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."

Comments

Oh, my

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot is not going to like this one bit.

World Intellectual Property Day

[nebaz]

Hmmm....
WIPD (whipped).

Sounds about right.

Not even subtle.

Oh well.

Re:World Intellectual Property Day

[vsprintf]

For this story, it really would have been more appropriate to copy all the material and link to a .torrent.

Re:World Intellectual Property Day

[mattkinabrewmindspri]

or as I like to call it, Tuesday.

Re:World Intellectual Property Day

[cookie_cutter]

and it's from the BS alliance ...

Re:World Intellectual Property Day

[torokun]

Yes, and WIPO used to be BERPI. I'll bet you didn't know it was actually an improvement. ;)

Re:World Intellectual Property Day

[AdmiralWeirdbeard]

did I miss something?

did they seriously make it WIPD today? ... BS alliance...

is it april fools day again? whats going on?

on a tangent... how do you create a World Whatever Day? is there some sort of adjudicating body that approves these days, or is it entirely ad hoc?
Cause if it is... I declare tomorrow World Fling Feces at Bill Gates and Pirate the Living Shit out of Microsoft Day. Not a catchy Acronym, but i think with everybody's cooperation, we can make WFFBGPLSM Day a roaring success.

Re:World Intellectual Property Day

[kyojin the clown]

*shits in hand*

Count me in!

Re:World Intellectual Property Day

[geminidomino]

Umm, Kyojin...

We DO have catapults set up for that...

Re:World Intellectual Property Day

[kyojin the clown]

thanks. now you tell me.

Update!!

[peculiarmethod]

It was just recently reported that 6 of those cities events were cancelled by an injunction filed by national porn chain, Copy Night.

Re:Update!!

[DigitalHammer]

Which was subsequently sued by a previously unknown P2P mascot/advocate, Copy Knight.

Examples?

[Chemisor]

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?

Re:Examples?

[Rei]

DRM? DVD-CSS? Cactus? :)

Re:Examples?

[Mr Ambersand]

I'll take a stab at this...
GCC
BASH
GNU/HURD
Linux
Minix

Those are a few of the things which would not have been invented had it not been for copyright law and the restrictions surrounding the use and distribution of UNIX.

Re:Examples?

[McGiraf]

SCO Unix sagas ....

Re:Examples?

[alanlke]

That's easy:

http://www.warhol.org/

Re:Examples?

[MrAnnoyanceToYou]

The amusing thing is that there is a huge list of inventions that are reliant upon both. Ex: the modern RAM module.

Noone would have put the funds into designing it if they hadn't had the ability to patent the thing. Once they developed it, they patented it. This is just fine with me. However, what's really neato is that all these other companies decided they would reverse engineer / one up them, and therefore a year or two later have faster chips. Works all good.

The real problem I have with patents / copyrights is more in the software and artistic industries. Once you have a creative community that is farmed like today's music and movies are, your creative community is, well, a victim rather than a beneficiary. Everyone feels as if they depend upon making it big, and therefore supports the idea that if you 'make it big' you should still 'own' all the 'content' you have produced for your entire life. This seems fair, but more and more artists don't own this content.

When it comes to software, people are trying to patent / copyright basic interface. There's often not much new in the interfaces / systems being patented except the involvement of lawyers. This is lame.

But there still needs to be room somewhere for people / companies to create and have a window of profit based upon this creation if it is useful enough that people will pay for it. Without that, we wouldn't have many of our modern items. Think Bell Labs ran on sheer good will? Just because a few knowledge-producers have been world-class jerks doesn't mean the system is COMPLETELY broken.

Re:Examples?

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

GNU/HURD has been invented?!?

When did this happen?

I thought it was still vaporware.

Re:Examples?

[Mr Ambersand]

It's ready to be downloaded and used; it may not do much, but it does exist so it no longer qualifies as 'vaporware'.

This is in contrast to Duke Nukem Forever which cannot be downloaded or run.

In related news, BSD isn't dying either. ;)

Re:Examples?

[JaredOfEuropa]

Patents protect inventions (and other assorted brain farts that made it past the patent office screening procedure), copyright protects creative works.

Anyway, do you think companies like IBM would be so enthusiastic in their research into new technologies, if any competitor were allowed to just sit back and copy IBMs methods as soon as they hit the market? In such a patent-free market, those doing the research would actually be at a disadvantage. They'd be first to market, sure, but their competition would not have to recoup any investment in research, which can be substantial.

Similarly, do you think it's right that a publisher in Russia can just bang out copies of O'Reilly books, without a penny of the profits going to the authors or original publisher? Copyrights and patents exist for a good reason, even though we have let certain people get away with patenting things that should never have been granted one. On the other hand, I think copyright law works quite well and fairly.

Re:Examples?

[Noksagt]

GNU/HURD

Good to see you have a sense of humor!

Minix

This is the only non-GPLed app you list. It was originally under a proprietary license (pre-OSI days) & was relicensed under a BSD license. It was originally a teaching OS & I would argue that if there were no copyrights, professors would still have a need for teaching & so this program would still be written (of course neglecting prior art which may have truly needed copyrights).

Even under the current license, it "plays fewer games" with copyright law (it isn't copyleft, but still allows for Free/Open distribution). The difference between a BSD-style license and the public domain is basically a statement saying "don't sue me."

Re:Examples?

[Noksagt]

Not-from-scratch installation

There is no stable release (but it is still under rapid development). So, this would really be for your experimentation only. But you can run X & a few other apps.

Re:Examples?

[commodoresloat]

Even under the current license, it "plays fewer games"

No doubt. The state of gaming applications on Minix is even more dismal than on MacOS!

Re:Examples?

[Mr Ambersand]

Re: minix
I deliberately chose that example not because it's Free Software but it was still created in response to the restricted nature of the UNIX source code.

Andy needed something to base his class on, copyright law kept him from being able to use UNIX, so he wrote Minix. The license he distributed it under (which was a result of the needs of his publisher, if I remember right) is neither here nor there to the point I was making.

Re:Examples?

[MushMouth]

I am a fan of IP as well. that last line of your post I take issue with. Every day patents expire, even software patents, however, here in the US copyrights have not expired in years, and it is quite likely no copyrights ever will.

Re:Examples?

[Andrew Cady]

gcc wouldn't have been created if it weren't for copyright law? I think its creator, rms, would beg to differ.

Re:Examples?

[JaredOfEuropa]

Yes, you are quite right. I too am not a big fan of these eternal or hereditary copyrights.

Re:Examples?

[Mr Ambersand]

I'd be surprised if he did beg to differ. Without copyright law, it would not have been necessary to re-create Unix and the Unix infrastruction (including the C compiler).

Re:Examples?

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

Atlas Shrugged. I think Ayn Rand would've shot herself rather than release a book uncopyrighted.

Re:Examples?

[muonman]

I think you have just given the World's Best Reason for eliminating copyright.

Re:Examples?

[Noksagt]

I deliberately chose that example not because it's Free Software but it was still created in response to the restricted nature of the UNIX source code.

Fair enough (but then why include Linux, when it was made "just for the fun of it?").

I would still propose that a teaching OS would be needed had UNIX been freely available. Minix is less daunting than all of that AT&T code would have been.

Re:Examples?

[cpt kangarooski]

Anyway, do you think companies like IBM would be so enthusiastic in their research into new technologies, if any competitor were allowed to just sit back and copy IBMs methods as soon as they hit the market? In such a patent-free market, those doing the research would actually be at a disadvantage. They'd be first to market, sure, but their competition would not have to recoup any investment in research, which can be substantial.

