companies that copied (heh) and improved Xerox technology and undercut it tremendously in price while at the same time Xerox was wasting billions of dollars trying to compete with IBM.

This is a horrible example of why a company would want Open Source. Xerox got nothing from the huge investments of money, but everyone else got rich.

Re:And what happened to Xerox?

[Anonymous Coward]

Very good point, but I don't believe it's necessarily a bad example... From the interview it sounded as if the management at Xerox wouldn't know a good idea if it smashed them on the head. Engineers tried to sell their ideas to management but were turned down again and again. So they left. If they had decided to run with these ideas then things would have been different...

If they didn't open up their ideas what would have happened? The engineers could have said, "OK. You're right. I'll continue working on traffic light controllers." No, I don't think that would have happened. Something was fomenting. The revolution was inevitable and if not Xerox then someone else would have realized that networks could be powerful.

In a way the network was like the story of the lawyer: A lawyer moves to a small town. He's the only lawyer there so business really stinks. No one wants to sue. Then another lawyer moves in and things get going because now there's another lawyer to argue against.

By themselves, a clique of machines couldn't do much. Spread the word. Open up the channels and suddenly each machine becomes more powerful. The sum is more than the parts.

Without opening up then the proprietary implementations from every company would have hindered the growth of the ARPANet and eventually the Internet. Sure it would have still happened -- it was inevitable -- but it would have taken much longer.

Xerox, because of their management style, was doomed anyway. Opening up didn't change that -- in fact it may have delayed their eventual fall -- but it sure jumpstarted a new economy.

incentive

[dpilot]

This IS the point, and the whole point. IMHO, read the constitution and THIS is what you come to.

Let's phrase it a different way:

A person can be supporting his/her self and family OR advancing the Arts and Sciences. The purpose of Copyrights and Patents as put forth in the Constitution is to remove the devilment behind that 'OR' decision. Even if it's not enough incentive to enable and Artist/Scientist/Engineer to make a life wholly supported that way, it's got to be worthwhile, as opposed to putting in a few more hours at a day job.

The other side comes from the phrase, "If I can see farther, it is because I stand on the shoulders of giants." Patents and Copyrights are SUPPOSED to release that stuff into the Public Domain, so others can use it as a basis for further works. THIS is the single most broken aspect of current IP law, IMHO.

Re:incentive

[swillden]

The other side comes from the phrase, "If I can see farther, it is because I stand on the shoulders of giants." Patents and Copyrights are SUPPOSED to release that stuff into the Public Domain, so others can use it as a basis for further works.

Absolutely right. Now think about how this applies to software. Under current copyright law, it is possible to obtain legal protection for code that will *never* enter the public domain in a form that allows it to be used as a basis for further work. Why? Because the software is only published in binary form while the source -- the form that is useful for advancing the art and science of software -- will never, ever see the light of day.

This is completely different from any other form of copyrighted material. Can you publish a book while keeping the text secret, or obscured to the point of being practically secret?

Copyright is supposed to be a trade; society gives creators a temporary monopoly and in return all of the created material flows into the public domain for future generations to build from. Copyright as presently applied to closed-source software is more of a gift than a trade.

IMO, the law should not grant protection to unpublished source code. If you want society to give you a legal monopoly, you should have to tell us what it is you have a monopoly on.

Re:incentive

[dpilot]

Good point.

At the very least, getting a copyright on ANY form of code should involve placing the source, in a form capable of reproducing the copyrighted entity, into escrow for release upon expiration.

Copyright source code, and it's copyrighted.
Copyright object code, and you've got to escrow a build system capable of building the object from the escrowed source.

Re:incentive

[tehdaemon]

I agree. You just have too ditch several international treaties first (bern convention)

A good Idea, IMHO, but not an easy undertaking. Now that I think about it, who would hold such an escrow? Think international copyrights (see link).

