Slashdot Mirror
World Intellectual Property Day
Dotnaught writes "The Business Software Alliance wants everyone to know that today is World Intellectual Property Day, 'an initiative to educate young people about how intellectual property rights foster innovation, creativity and economic opportunity.' To mark the occasion, CopyNight, a monthly gathering of people interested in restoring balance in copyright law, is hosting a get-together tonight in various cities throughout the U.S."
So, who wants to be the first to give us a list of all those wonderful inventions that would have never been invented if it wasn't for the copyright law?
Software, particularly OSS, is very different. Much of the value in software is derived from all the testing etc that is done to prove the software and flush out the bugs. I have heard of this being compared to the "stone soup" story. Throw out any (sometimes crappy) software and let people give you feedback. Copyright only protects the interests of the authors - not of those who do all the testing etc. Often the value added by the testers etc is many times the value added by the original authors.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Let's celebrate!
There's so much to celebrate.
Laws that allow others to lock their ideas away so no one can use them.
Laws that allow organised price fixing.
Laws that allow people to own ideas that should belong to everyone. Everything down to your own DNA has some form of IP on it.
Rejoice world.
Gimme a break!
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Of course the writer bloody would, they are writing for the love of it, otherwise they would get a job counting beans or something.
Why is it so hard for captialist pig dogs to grasp the simple concept that money != motivation, the accumulation of wealth is not the purpose of life.
Writers write as they have a story they want to share with others.
Companies would have to do research, or they wouldn't have anything to sell to keep them going. or do you think that when this happens now they should be able to make money by making up false legal accusations, ala SCO ?
Creativity has bugger all to do with money.
If they said there was no incentive to do good things unless the government could choose your religion ... or they said there is no incentive to grow food, unless farmers could rip up your garden ... most people would see these as the awful values that they are. But if they say that there is no incentive to make beneficial or creative works without the power to restrict what people copy (copyrights), then all too many people just take it on faith. They don't even question it, as if incentive makes rights, as if society would fall apart without them.
This is a very strange comparison really. In the first case it's quite logical that people would protest; after all something important gets taken from you namely your potatoes or your freedom of religion (excuse me for the hilarity but they were YOUR examples). In the second case, all that is harmed is the right to own everything, even that what belongs to others. Since when is that a basic human right?
But just as much of the Renaissance happened without copyrights so should the information age.
This comparison is even stranger. If you don't see the essential difference then let me explain. In the information age, large groups of society depend on selling copyrighted material for their living, such as music, movies and software. In the period of Renaissance, there weren't. I love all your utopian idea's about absolute freedom of speech and everything being owned by the community instead of individuals, but are *you* gonna feed all those people that lose their jobs?
The truth is that for every artist or writer that has made it "big", there are unmentioned thousands whom copyrights haven't helped a bit, hindered, or even destroyed. Some are even barred or sued from sharing their own creations in public, while others die with the world never truly knowing their artistic genius as the mass media drowns them out. Most creators are far better off sharing and distributing their creations freely to make a reputation for themselves.
Yeah, and there are probably even more who make a living *thanks to* copyrights. Where do you get all these vaguely statistic statements? I'd like to see some figures here. And by claiming that creators are better of sharing everything for free, I understand that you yourself aren't depending on it for a living?
You have some nice utopian ideas man. But I'm affraid it's never gonna work out. Collective property has been tried before and it didn't work... people got lazy because there was no motivation. Besides, I really wonder how you want to make all this happen without ridding huge groups of people of their daily source of income.