Yes, I think they would be. I think that a great deal of the stuff they get patents on would be worth working on even without a patent. And there are research costs involved in competing, since without patents there isn't as much disclosure either.

Patents serve as an incentive to get people to invent when they otherwise would not. If they would anyway -- as is the case for probably the vast majority of software patents -- then it's a waste of public resources to grant a patent.

Plus, invention isn't the end-all be-all of patents. You only want to provide the minimal possible incentive. This is because the public is just as interested in having a public domain as it is in having new inventions. Inventions do the most good when anyone can use them for free. Restricting freedom is merely how we pay to get them created -- it's not a goal, it's an unfortunate compromise that should be carefully reexamined lest we over-incentivize.

Similarly, do you think it's right that a publisher in Russia can just bang out copies of O'Reilly books, without a penny of the profits going to the authors or original publisher?

Doesn't bother me. Would O'Reilly have written those books if there were a wall around Russia and no Russian could possibly buy them? I bet they would. In that case, they don't need the incentive of the Russian market.

Plus, it's for the Russians to decide. If they want to encourage creation, they'll do so. If they want to encourage competition, they'll do that. They are the best judges of their own best interests. Whatever they decide, I support their right to pick for themselves. We shouldn't lecture them. We too should pick what we think is best.

If our system is really all it's cracked up to be, it will get adopted elsewhere on its own merits; because it serves the best interests of other countries. If not, then maybe we should rethink what we're doing.

Certainly I'm against copyright treaties, patent treaties, etc. I think that the whole of international copyright should be 1) national treatment, 2) formalities are okay, but shouldn't be such that authors are forced to choose between two mutually incompatable countries.

Re:Examples?

[cpt kangarooski]

That's a very good reason to not have copyright.

Re:Examples?

[macdaddy357]

Inventions of physical things are patented, not copyrighted, and unlike copyright which has become nearly perpetual, patents eventually expire. As per your question, here is that list:

Re:Examples?

[geekee]

"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?"

GPL?

Re:Examples?

[dgatwood]

I think most people would rather shoot themselves than copy it. Given that, could you explain how the copyright is doing something useful again? :-)

Re:Examples?

[Nogami_Saeko]

I still maintain that there should be three forms of copyright, and the authors/developers have to choose only 1 type for their product:

-Total digital lockdown. No copying, backing-up, or anything else. Plays only on the device it was registered on/licensed for. Choose this option and your copyright lasts for 5 years only. After that point, you're completely public domain. Milk it while it lasts folks!

-Mild copyright - public is allowed fair use rights, must be able to be format shifted, resold, etc. No 3rd party use permitted. 10 year limit, then the contents are public domain.

-Public copyright - free to do anything you want with the product as long as money isn't changing hands. Lasts for author's lifetime.

At any time, something that falls into the first or second category can be "promoted" by the author/developer into the 3rd category at their own discretion, and released of all previous rights.

N.

Re:Examples?

[A beautiful mind]

Erm, WHAT?

These utilities of course wouldn't have to be created if not for the _restrictive_ nature of Intellectual property in the software industry! It's like saying that everyone who uses electricity produced from fission driven power plants should thank the 1930-1940's nazi germany for starting WWII because it propelled the inventions surrounding atomic energy (yes, the example is deliberately harsh).

If not the restrictive nature of the copyright law, those utilities wouldn't have been created in the first place because everyone would have been working on the original ones, saving the hassle of duplicating them thus your examples are examples where copyright law/intellectual property stiffled innovation, not helped it. Your examples show the perfect case of sociological reaction to unnatural barriers, but in no case can those barriers be titled something that helpes innovation.

Re:Examples?

[patio11]

Thats an idea I could theoretically support if it didn't eviscerate the poor content generators. Take, say, dictionary writers. How are you supposed to sell the 2015 version of your dictionary if you've got to compete against the 2005 edition of your own bloody dictionary, except that edition is free? Language doesn't change enough in 10 years to justify the 50 dollar purchase for most people.

You can come up with historical examples, too, where this would have cut the knees out from under authors: the Hobbit would have been public domain 7 years before Lord of the Rings came out and Tolkien would have received exactly nothing from the value he added to his own work. Then the Big Content Companies which we like to poke fun at would adapt their suckiness to the new legal environment -- for example, Disney might decide that actually developing original ideas was forever beyond its reach and just start reaching back into the 10+ year archive for concepts which had falled into the public domain ("Hey, fantasy is big this season and I once read this book called Sword of Shanarra... and now we don't even have to pay licensing fees! Sweet!")

Re:Examples?

[RedWizzard]

Right. The question is: would we have been worse off?

Re:Examples?

[mc6809e]

I'll take a stab at this...
GCC
BASH
GNU/HURD
Linux
Minix

Those are a few of the things which would not have been invented had it not been for copyright law and the restrictions surrounding the use and distribution of UNIX.

And would UNIX have existed if not for copyright?

Re:Examples?

[mOdQuArK!]

How are you supposed to sell the 2015 version of your dictionary if you've got to compete against the 2005 edition of your own bloody dictionary, except that edition is free?

You've got to provide enough value that people will be willing to buy it at a price that you can afford to sell it at. If the old product has so much value that you can't make an effective competing product with it after 10 years, then there's really no point either for yourself or for the benefit of society to try and come up with the new product. It would serve both you & society much better to spend your resources on something else.

Disney might decide that actually developing original ideas was forever beyond its reach and just start reaching back into the 10+ year archive for concepts which had falled into the public domain

So? As much as people love to hate Disney, if an author hasn't made a buck off their work in 10 years, then I don't see why they should have the right to stop someone else from doing it. About the only condition I would think is justified, is that Disney should not be allowed to pretend that THEY wrote the story (i.e., they shouldn't be allowed to commit fraud).

Re:Examples?

[patio11]

As much as people love to hate Disney, if an author hasn't made a buck off their work in 10 years, then I don't see why they should have the right to stop someone else from doing it.

See, there is no provision for that argument in the proposal. Regardless of whether the content is a major revenue stream for the original owner or not, at 10 years the stream dies. You could have a highly successful fantasy series/science textbook/genre-defining-artwork and be receiving Potter-esque mad bank or even just a decent living (one moderately successful novel in some genres is a $5,000 / yr revenue stream for the author -- hey, it pays the bills) and at ten years, boom, its over. Then somebody with more capital than creativity comes in and strip-mines your idea in ways that were beyond your reach (say, making it into a movie) -- and to make matters worse, the existence of this copyright stream actively hurts your interest in, say, the movie rights to your fantasy series because a) you can't guarantee them for the entire length of the movie pipeline (total time it takes you to publish a book, become a megaseller, enter negotiations with XYZ Studios, and have them make the movie could well extend over 10 years), meaning that there is the substantial risk that the Office Movie is the third one to come out, and b) why bother paying you when you can just delay release of the derivative works until the content is in the public domain?

Or, to put it in Slashdot-approved terms, this makes authors have their jobs outsourced to younger versions of themselves who are willing to work for nothing. Continuous revolutionary improvements in quality are NOT possible in some content industries in the ten-year timeframe.

Re:Examples?

[mOdQuArK!]

Again, I say: so?

In that 10 year scenario, we (society) didn't _have_ to give authors even those 10 years. We could've just insisted free market principles and required that people earn money the "old-fashioned" way: by providing desired goods & services. If you don't provide a good or service that someone desires at a price they're willing to pay, then you won't get paid, no matter how hard you worked.