My two (euro) cents

[Savage-Rabbit]

...known that your work for them is owned by the company and not owned by you

Things are not always that simple. My own employer recently presented me with a new contract. It included among many other things the three following points:

1) A clause about 'any software/hardware/idea/invention... etc' of mine being the property of the company'. It was so loosely worded that they could theoretically have laid claim to things I 'coded/designed/invented' in my spare time even if this had nothing to do with the business the company is in was likely to cause the company loss of revenue.
2) Forbid me to code in my own time for an Open Source project even if the project is in no way related to the business the company and is completely unlikely to cause them loss of revenue.
3) They also tried to insert what they called a "competition protection" clause in the new contract where they reserrve the right to place an injunction on me, forcing me to remain unemployed for a period of upto 6 months, if I should happen to quit working for them and begin working for somebody they feel is a competitor or if I might be using knowledge obtained in my old job at my new place of work.

All but the third clause were shot down after intense negotiations (read: most of the empoyees staged a small scale mutiny). The third point has been kept in the new contracts but nobody expects it to hold up in court, at least not here in Europe. Although the poor bastard who the company decides to honor by testing that clause on is probably going to have to shell out a small fortune in legal fees to prove them wrong and employees will probably think twice beore signing the new contract. Fortunately I was able to avoid swapping my old contract for the new model.
Now, I will agree that a comany owns what I code/design/invent on company time. I also think that a company is no worse off rewarding employees for valuable innovations in some way. But when the company starts trying to dictate whether or not I can innovate in my own spare time in a way that does not undermine the company I work for I think the company has gone too far.

Re:My two (euro) cents

[Anonymous Coward]

Fight the third clause - let them keep it, but demand that they pay your full salary for the duration ...

Re:My two (euro) cents

[Sique]

The third point has been kept in the new contracts but nobody expects it to hold up in court, at least not here in Europe. Although the poor bastard who the company decides to honor by testing that clause on is probably going to have to shell out a small fortune in legal fees to prove them wrong and employees will probably think twice beore signing the new contract.

It will be considerably cheap. Because of the right to choose your place of work freely (as laid down in the European Convention on Human Rights), the third clause is void anyway. The only legal lever the company could pull is to sue the futural employer for unfair competition if it can prove that said futural employer hired you to gather information about your current employer. They don't have anything to enforce the clause on YOU.

Of course a potential new employer may be afraid to hire you because it may look as if he tries to espionage your current company, but the most famous case in that direction (Ignacio Lopez leaving GM to join Volkswagen) finally ended without conviction of Volkswagen.

Re:My two (euro) cents

[deblau]

If your employer is forcing you not to work for six months, you have every right to demand six months' severance pay. Let them smoke on that for awhile. And "knowledge obtained" is pretty vague. If it's proprietary, then I can see why they'd be concerned. If I learned how to hem a skirt while surfing at this job, then went to work for a seamstress, they don't own that.

Freedom from the RIAA

[stuffduff]

Is what the music needs. The RIAA is about as useful to recording artists as Stalin was to the prisoners in the gulags. The RIAA has taken the freedoms of manufacturing cost management, shipping and storage managment, promotion management, distrobution pricing management, etc. away from the artist. The artist may be much more gifted in any or all of these areas, but the RIAA sees a single vision; which clearly places their own survival well ahead of that of the artist.

For over a year I've been suggesting that artists stick a PayPal button on their sites and offer amnesty for downloaders. Paying the artists 2 or 3 times what they actually profit for these crappy CD deals that the RIAA companies force artists to sign, is peanuts compared to CD prices.

Amnesty is the answer!

Re:Freedom from the RIAA

[Creepy Crawler]

"For over a year I've been suggesting that artists stick a PayPal button on their sites and offer amnesty for downloaders. Paying the artists 2 or 3 times what they actually profit for these crappy CD deals that the RIAA companies force artists to sign, is peanuts compared to CD prices."

In most cases, that's not possible. The artists usually give full, exclusive rights to the producers.