Every craftsperson understands this concept - that they will continue to get paid only if they continue to provide desired goods & services. They don't expect to keep getting paid if they create one thing & then sit on their duff while other people pass it around. Only IP "owners" (not even necessarily the people who did the original creation) seem to think they "deserve" special laws to allow them to override private property rights & sidestep free-market forces.

"Intellectual property" owners should be grateful that they are allowed _any_ control over works at all once the works have left their hands.

Re:Examples?

[Pantero Blanco]

Not really. There wouldn't have been much of a need for those to exist in their present incarnations, so the fact that they wouldn't exist doesn't really matter.

Re:Examples?

[ultranova]

The amusing thing is that there is a huge list of inventions that are reliant upon both. Ex: the modern RAM module.

Noone would have put the funds into designing it if they hadn't had the ability to patent the thing. Once they developed it, they patented it. This is just fine with me. However, what's really neato is that all these other companies decided they would reverse engineer / one up them, and therefore a year or two later have faster chips. Works all good.

So, what you're saying is that the patent didn't protect whoever developed the "modern RAM module" (since others were able to reverse engineer it - coming to think of it, why would they need to reverse engineer it, doesn't getting patents require you to give the technical details to the patent office ?), but they would not have developed it if they couldn't have gotten this useless patent on it.

Interesting argument :).

Re:Examples?

[Anonamused Cow-herd]

Doesn't bother me. Would O'Reilly have written those books if there were a wall around Russia and no Russian could possibly buy them? I bet they would. In that case, they don't need the incentive of the Russian market.

-1, What?!

That's not the issue at all. There are 2 arguments here. One is international, the other is domestic. For the domestic argument, I fail to see how those who attack copyrights can possibly have a leg to stand on with respect to intellectual works. Consider this; if, one day after O'Reilly publishes a book, I can print 100,000 or whatever copies of that book that are EXACTLY identical to the original, while selling them at a fraction of the price, could you please tell me what effect that would have on the authorship market? Regardless of whether you think people "deserve" to earn money for their creating works, how can you possibly deny that it would make fields like professional public authorship disappear faster than SCO once everything hits court? Even if people don't deserve a right to earnings from their productions, if they can't actually make any money with it, it will ruin at the very least the possibility of being a writer that produces works for the public domain at a per-copy fee (technical writers and contracted people who generated content would be ok, though).

That seems distressing enough to my conception of how intellectual growth happens that I reject it out of hand. The international question, on the other hand, is even more convincing. Consider this: if Russia does not have any copyright laws, and therefore there stands to be no profit for published works from America there, what American publishing firm or author would export there? Who would provide services to such a non-paying constituency (for things that don't have intrinsic merit, like open source development)? Sure, Russia can do whatever it wants, and maybe it would eventually realize that it is a poor policy that eliminates imported intellectual materials. Furthermore, such actions degrade the overall price structure; if there are less people worldwide buying, the purchasing people have to pay more per copy. Economically, that's unsound global policy, and amounts to a 'tyranny of the could' -- just because you can is no justification. To extend your simplistic formulation: if every other country in the world built walls around its borders, would O'Reilly still publish? Yes, but it would suck for everyone involved, from O'Reilly on down.

Re:Examples?

[MrAnnoyanceToYou]

Well, no, it didn't protect them from the 'improvement' clause in patent law. If you improve upon a patent, you get to patent the new thing. That's why patent law attempts to be so broad. If you can think of something new, you're golden. The amusing thing about patents is that not all of them are open secrets anymore, there are some that are not published as widely on purpose... Or at least there were some at some point. They were certainly protected on that particular chip - noone could build one with x y or z property. However, if someone found x1, y1, and z1 that made it faster, they could build it. Thus patents USED to push innovation forward because everyone who wanted to sell IP had to patent their product..... No such luck now.

The other option to patents USED to be trade secrets - they still exist. But if you don't patent it you're not protected, and if you patent it it must become public, so there were companies that just held onto their knowledge and produced at a high rate because noone else could. An example of a trade secret that I can think of is nuclear weapons, although that's a rather biased example.

Re:Examples?

[boron boy]

Disney might decide that actually developing original ideas was forever beyond its reach and just start reaching back into the 10+ year archive for concepts which had falled into the public domain

You mean like Pinnochio? Snow White? The Little Mermaid? Only rather than just retelling the story, Disney is an evil empire that completely mutilates them. The best example of this is The Little Mermaid, which was originally written by Hans Christian Anderson. You might have heard of his other stories: The Tortoise and the Hare, or The Emporer's New Clothes. Notice something in common between them? They all have a moral. I've heard several different takes on the moral to The Little Mermaid, "Don't throw your life away for a man", "Don't try to be something you're not". One thing's for sure: the little mermaid was supposed to die at the end of the story.

Anderson was trying to teach a lesson with his stories. Not only is that lesson missing from the disney version, but a contrary lesson is enforced. Anderson would be rolling in his grave.

Re:Examples?

[maxwell demon]

This wonderful piece of art would never have existed without the DMCA! :-)

Re:Examples?

[JohnFluxx]

'Then somebody with more capital than creativity comes in and strip-mines your idea in ways that were beyond your reach (say, making it into a movie)'

And this is bad? The movie wouldn't have been made otherwise.

Re:Examples?

[Circuit Breaker]

That's entirely wrong.

Without copyright law, people would still only release executables. And everything would become gratis, but there is no reason anything would be libre.

Re:Examples?

[cpt kangarooski]

Copyright is a utilitarian construct.

The public has three equal interests it seeks to have maximally satisfied: 1) for more original works to be created; 2) for more derivative works to be created; and 3) for all works to be in the public domain, where they can be maximally exploited, had and enjoyed for free, etc.

So all copyright law has to justify itself in terms of how well it serves the sum of these interests. A perfect copyright law would be one that maximized all of them.

Without copyright law, we know from history that there would be some satisfaction of the first, more of the second, and full satisfaction of the third. This is our baseline.

Unless a copyright law would provide a net public benefit greater than the baseline, it is unacceptable. We'd be better off without the law.

Similarly, we can compare any two copyright laws by the degree to which they increase the net satisfaction of the public interest. The more they do so, the better the law is. Additionally, where two laws produce an equal net public benefit, the least restrictive of the two is the better one.

Now, reducing the satisfaction of the public domain interest so as to increase the satisfaction of the creation interests (especially since it increases one interest a lot more than the other, and they're of equal importance) is subject to diminishing returns.

For example, let's say that we have two alternative copyright proposals: One lasts for 25 years, and one lasts for 250 years.

Clearly, the former satisfies the public domain interest much, much, much more than the latter. But also, the former probably satisfies the creation interest 90% as much as the latter.

After all, the economics of creative works is such that the vast majority of works have no economic value, and that of those that do, they'll make virtually all their money in the first few months or years of their release. Very few works produce a significant amount of money over the long term. So a copyright for a short term is just about as valuable as a copyright in the long term. For example, J. Breyer, in his Eldred dissent, pointed out that the monetary value of the additional 20 years Congress added to copyright terms was, on average, five cents. That's not a great incentive, I'm sure you'll agree.

(Of course the whole copyright system is a testament to how crazily optimistic authors are -- of those that are incentivized by the rewards of copyright, they all think they'll hit it big, when in fact they'd be better off working regular jobs. Copyright exploits this rather irrational, risk-seeking behavior.)

Now, we could optimize copyright if we could only determine precisely how much copyright-related incentive each individual author required in order for them to create their work. Then we could provide only the minimum necessary incentive to each, up to a certain maximum beyond which, as already pointed out, increasing copyright would result in decreasing public benefit (in which case less copyright would be superior, and in extreme cases, no copyright would be superior).

It's a lot like buying a car. You, as the car buyer, want to get the most car for the least money. It'd be ideal to know the exact prices of each car on the lot, and the exact figures as to fuel economy, increase in social standing from each model (on a scale of Yugo to Ferarri ;), repair and maintenance costs over time, etc.

Unfortunately we can't really be that well informed for various reasons. But we can still adhere to the principle that giving more than the minimum required incentive is wasteful. And that we ought to very carefully consider just how much incentive we want to provide, in light of the importance of the net public benefit, even if we can't apportion it out in a highly optimal manner.

When we're on the international scene, however, each country has to respect the best interests of its own people, not others. If country A feels that it is in its best interests to have

Re:Examples?

[eraserewind]

Because nobody makes money from just selling RAM modules? Patents may well provide an additional incentive, but they are certainly not the only one out there.

Wow... That is so cool!!!

[madshot]

This is what I was thinking about when I woke up this morning. I wonder if they Celebrate this is Russia or the Ukraine too.

Cool!

[Locke2005]

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.
Cool! Does that get-together include a CD/DVD swap session?

Re:Cool!

[airrage]

It does, I plan on being at the Austin group meet (I'll be the one dressed as a Cleric with +4 dexterity) to trade a few items such as my mint condition Darth Vader action-figure (original from 1977). Any interested liger's out there? Meow!

These guys are getting worse

[LittleLebowskiUrbanA]

has anyone here seen the online ads where they ask if you want to get back your old employer by reporting them to the BSA?

Re:These guys are getting worse

[Anonymous Coward]

Bah - just accuse them of being gay or an atheist - the BSA will deal with them in no time.

Re:These guys are getting worse

[bersl2]

Is this what you're talking about?

Re:These guys are getting worse

[McGiraf]

You're not serious !?!
Is that for real ? any one has la link?

I have to see this to belive it, but then again ... hum.

Re:These guys are getting worse

[c0d3h4x0r]

Bah - just accuse them of being gay or an atheist - the BSA will deal with them in no time.

No, you're thinking of the Republicans.

Re:These guys are getting worse

[sinclair44]

Wow... that reminds me of the "Report Disloyalty" posters in B5. Scary.

Re:These guys are getting worse

[LittleLebowskiUrbanA]

I've seen the link but can't find it right now. Here's an old article on it.

Re:These guys are getting worse

[drooling-dog]

FOSS starts looking a lot more attractive after you've been through a couple of license audits, doesn't it?

Re:These guys are getting worse

[mzwaterski]

That ad is telling people to speak up about infringement to their employer. The implication is that if they don't speak up the company will be sued and will fold. It doesn't make sense if you assume that speak up means report your employer. Otherwise it would say: Speak up and pack up...because you'll be fired when you speak up.

Re:These guys are getting worse

[cortana]

Traitors can't hide!

Re:These guys are getting worse

[Threni]

> Scary.

You'd never report your employer if you thought you'd been unfairly treated/fired? Why not?

Re:These guys are getting worse

[mzwaterski]

Swoooooosh...--the sound of the ad going over your head!

Let's Celebrate!

[jhouserizer]

In order to celebrate, my team members and I are going to each write a line of code, and then go clone a cd or two.

Re:Let's Celebrate!

[Bobdoer]

I, for one, will celebrate by installing a mod chip in my Saturn.

Thanks a lot Sega for the worst copy-protection ever!

Re:Let's Celebrate!

[nsasch]

And I'm gonna duct tape my shift key down and clone a cd or two.

Re:Let's Celebrate!

[HAKdragon]

For what it's worth, you don't even need a chip on the Dreamcast.

Re:Let's Celebrate!

[Legion303]

Hilariously, Sega no longer makes hardware.

Wait, no, that sucks. Fuck.

Copyright is outdated

[EmbeddedJanitor]

Copyright was intended as a way of protecting the rights of a person to their works. That is fine for something like a book etc.

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.

Re:Copyright is outdated

[uberdave]

Real programmers have sixteen fingers.

Real programmers have 0x10 fingers.

Re:Copyright is outdated

[Dav3K]

and as such Copywrite WAS fine, so long as the author was alive. Why the hell Disney needs copywrite on Mickey Mouse 70+ years after he is dead is beyond me.

It's no longer fine for things like a book, etc. The whole system has been perverted by corporate interests and needs an overhaul.

Re:Copyright is outdated

[Noksagt]

Copyright was intended as a way of protecting the rights of a person to their works. That is fine for something like a book etc.

Modern copyright probably starts with the Statute of Anne. It lasted 14 years, with an option to renew for another 14 years. Content consumers were granted freedom from publishers to do with their purchases as they wanted, but content creators were given the right to say who could publish (or republish) their works when, where, and how. This exclusive right was strong incentive to be a content creator. Society likes creation, but creation is costlier and possibly less profitable than copying. So it was a good thing.

Software, particularly OSS, is very different.

No. We also need to promote creation of software & granting creators the right to decide how their works might be copied is a still-used incentive. Granting consumer rights would not be enough.

What is harmful is all of the stuff that has been added onto copyright law. With the DMCA, content consumers no longer can do whatever they want with their purchases! They've taken away explicit consumer rights in favor of the publishers. Also, no longer does a work pass into the public domain after 28 years, but is tied up in a vitually un-ending term which eclipses the conceivable lifetimes of the creators.

I do believe that the economic lifetime of an individual piece of software is shorter than the books, plays, and music which the Statute of Anne protected. The rate of improvement is also much quicker. So an even shorter lifetime would make sense.

However, I wouldn't say that copyrights are "outdated." Rather they are abused by some corporations/lobbyists.

Re:Copyright is outdated

[cpt kangarooski]

Copyright was intended as a way of protecting the rights of a person to their works.

No it wasn't.

First, copyright is the right of a person to their works; it's not protecting some other set of rights.

Second, copyright was intended as a way of promoting the public good, which is served by both increasing the number of original and derivative works created, and by promptly placing those works in the public domain so that they can be free to all. Granting rights to authors is merely a way to accomplish part of this. I say part, because in order to fully accomplish it, the rights need to go away again, since it's bad for them to be there.

Re:Copyright is outdated

[mOdQuArK!]

Copyright was intended as a way of protecting the rights of a person to their works.

Actually, copyright was intended as a way for kings (i.e., the government) to control what was being published with the new-fangled printing presses. It was only later that somebody thought that a potential social benefit might be a good justification for it.

Re:Copyright is outdated

[haeger]

Mickey Mouse is dead? Please say it aint so!

.haeger

Re:Copyright is outdated

[mwvdlee]

The trouble with this is that if copyright would be based upon the life and death of the inventors, Walt would still be "alive" today in a completely vegetable state with Disney paying for the medical miracles/monstrosities doing it.

Re:Copyright is outdated

[Dav3K]

I didn't think of that outcome, but agree it would be very likely. I think you have the stuff of a good novel on your hands. No wait - don't write it or they will keep you in a vegetative state and not let you die!!

Seriously though, good point.

BSA ?

[Rodness]

The BSA.... aren't they the ones that terrorize small businesses and threaten to audit their software licenses? (And without a glimmer of a search warrant, either.)