Re:Freedom from the RIAA

[stuffduff]

1) I'm not responsible for shortsightedness on the part of the artists. 2) The RIAA could offer same, and legally profit without doing anything but holding the copyright.

Re:Freedom from the RIAA

[ryanjensen]

The RIAA has taken the freedoms of manufacturing cost management, shipping and storage managment, promotion management, distrobution pricing management, etc. away from the artist. The artist may be much more gifted in any or all of these areas, but the RIAA sees a single vision; which clearly places their own survival well ahead of that of the artist.

You can't seriously believe that a single artist, who is good at making music, is also "much more gifted" at marketing, production, management, etc. etc., than all of the thousands of music industry employees put together, can you? Where is this "uber-artist"? How does he find time to make new music? When can I meet him?

Re:Freedom from the RIAA

[geminidomino]

You can't seriously believe that a single artist, who is good at making music, is also "much more gifted" at marketing, production, management, etc. etc

True, everyone is "gifted" at different things. This doesn't lessen thier responsibility in getting a landshark to read the contract BEFORE they sign it if they don't understand it. If they droped that ball, Courtney Love et al. can take a flying leap and quit whining.

Re:Freedom from the RIAA

[stuffduff]

The only thing that gives the RIAA any power at all is their 'successes.' That 'success' however is limited to less than half the artists that they choose to promote. So their 'expertise' is no guarentee! What the RIAA and the corporations whom it represents have done over the years has been to exert a monopolistic control over the entire 'release' side of the equation. You want radio play? You want a named tab in a CD rack in the store? You want advertising? You play the game their way. The industry profits and the musicians work like dogs to meet album contract and concert commitments. Sometimes the musicians do well, but most of them don't. My point is that their basically is 'no ther deal available.' That's what I disagree with.

<rant>I personally like a type of music which comes from europe, started in the early '70's and has had maybe a dozen songs ever played on american radio. That's out of somewhere between 800 to 1000 bands that are known for this kind of music. But american record companies want the music sung in english, and to basically be a different kind of music alltogrther, so I have to rely on import companies from Italy and Japan in order to even hear the music at all. And personally I'm sick and tired of having this music have to be either 'dumbed down' or 'unavailable.' I like it, it has a worldwide following, but it's "just not profitable for any major US music publisher." So these guys sit in their offices, rape the artists that do sign and ignore my freedom of choice!IMHO It's a crime against both the art and the artists who are forced into it! </rant>

world's largest exporter

[way2trivial]

and also the largest IMPORTER, in dollars in 2002
1,163,548,552,000 imported and
693,257,300,000 exported and thats a difference of
-470,291,252

how does that help the situation??

cite- http://ese.export.gov/SCRIPTS/hsrun.exe/Distribute d/ITA2003_NATIONAL/MapXtreme.htx;start=HS_newMap
remove spaces as necassary

Re:world's largest exporter

[BillyBlaze]

I think you're missing a few zeros in that trade defecit figure. And in 2003, it's $489.4 billion.

You're thinking like a programmer

[edremy]

Think like a business drone instead.

Imagine that Xerox's top management had a clue. They patent everything: Ethernet, laser printers, most of the elements of a GUI, etc. They sue the hell out of anyone copying the tech, while marketing all-in-one solutions for "document management" with immense profit margins. This is what the document industry is doing now, but the tech is available to everyone, so the margins are a lot smaller.

Xerox rakes in sagans of dollars, just like they did when they made the first copier. With a bit of creative lawyering and monopoly power, they can hold the market for a long, long time. The interconnects you talk about are available, but only from Xerox- pay up. Any company infringing in the area gets stomped by Xerox- they have infinite resources to pay legal fees due to 50%+ profit margins, kind of like IBM in its headay.

Sure, the computer we know today is delayed by 10-20 years. The internet boom is just a dream in people's eyes. Big deal- the Xerox bigwigs get as rich as Gates is today. That's all that matters.

Xerox is used today as a case study in business schools as an example of how *not* to handle tech change. They didn't get rich.