Re:BSA ?

[Rude Turnip]

They did it to my company one time and let me tell you, it's no picnic. But I got revenge by having Michael Jackson pay a surprise visit during one of their camping trips.

Re:BSA ?

[Andrew Cady]

The BSA.... aren't they the ones that terrorize small businesses and threaten to audit their software licenses? (And without a glimmer of a search warrant, either.)

That's what happens when sign a draconian proprietary software license. If you don't want to be audited for your software licenses use free software. Otherwise, no sympathy from me.

Re:BSA ?

[rbochan]

My chiropractor found out about the BSA the hard way.
He had 2... count 'em 2, machines in his office, both running Win2k, Microsoft Office, and some accounting and scheduling software. He got a nice little letter from the BSA saying they wanted to do an audit.
He had no idea where his license info was, it's just him and his wife running a 2-exam-room office and he called me in a panic. I had told him about the Ernie Ball Case previously - he was all sorts of freaked out. Short of shelling out hundreds of dollars for new licenses, he was screwed. Granted, Ernie Ball is a larger company that might be able to suck it up, but it could mean financial ruin for a husband & wife operation.
He's now happily running Debian and OpenOffice on both machines. He had been planning on buying an updated version of his accounting/scheduling software regardless, and we found that it runs perfectly under wine.
He won't be hearing from the BSA again any time soon.

Celibrate

[9mm Censor]

I Celibrated by downloading some music and a couple movies.

*Cheers*

Re:Celibrate

[VolcomPimp]

In respect to copyright owners, I erased everything off my ipod for this occassion... Well not really... I erased everything cause Ephpod is retarded and b0rked my ipod, so I formatted it and put all the music back on.

Re:Celibrate

[Anonymous Coward]

I raise my glass to you Sir, well done!

Conjuring up a bunch of fake hype and expecting people to celebrate their oppression is pretty damn Orwellian, imho. For the same reason I wouldnt expect Hermann Goering Appreciation Day to be a raging success in Israel, for example.

Or are the chains of slavery and serfdom so damn shiney and pretty that noone cares about Freedom anymore?

Re:Celibrate

[shutdown -p now]

I Celibrated by downloading some music and a couple movies.

I'm not sure if you mean 'celebrated' or 'celibated'. Both would make sense, given it is /.

Software Freedom Day

[HenrikOxUK]

Amazing! This is almost exactly the opposite of Software Freedom Day!

Re:Software Freedom Day

[uberdave]

Well, hey! Any excuse to party, you know.

Re:Software Freedom Day

[kurzweilfreak]

Was any of this held in New Orleans by any chance?

CopyNight

[bailster]

Strange, I thought "CopyNight" referred to the legendary obscene things people do on the Xerox after returning drunk from the office Xmas party...

Economic opportunity maybe...

[Artax]

but innovation and creativity?? Since when does ownership of ideas make people more innovative?

The far more creative method of human thinking is to express ideas to as many people as possible and have those people alter and improve upon the original. One person sitting in a box alone will come up with boring ideas (unless they are crazy).

Re:Economic opportunity maybe...

[JaredOfEuropa]

but innovation and creativity?? Since when does ownership of ideas make people more innovative?

Ownership of ideas encourages people to invest into research or creating an original work. Research can be a costly undertaking, and even an activity like writing a book requires the writer to invest a great deal of his time. Would a writer make that investment if he knew that anyone at all would be free to copy his work without compensation? Would companies do any research or keep the results of their research a secret, instead of publishing and licensing it?

Re:Economic opportunity maybe...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Economic opportunity maybe...

[rob_squared]

I hate to defend something like copyright, but the idea is to provide a sense of asfety. The idea is vaguely like a patent. If you don't have the rights to what you create, then somone can come in and use it easily and you'd have no legal recourse.

Re:Economic opportunity maybe...

[RagingR2]

Maybe people can be creative without financial motivations, but in technology, a lot of innovation requires financial input. If you don't have some sense of safety that your product will be able to generate you some money in return, then investments will stall.

I love how you people like to bitch at capitalism, and I love to see how there are still people who believe that creativity can exist without financial motivations, but as invaluable as the whole community of pimpled computer geeks in their attics probably is, this is grown-up time and some projects require more input (time, money, man-hours) than they can provide for.

One simply can't deny the fact that some things wouldn't have existed without the safety of returned investments that copyrights provide.

Re:Economic opportunity maybe...

[Spad]

Altruism?

Re:Economic opportunity maybe...

[An Onerous Coward]

"Would a writer make that investment if he knew that anyone at all would be free to copy his work without compensation?"

From time to time. I'm certainly in favor of some level of copyright protection that maximizes overall creativity. But there are other motivations for creativity than financial ones, and the author can continue to profit even if said author allows uncompensated copying.

Re:Economic opportunity maybe...

[cpt kangarooski]

You do realize of course that copyright is NOT based upon the sweat of the brow theory. Investing hard work isn't good enough to get a copyright. This is why the research that goes into, say, a history book CAN be copied out by others without compensation. The historian can't own the facts. He can report on them, but he didn't create them.

Also neither copyright nor patents protect ideas. Nor do trademarks. Trade secrets approach it, but even they have significant weaknesses.

Re:Economic opportunity maybe...

[cpt kangarooski]

Okay, so? If I'm the other guy -- and there are roughly 6 billion other guys to the one author -- then of course I'm happy to use it easily without facing legal recourse.

So since the other guy is the majority, and since the other guy is being asked to refrain from doing what comes naturally, and what benefits him, then by God there had better be something in it for the other guy.

So the real idea is, what's in it for me? How do you convince me that I should give you a copyright to my detriment? How do I come out ahead by doing so?

There's an answer, but what you had to date is entirely self-serving on the part of authors, and that's no good.

Re:Economic opportunity maybe...

[handslikesnakes]

Absolutely! What would we do without the timeless literature of professional authors like Dan Brown,

Re:Economic opportunity maybe...

[PromANJ]

Maybe I'm naive, but I'd like to think that atleast artists and maybe scientists do what they do because they have a passion for it. Money doesn't motivate me to do art. In fact, money just ruins my passion and forces me to make bad compromizes.

Would a writer make that investment if he knew that anyone at all would be free to copy his work without compensation?

There's no connection between having money and being worthy of experiencing art, and I doubt anyone thinks so. The problem is that you have to put food on the table, and are thus forced to make the connection above. It's all very unfortunate.

The investors are not the creators. Investors are suit people out to make money, not innovation.

Re:Economic opportunity maybe...

[cpt kangarooski]

No, copyright is about the public interest, it's just being perverted out of greed and idiotic romantic notions about being an author.

I don't think that it's all that beneficial now, but I do think that it's generally possible for it to beneficial to the public if done right.

Re:Economic opportunity maybe...

[CrimsonAvenger]

Of course the writer bloody would, they are writing for the love of it, otherwise they would get a job counting beans or something.

Does the phrase "day job" mean anything to you? It's commonly used by author/actor wannabes to describe what they do to pay the bills. It's also something they all want to get past. Which happens just as soon as they start making enough money from writing/acting to pay the bills.

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.

Of course it's not. Which is why, I assume, you do everything you do with no thought of monetary return?

Writers write as they have a story they want to share with others.

Amateur writers do this. Professional writers (the kind that get published) do it for the money.

Companies would have to do research, or they wouldn't have anything to sell to keep them going.

If it weren't for Copyright/Patents, *I* wouldn't do research - I'd let *YOU* do research, then copy whatever the results of your research were. Yah, I'll be behind you in coming out with neat toys, but the savings in research budget would be worth it.

Consider - I am a book publisher in a world without Copyright. I see a book selling well, so I make my own version of the book. I price my version below your price, since I don't have to pay the Author a couple bucks per copy like you do. I make lots of money, you don't.

Neither does the author. He can't quit his dayjob, so he produces maybe one tenth as many books as he might have if he'd made enough on his books that he didn't have to spend 40 hours per week earning his daily bread....

Don't make the mistake of assuming Patent/Copyright are bad things. They're not. Implementation has issues right now - patents because the designers never conceived of hundreds of millions of patents, copyright because the designers never conceived of perpetual copyrights.

But implementation errors can be corrected. Removing the concept entirely would do more damage than good.

Sheesh -- What will BSA proclaim next?

[Grokko]

Microsoft History Month?

I celebrated

[Profane MuthaFucka]

By signing up with allofmp3.com. Wish I had done it sooner, it's absolutely fantastic.

Re:I celebrated

[natrius]

The whole point of paying for music when you could get it off P2P networks is to support an artist whose work you enjoy. If you buy music from allofmp3.com, none of that money goes to the artists. If you want to support artists without getting DRM-laden music, then buy CDs. If you really don't care about the artists and just like how convenient allofmp3.com is, then by means, continue. Making money off of other people's creative works without compensating them is under plain copyright infringement on my moral ladder.

Re:I celebrated

[Profane MuthaFucka]

Totally agree. That's why I am also celebrating this day by downloading all of the music by the KLF that I can find.

KLF = Kopyright Liberation Front

Re:I celebrated

[stinerman]

Simple solution:

1) Buy cut-rate tunes off allofmp3.com
2) Give money saved directly to artist(s) you feel deserve more money.

(2) can be done by simply writing a check to the band or directly to each individual member.

HEY, WAIT!

[lottameez]

World Intellectual Property Day Was My Idea!

Irony

[bot]

"What are the guidelines for CopyNight?

There's no cost to using the CopyNight name.
...
* It has to be free - no admission and no membership dues. Make it as inclusive as possible.
"
How about making content available on those terms too ?????

Yay!

[syousef]

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!

Re:Yay!

[Dan Up Baby]

Laws that allow creators to benefit from their works.

Laws that mean companies must innovate to succeed.

Laws that allow people to own ideas that are the result of their time.

Laws that incite people to go over the top at Drudge-esque lengths by claiming that somebody's going to copyright your DNA.

Okay, well, I like the first three things.

Re:Yay!

[cpt kangarooski]

Laws that allow creators to benefit from their works.

But it doesn't profit me for creators to benefit from their works. In fact, that benefit probably derives from me, so in fact it's harmful. How can you justify harming me so?

Laws that mean companies must innovate to succeed.

Innovation is good, but refinement and commoditizing are also good. It's great to invent the first light bulb, but light bulbs are better when they last longer, are very inexpensive, are very cheap, and can be had anywhere or made by anyone. Innovation alone isn't enough, and so we must avoid encouraging it at the expense of all else.

Laws that allow people to own ideas that are the result of their time.

But that merely rewards people for spending time. If I spent a lot of time inventing the wheel, should I get to own the idea and charge you for driving to work? In fact, why should we allow people to own an idea at all? Can you name an example of when we have done so? (n.b. inventions are not ideas; they're more refined and are much rarer)

In sum, I think you haven't fully thought this through.

Re:Yay!

[RagingR2]

But it doesn't profit me for creators to benefit from their works. In fact, that benefit probably derives from me, so in fact it's harmful. How can you justify harming me so?

This is complete nonsense. Anyone who produces something is allowed to benefit from it. How is producing software any different? If you considering paying for stuff you use harmful, then maybe you shouldn't buy anything from now on... at all. But if you decide to keep buying stuff, be so kind to explain why paying for software is more harmful than paying for other things. The only difference is that with software you CAN use it without paying for it. But is that the only criterion? How can you be so self centered?

Innovation is good, but refinement and commoditizing are also good. It's great to invent the first light bulb, but light bulbs are better when they last longer, are very inexpensive, are very cheap, and can be had anywhere or made by anyone. Innovation alone isn't enough, and so we must avoid encouraging it at the expense of all else.

I think you're getting carried away. How is innovation encouraged at the expense of "everything" else? The one who invented the first light bulb probably didn't want people running in and out of the factory either. Of course, people were free to buy a light bulb in the store, study it closely and make a competing product. In your analogy maintaining ownership of intellectual property would mean that 25 years later there'd still only be 1 producer of light bulbs? Come one... the world doesn't work that way man. People can have the right to benefit from their own works and be stimulated to innovate even further without the loss of commodities you are talking about. Ideas will spread anyway as they have done in the past when there were copyright laws.

why should we allow people to own an idea at all? Can you name an example of when we have done so? (n.b. inventions are not ideas; they're more refined and are much rarer)

You want a reason why people should be able to own their intelligent work? Because some innovation requires a lot of money. Without the safety of returned investments, some innovations won't occur. We all like innovation don't we? Well, property of ideas is a great motivation to come up with one. I think you can think of plenty of examples both in the software market and in other markets.

Re:Yay!

[Dan Up Baby]

But it doesn't profit me for creators to benefit from their works. In fact, that benefit probably derives from me, so in fact it's harmful. How can you justify harming me so?

It's not harming you, you're not entitled to their work. That's like saying Bill Gates is harming you by not letting you crash at his mansion(s). When George Lucas owning the rights to Star Wars shivs your parents, let me know and we'll work this out.

Innovation is good, but refinement and commoditizing are also good. It's great to invent the first light bulb, but light bulbs are better when they last longer, are very inexpensive, are very cheap, and can be had anywhere or made by anyone. Innovation alone isn't enough, and so we must avoid encouraging it at the expense of all else.

I'd argue that a better lightbulb is an innovation, too. Then you sell it, and the original lightbulb owner has to justify purchasing his product or fall under. He can make it cheaper--helping the consumer--or he can make it better--also helping the consumer. Remember, patents are granted for refinements of inventions, too.

But that merely rewards people for spending time. If I spent a lot of time inventing the wheel, should I get to own the idea and charge you for driving to work? In fact, why should we allow people to own an idea at all? Can you name an example of when we have done so? (n.b. inventions are not ideas; they're more refined and are much rarer)

By ideas I meant the typical intellectual properties; books, movies, music, etc.

Re:Yay!

[cpt kangarooski]

Anyone who produces something is allowed to benefit from it.

Let me rephrase. It doesn't benefit me for the creator to exclusively benefit from his works.

So sure, if we're all on an equal footing, then it doesn't hurt me. But if I am asked to refrain from benefiting in the same manner as the creator, then I am losing out. Why should I stand for that?

If you considering paying for stuff you use harmful, then maybe you shouldn't buy anything from now on... at all.

Well, let's say that no matter what, any creative work that would be created, was created. We achieved the maximum possible level of creation. In that scenario, would you prefer to have to pay for those works, or to get them for free.

I, as a rational actor, would like to get them for free. If you offered me my very own, personal, Library of Congress, and I could have it for free, or for an ungodly amount of money, I'll take it for free, and I'd be a fool if I didn't.

So yes, paying for things is harmful, the question is whether the harm is outweighed by a benefit from that thing.