Re:You're thinking like a programmer

[booch]

Now, take a look at those 2 alternatives -- "open sourcing" all these technologies, or locking them up for Xerox. Which benefits society more? Recall that corporations are created for the benefit of society. (Not the other way around, as current policies might have you believe.) Why would society give the company a monopoly to withhold all this wonderful technology? It doesn't make sense. Yes, it makes sense to provide some short-term incentives to create things, but not long-term incentives to prevent others from using those creations.

HelLoC

[Anonymous Coward]

So a negative IP article pops up and it's tagged with "Patent Pending"? Whatever happened to the Libary of Congress??

in other news...

[enrico_suave]

Handcuffs are bad for your wrists... nooses are bad for your neck... stay tuned, more news as events warrant.

e.

The major problem is

[FullCircle]

The major problem is that copyright should not be transferable.

The person who created the work should retain all rights to the work. Not some global megacorp that can monopolize on the giant mass of copyrights they have bought or taken from employees.

If you can only monopolize what you have actually created then the power and wealth would be spread much more evenly. An individual is normally much more likely to license or sell a product at a reasonable price.

The idea that a corporation has the rights of a person but no way to be held accountable for its actions was not taken into account when these laws were passed or when the US Constitution was originally written to grant copyright.

IMHO, returning a corporation to its original status of a group of accountabe individuals with individual rights and copyrights, rather than the current status of an untouchable person, would correct many of our current problems.

Re:The major problem is

[runderwo]

IMHO, returning a corporation to its original status of a group of accountabe individuals with individual rights and copyrights, rather than the current status of an untouchable person, would correct many of our current problems.

When was it _ever_ like this? The entire point of a corporation is to limit individual liability in the case of a business failure. If you make individuals "touchable", then they can be completely wiped out by a failed business venture, instead of the general economy absorbing the loss due to the risk. Not a good recipe for motivating people to start up businesses. Let's not throw the baby out with the dirty water.

I agree with your sentiment that copyrights should be owned by an individual, but they should certainly be transferable to other individuals. How would GNU gain copyright for code I submit to the GCC project otherwise? Every project with more than 1 contributor would be a horrendous mess of keeping track of who owns what part of the code, what is a derivative of what else, etc, instead of adopting a policy of "anything you submit to this project becomes (C) The Project" like most open source projects do (notable exceptions: XFree86, Linux). An individual should be able to choose to sign his copyright away under any terms he chooses. The benefit of this is that when individuals leave companies, their works (and the works of those who have assigned their rights to that person as a steward) travel with that person, instead of remaining a monopoly grab bag for that corporation, which may exist indefinitely (as well as the copyrights themselves).

Copyright

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

I thought of it, I wrote it down, I recorded it, it's mine. If you want to listen to it, read it, than you must agree to my terms. If you don't with do agree to my terms, you're out of luck. Move on.

Re:Copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought of it, I wrote it down, I recorded it, it's mine. If you want to listen to it, read it, than you must agree to my terms. If you don't with do agree to my terms, you're out of luck. Move on.

I go to work every day and earn my money. I have very little to spare, so I want my money's worth with my entertainment. You'll deliver it on my terms or you won't get my money. And you'll be broke and starving.

-Fred

Re:Copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

It wasn't very good. Here, I'll give it back to you and I want a refund.

Re:Copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

No, half a world away, but six hours earlier, *I* thought of it, *I* wrote it down, it's *mine* - you're a copyright-infringing bastard who took MY stuff without agreeing to MY terms of use.

What's that you say? That you didn't see my stuff? Doesn't matter. I got there first, the idea is mine.

This is why IDEAS cannot be copyrighted. Moron.

--AC

No, its not

[Anonymous Coward]

"However, I also believe, both as a creator and a reseller of intellectual property, that placing your 300 CD Collection on Kazaa is going way too far as well."

Sorry, can't disagree more.