If there is no copyright, then prices drop to about marginal cost, which is the lowest it can be expected to go (because the publishers, also being rational, won't work at a loss, but will end up in commodity markets where profits are razor-thin).

That's generally pretty good. But you're basically defending monopolies in a market that should be commoditized. That's pretty bad for me. Why should I allow that to happen?

How can you be so self centered?

Easily.

I am self centered in that I want the most gain for myself at the least cost to myself. Thus I want works for free.

Authors are equally self centered in that they want the most gain for themselves at the least cost for themselves. Thus they want to get paid vast sums for making cheap works (and better yet, someone else's cheap works, e.g. not incurring the cost to write a movie by basing it off a fairy tale without paying its author).

Thus, authors oppose one another, and the public and authors oppose each other.

There is a third option, which is quite viable, but is still arrived at by catering to the self-interestedness of the parties involved. Copyright seeks to achieve it, in fact. But it isn't arrived at by only looking at what would be best for authors.

How is innovation encouraged at the expense of "everything" else?

If A invents the light bulb, and gets a patent on it, then third parties are limited in their ability to improve it since they can't make use of their improvements. They CAN'T make or sell light bulbs until the patent runs out. This can result in A sitting on his ass, and the public is not all that well off as a result. Plus, A is a rent-seeker -- if B comes up with a bulb that might not be under A's patent, A will still challenge him, and try to expand his patent to cover it after all.

Where A cannot keep his competitors out, then there is vigorous competition, and the public benefits from the resulting efficiencies.

Remember: copyrights and patents are monopolies. They're not desirable in their own right. They are at best tolerable for some greater good, but this of course requires us to find a way that they do in fact result in a greater good.

Because some innovation requires a lot of money. Without the safety of returned investments, some innovations won't occur.

But some innovations simply cost too much. The benefit they provide isn't worth the cost.

For example, if we made copyright last forever, and I could charge everyone whatever I liked, whenever they looked at it, I might be incentivized to move the stars themselves into an innovative new constellation.

But the benefit to society from my artwork is too low in comparison to the cost. So we're better off if we don't set things up so that I have an incentive to pursue it.

Plus, there is a bad fit between the amount of protection

Re:Yay!

[Trepalium]

Laws that allow creators to benefit from their works.

A useful means for expanding the state of art and science.

Laws that mean companies must innovate to succeed.

Except when the protections and terms get longer and longer that companies can sit back and simply collect rent on their old creations. Reasonable limited terms are useful to ensure that this doesn't become the norm. As for the people who want copyrights to last so long that they can 'provide for the authors dependants', I don't know about you, but I have to work, if I want to eat.

Laws that allow people to own ideas that are the result of their time.

As long as those ideas must be renewed and expanded through market forces over time rather than just collecting monopoly rent in perpetuity.

Re:Yay!

[hyphz]

> Laws that allow creators to benefit from their
> works.

Except they don't, because to get any benefit the works have to be published, and the publisher can demand the creator hands over all their IP right.

> Laws that mean companies must innovate to
> succeed.

Except they don't. In fact, endlessly extended copyright durations allow companies to squat on the same IP for years.

> Laws that allow people to own ideas that are
> the result of their time.

Except they don't, unless they also didn't have a job at the time.

> Laws that incite people to go over the top at
> Drudge-esque lengths by claiming that
> somebody's going to copyright your DNA.

No, they won't. They'll just copyright (or rather patent) every possible means of reading it.

A perfect judo move

[Infonaut]

I've got a feeling this is going to be like a lot of those Klan marches, where about 50 idiots in white sheets show up, and 4,000 demonstrators are there to greet them.

WIPD is a protest-magnet, and the CopyNight people have simply used WIPD's big-money marketing of the event against them. It will be interesting to see if WIPD is "quietly" discontinued next year.

Wow!

[ta bu shi da yu]

Can we also have a "jail BSA executive day" as well?

Celebrate good times! Come on!

[Fookin]

Woohoo!!!

Just when I thought I had nothing to celebrate today, /. brings me this!

This is great news ... for me to poop on.

/not afraid of Triumph.

And after the announcement......

[mangus_angus]

32 different companies filed law suites stating that this was infact a violation of something they had patented earlier.

Out of the....

[Valiss]

Well if you had posted this sooner, I would have grabbed a few things on the way out of the office today!

All that's missing now...

[kwoo]

I've seen a DVD or two with an overly-long commercial at the beginning that likens copying movies to stealing cars or purses, etc.

All that's missing from the BSA now is some sort of analog to this.

Using patented algorithms (as obvious as some are) is like...

Re:All that's missing now...

[rdwald]

What, did you stop your post to prevent Godwin's Law from pwnz0ring you?

Re:All that's missing now...

[kwoo]

What, did you stop your post to prevent Godwin's Law from pwnz0ring you?

No, it was more a realisation that gibberish in usually leads to gibberish out. :)

How About A Libre Software Day?

[Goo.cc]

Personally, I would love to see a worldwide Libre (Free) Software Developer Appreciation day. The authors of free software have given all of us so much, that some thanks and recognition would seem to be the least we could do for them.

Re:How About A Libre Software Day?

[c0d3h4x0r]

Sounds fine and dandy, until you realize that the general population only thinks of "libre" as a style of body piercing through one's lower lip.

Re:How About A Libre Software Day?

[DaveCar]

Is that not "labret"?

Sorry it's not super-funny or anything, but I think it's the case. I hope so. I used to have three, so I'd hate to be disillusioned.

Re:How About A Libre Software Day?

[Goo.cc]

Really? I have never heard this term used as a reference for piercing. Is that usage specific to a particular country?

Re:How About A Libre Software Day?

[SpaceLifeForm]

Check my sig.

Re:How About A Libre Software Day?

[Goo.cc]

Software Freedom Day. I like it!

Timing is crucial.

[Foktip]

Notice how they made it DURING EXAMS?

That way, all those free-spirited, pirates will be too busy studying their asses off to give a hoot about it. "intellectual property day". LOL.

Re:A perfect reverse-judo move

[Tackhead]

> I've got a feeling this is going to be like a lot of those Klan marches, where about 50 idiots in white sheets show up, and 4,000 demonstrators are there to greet them.
>
> WIPD is a protest-magnet, and the CopyNight people have simply used WIPD's big-money marketing of the event against them. It will be interesting to see if WIPD is "quietly" discontinued next year.

I've got a feeling this is going to be like a lot of those WTO protests, where about 50 idiots in suits show up, along with 50 agents provocateurs, so that the remaining 4,000 dissidents can have the ever-lovin' shit beaten out of them for the entertainment of the local news media.

WIPD is a protest-magnet, and the CopyNight people have simply self-identified themselves for targeting by RIAA observers who will hand over pictures of their faces to the FBI for face-recognition scans and further investigation.

If I were head of RIAA or MPAA, I'd covertly fund an organization like CopyNight. What better way to identify threats? *cracks knuckles, reclines in chair, cackles evilly*

Re:Wow... That is so cool!!!

[psykke]

Yes we do! Every day when we buy DVDs, software and games for the price they actually suppose to cost.

Original Copyright

[daigu]

You mean all that innovation that comes from 1-Click software patents, the Happy Birthday song, Winnie the Pooh, etc.

If you look at the Constitution, copyright covers: "[o]nly the writings and discoveries of authors and inventors...and then only to the end of promoting science and the useful arts."

Original ideas should not become commodities that are transferred to purchasers and assignees - which is the problem with all the examples above.