Elvis's stuff should be PD. Not only because he's dead, but because he's been dead a long time and the bulk of his work was really done over 40 years ago.

What good does it serve to have Elivis's stuff under strict copyright? Is Elvis "incented" to create more stuff? Is Lisa-Marie "incented" to take up music as a career? Is she not rich enough? Should Elvis's music be an entitlement to any number of generations of presleys and music companies?

If Copyright lasted 14-21 years, it would all make sense. But when Copyright lasts 100 years and is backed up by encryption and criminal penalties for cracking that encryption, you don't have copyright, you have tools of social control.

That's why I copy old music freely without regard to copyright. The companies have said they don't give a shit about me. I'm simply replying in kind.

Where did "atoms" come from?

[Trevin]

Copyright, patent, and trademark laws have nothing to do with protecting atoms. The protect ideas and expression. The medium in which the ideas are set forth may be composed of atoms, or even of the states of electrons; but it is the idea, not the medium, that is protected.

A solution to the "IP question"

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that IP laws are fundamentally broken, and here's why:

The root of out difficulties with IP is that ideas don't have natural scarcity in the economic sense; that is, any number of people can consume them without diminishing others' aiblity to do so. This means that the "invisible hand" of supply and demand will not work on ideas, unless we artificially induce scarcity -- exactly what IP laws are designed to do.

The problem with this is that it doesn't work. In practice, IP laws are failing miserably (in my opinion doing more harm than good at this point -- see the DMCA, for example); but even in theory, I believe IP laws are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.

What can we do about it? Scrap all of our current IP laws and start over.

And then what? Some would argue that we don't need IP laws or their equivalent at all -- for example, Slashdot featured an essay by an economist arguing exactly that not too long ago -- but I am not entirely convinced of that yet, and in any case that would certainly bring about a vastly different order of things, which is certain to induce very large amounts of resistance from those with vested interests in the current IP system.

My proposed solution, then: subsidize the production of ideas. The basic idea is to subsidize the creator of a given idea proportionally to society's use of that idea. This will not necessarily result in overconsumption (as is the case with most subsidies), since the subsidy would exist not on top of but instead of the market.

Of course, there are rather large practical hurdles to overcome in implementing such a system, but I don't believe any of them is intractable, certainly not more so than some of the problems we already face with our current IP system.

What I seek, then, is some feedback for this idea -- point out anything that seems like an intrinsic flaw in the idea, or a practical problem that you believe to be truly unsolvable; or perhaps suggest some ways this plan could be implemented. (I have some ideas on that front, of course, but they are too large to fit in the margin of ths post!)

Mike

Perhaps...

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps Ms. Ginsberg is being intellectually dishonest, since the report strikes right at the heart of her philosophy.

Or perhaps that's what you meant with your post?

Re:Insightful? Really Pathetic

[gadlaw]

What I think is really pathetic is your acceptance of the success that one side in the file sharing argument has had in 'defining the terms'- and we all know that if you can define the argument then you are well on the way to winning the argument. Pirates instead of file sharers. Well this is the argument which you pass right on by and define those who share files as pirates. So by definition they are criminals. And from there it's a short trip to the rest of your argument stating that you could define crimes away by simply changing the defintions. Well, gosh, you start off with the changed defintion that agrees with your current point of view and use that very form of nonlogical argument to argue against that nonlogical argument position. Eh?

the devil's in the word "new"

[cagle_.25]

The person who ties it all together and gives it a pretty name, of course. That's perfectly fine when it comes to theorems, since (AFAIK) there's nothing to prohibit anyone else from using the new information, as long as the original author gets credit. The problem arises when we start mixing the word "property" in with ideas.

Mathematical knowledge is considered by philosophers to be "analytic": that is, "true by definition." It is derived by means of deductive reasoning applied to definitions and axioms. Deductive reasoning is able to tell us what the implications of our axioms are, but it cannot tell us anything genuinely NEW. (See, e.g., the Wikipedia)

By contrast, scientific, historical, and even technological knowledge is "synthetic knowledge", which operates using inductive reasoning. Those disciplines can give genuinely new results. I am fine with giving someone credit for a new piece of synthetic knowledge; giving someone credit for analytic knowledge is probably silly. Why? Because analytic knowledge is not genuinely new.

Humorous aside: Computers can be as adept as we are at discovering analytic results. Should we start giving property rights to computers?

IP policing == offshoring has precedents

[spasm]

I can't help but be reminded of why Hollywood is in Calfornia rather than New York. All the early movie studios were in New Jersey. Edison, who owned patents on the movie camera charged royalties on every foot of film shot, and send thugs out to (in some cases) smash the cameras of those who didn't cough up.

Eventually people got sick of it and moved to the other side of the country & got on with it unmolested.

Current US IP laws are a significant incentive to move any business involved in the creation of IP offshore.

I suspect in a hundred yeasr noone other thana few historians will know why it is that the biotech or IT industry is centered on, say, Australia or India or Marituis and that it once was centered in the US.

Don't be an ass

[Anonymous Coward]

" I thought of it, I wrote it down, I recorded it, it's mine."

Fine.

But what do you own? You can't even tell us what "it" is, but you sure do think you own it.

If I listen to you music, and I hum it later on, is that wrong? What about if I hum it to my friends? Howzabout if I sing it with my guiter? To my friends? And their friends?

If you want to be an ass (and you seem hellbent on living down to the word), then you think copyright is about ownership of ideas. And its not.

Ideas are inherently free. If you think you own it, that just means you're fooling yourself.

Howabout music? Well, in the western tonalities, there are a finite amount of possible tunes. Here's a hint.... they've all been written. By your definition, nobody can write music because somebody already did it.

With ideas... the idea of pressing a button a web page that sells books.... is so laughable that only the US Patent Office would grant a legal protection to it.

But guess what... where the US Patent Office doesn't control it, they're ignoring it and laughing people who confuse temporary control of a thing with ownership.

Ownership of ideas is an illusion. I hope you feel comfy and warm in that illusion, but it is still an illusion.

Songwriting royalty's

[MushMouth]

Actually songwriters are paid pretty well compared to the musicians, as they should be, since there are many more good musicians than there are good songwriters. As it is songwriters are paid 8+ cents (price depends on song length) for every copy of a song that is sold. This is before recoupment of making the album and does not go through the record company, and is a statutory royalty, ie anyone can cover any song as long as it has been publicly released or performed and they pay the "Mechanical Royalty"

Pioneers vs Settlers vs Citizens

[serutan]

Pioneers who blaze trails into the wilderness, the settlers who follow them to establish communities, and the civilians who later live in the settled areas all need different things from a legal system. You couldn't tame a continent if you had teams of safety inspectors and liability lawyers riding along in the wagons.

The Internet is in the Settlement phase. What we're seeing now is a lot of bickering between vested interests, mostly over who gets what. Like when the railroads were buying up land. I don't think today's legislators are in a position to dictate restrictions that will affect people fifty years from now. But that's their job.

Legal minds seem to be waking up to the fact that information exchange, and to some extent information itself, is cheap now. Copyright artificially imposes value on it. We continue to maintain the copyright system because 1) it's traditional and 2) we're afraid not to.

Paradigms have short lifespans. Jack Valenti can whine all day about movies costing $50-60 million. But some of those movies would have cost a billion without digital technology. When he's able to make an equivalent movie for $1 million using synthesized sets, music and actors, he'll be as sympathetic to the complaints of all the defunct show business unions as someone downloading a LOTR torrent.

Everything looks different from every point of view, including those of one person at different points in time. Anyway, just a lot of blabbing, I don't really have anything constructive to suggest.

Re:My two (US) cents

[FroMan]

Hmmm, I think an amendment to the third clause should be that they pay you for 6 months without your work then. Otherwise they find a new employee as I need to put food on my table, and 6 months of unemployement is not an option.

Ivory Tower? Try the Mud Hut

[thelizman]

The notion of community property is not something that originated in the hallowed halls of academia. The notion of proprietary intellectual property is a uniquely 21st century western idea. Copyleft, Creative Commons, OSS, "Free as in Beer", and other notions are simply reassertions of the long-time notion of common property being that which no one individual can reasonably control.

Re:Ivory Tower? Try the Mud Hut

[serutan]

That's a great insight. A lot of things are presented in the media as if they were fundamental laws of the universe rather than mere recent customs. The idea of holding the rights to material has morphed into the idea of owning the material itself, making it seem natural to replicate in cyberspace the physical walls and fences we take for granted in the real world.

But the driving force that dates back to the mud hut is the custom of turning the wilderness into the Royal Forest. Certain people have always been able to convince others to treat them like kings and queens, and coerce everybody else into following suit. As long as the public plays along, hunting becomes poaching and building upon history becomes infringement.

NY Times registration NOT required?

[Ungrounded Lightning]

I notice that the linked NY Times article did NOT ask for registration. And it doesn't seem to have any "affiliate" or other workaround tag either.

Have they dropped the registration requirement?

If so, did they do it because they actually READ their own article and take it to heart? (If not, it's still a nice coincidence. B-) )

Renewals should be brought back

[jesterzog]

I think a lot of this has to do with the continuious copyright extensions. If copyright were left alone and implemented as it was originally, it wouldn't seem like such an oppressive system.

I agree, especially since copyright (at least in the US) was originally implemented with a renewal process. During the final year of a copyright term, the holder would be able to renew the copyright for another X years.

Surely it would have made much more sense for legislators to have tinkered with the copyright renewal process instead of repeatedly increasing the length of copyrights accross-the-board.

Unfortunately the renewal process is now an automatic system, and copyrights get renewed whether the holder cares about it or not. The result is that a lot of work that the copyright holders don't care or have forgotten about is now simply dying, because projects such as Project Gutenberg aren't allowed to save it.

A neverending renewal system doesn't solve all the problems (depending on your point of view), but at least with a renewal process, Disney would be able to keep its precious Mickey Mouse for a bit longer without producing the momentous amounts of collateral damage that neverending copyright does.

bits vs. atoms

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, all the bits are there already, it's just a question of getting them in the right order.

Innovation

[tehdaemon]

" "If all of this digital property is free, who is going to invest 50 to 60 million dollars to make a movie?" he (Jack Valenti) asked.

Exactally my point. 50-60 million dollars blown on just-another-movie instead of innovating and coming up with innovative new entertainment. What he said actually has nothing to do with innovation but instead it is about a product that (without extensive government intervention in the market) is no longer profitable to make. (50-60 million dollar movies!) So sad. In another 10-25 years teenagers will be creating similar movies in their basement for 500-600 dollars. Such is technology.

Dissagree with one point

[tehdaemon]

"who confuse temporary control of a thing with ownership"

The nature of ownership is control. If it can be controled, it can be owned. If it cannot be controled, it cannot be owned. For example, what does it mean to own something if you do not have control of it?.

Let me clarify with your own post.:

But guess what... where the US Patent Office doesn't control it, they're ignoring it . .

Where the patent office (and by extension, the government) doesn't control it, they do not own it. And if they don't own it, they can't grant a patent on it to anyone. (that is what patents and copyrights are anyway)

Ideas are inherently free. If you think you own it, that just means you're fooling yourself.

And just why are they inherently free? Because they are difficult if not impossible to control.

Why are copyrights becoming such an issue? They haven't always been. The reason is that with the internet, and digital tech in general, it is becoming much harder for the government to control ( read own ) the act of copying. and so businesses are trying to take ownership themselvs. DRM is the way for a business to own something even after they have sold someone a copy. But it is not perfect, and to they need the DCMA to make their ownership complete. I could continue, but my point is, ownership is control. (not necessarly legal ownership, but that is a different story)