Re:Original Copyright

[cpt kangarooski]

The constitution was written in 1789, and the English language is well known for its changes over time.

Science referred to general knowledge, and Pooh would fall in there. The useful arts were the applied sciences, and fall under patents. (c.f. state of the art technology, prior art, persons having ordinary skill in the art, etc.)

But of course

[Anonymous Coward]

We already have a World Cancer Day and a World AIDS day, why shouldn't we have a World Intellectual Property Day too? I'd like to give my support to all the victims of Intellectual Property and I'm sure a lot of other people would too.

Language change please

[cookie_cutter]

We'll never be able to deny IP rights as long as we call them rights. After all, denying someone their rights is wrong by definition.

We have to recognize, and incorporate into our dialogue, that these concepts are better termed IP conventions; ie, things which are adopted because they are convenient in practice.

Only then will we be able to cogently argue against them when they cease to be convenient for the public as a whole, and decide how to adjust them to maximize their convenience.

Re:Language change please

[Dun Malg]

We'll never be able to deny IP rights as long as we call them rights. After all, denying someone their rights is wrong by definition. We have to recognize, and incorporate into our dialogue, that these concepts are better termed IP conventions; ie, things which are adopted because they are convenient in practice.

Unfortunately, I think that fight was lost some time in the 19th century when the term "Intellectual Property" was coined in a successful move to extend copyright terms. The fact that every type of "Intellectual Property" completely fails the actual definition of "property" has been conveniently ignored...

Re:Language change please

[cookie_cutter]

Unfortunately, I think that fight was lost some time in the 19th century when the term "Intellectual Property" was coined in a successful move to extend copyright terms.

They changed the language then, and we can change it again today. All that's required for the language to change is for enough people to start using the new language.

Re:Language change please

[asoko]

Thank you. I'd vote for going way back, and calling intellectual property "thoughts". All ideas, just like any other thoughts, are the result of things that you've seen, heard, or otherwise sensed in your lifetime.

What right do we have to stop other people from using what they've thought of, whether they thought of it independently (after it was patented), or unconsciously / consciously took ideas from other sources?

Re:Language change please

[Chexum]

We'll never be able to deny IP rights as long as we call them rights.

Yep. Maybe looking from another angle. Let them call it that way, and solve the following riddle: how could an intellectual property belong to anything else that to an intellect, that is, a single human. The current enforcement of regulations what are collectively called as Intellectual Property are so wrong on "oh so many levels"..

Remember when copyrights were 17 years?

[WillAffleckUW]

Now they're 70 years plus life.

Corporations don't die, so that makes them even longer.

Talk about stifling innovation...

Re:Remember when copyrights were 17 years?

[crow23]

I think you are confusing patent terms and copyright terms.

Patent term in the United States used to be 17 years from the date of issue, now it's 20 years from the date of filing.

Copyright term in the U.S. was originally 14, extendable for another 14. Subsequent developments have lengthened the term to what it is today.

See this website for the history of copyright http://arl.cni.org/info/frn/copy/timeline.html

Re:Remember when copyrights were 17 years?

[WillAffleckUW]

Copyright term in the U.S. was originally 14, extendable for another 14. Subsequent developments have lengthened the term to what it is today.

Sorry, forgot to check. Knew it was a lot less than 70 years plus life, the ridiculous value IP exists for today.

Just to put it in perspective, Genomics really has only hit its stride in the last ten years. One of the reasons why we shove things in the PDB and other public domain databases is that action defeats copyright by making it a Public Copyright and also defeats patents as it's not patentable except by method, not action.

We only release things on our websites AFTER we deposit them in the external databases so they are public domain.

Google

[bigsexyjoe]

Google is known for changing their logo for every obscure holiday. But to their credit google is not acknowledging this "holiday."

Re:Google

[Legion303]

A little-known fact outside of the Google family is that they wanted to change the logo to a flaming red asshole in honor of World Intellectual Property Day, but Lucent has already trademarked one.

Fish

[junkmail]

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. License a man to fish using your technology and you eat for the rest of his life.

Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

What Is Property? An Inquiry into the Principle of Right and of Government

Positing that "Proerty is Theft."

Re:Language change please (or What To Call IP)

[WillAffleckUW]

We'll never be able to deny IP rights as long as we call them rights. After all, denying someone their rights is wrong by definition.

We have to recognize, and incorporate into our dialogue, that these concepts are better termed IP conventions; ie, things which are adopted because they are convenient in practice.

I suggest we call them what they are, limited personal copyrights. Because corporations aren't in the Constitution, so they have no rights other than those lawyers have pretended they do [note, judges and justices are classified in with lawyers, and representatives are mostly lawyers].

People don't like lawyers, although they're usually good in bed IMHO. At least women lawyers.

People don't think 70 years is limited, and that makes the point. So every time you talk about IP, talk about LPIP or Limited Personal Intellectual Property. Changes the whole debate right there.

Re:Exploring your book analogy...

[KarmaBlackballed]

Testing software is like proofreading/editing a book.

Some programs, small utilities, etc can be *perfect* external testing help. Perhaps a short story (or a slashdot post -- not this one) can be perfect without others participating in creation process.

Then there are massive software solutions that are beyond the capacity of a single skilled developer. For example, Linux. To get something like that right in one lifetime you need a team. Sort of like creating an encyclopedia.

I have no idea why you think copyright is outdated just because it works for books so well. Frankly, it seems to work for software too.

Classic..

[__int64]

"We must continue our shared public-private efforts to deter piracy and promote intellectual property rights in every corner of the globe. Our children's ability to learn, create and innovate must be protected now and in the decades ahead."

A classic maneuver; stating two unrelated topics in the same paragraph deceiving lay readers into drawing nonexistent conclusions between them. This is especially prevalent with statistics, where correlations between two data sets are often shown (which do exist), but where any actual connection between the two is purely happenstance. For example: "After using product X for 2 weeks Rob's weight dropped 25 pounds." At first glance Rob's use of product X and his weight seem to be related, but their not. The real reason for his weight drop was he stopped having his hourly burrito during that time period.

- Piracy and children have nothing in common, and this man's an asshole for even implying such a connection exists.

Re:Classic..

[KillShill]

and this man's an asshole for even implying such a connection exists.

in other words, he's a shill.

Re:Classic..

[Mr. Hankey]

I beg to differ: they are indeed related. Intellectual property laws seek to allow a works' author(s) to prevent others from learning, creating or innovating in a similar manner. This is just as valid for children as anyone else. He's just contradicting himself.

Re:Classic..

[torokun]

Baloney.

First of all, there are more young people who pirate than just about anyone else, because they don't have to work and can sit at home all evening trolling p2p networks and IRC...

Second, you know as well as I do that there is a theory, called _economics_, which posits a model, in which rational people will attempt to maximize their utility.

Under this crazy theory, it's been shown that people choose cheaper products in general, so sellers will copy in general, because copying is cheaper in general, so the choice between innovating and copying very much tilts towards copying.

IP is an attempt to change this by changing the economic incentives of market players rather than by bureaucratic direction or control (a much worse option, imho). When people do their cost-analysis in a world with IP, it's much more likely that they will choose innovating rather than copying, because everyone else can't free-ride off their work.

So where is the connection? What he's saying inartfully is that unless we have international IP protection, it may not be economically feasible for our children to have a career path in knowledge industries, industries of "learning and innovation."

Re:Classic..

[booyabazooka]

Much as I'd like to agree with you, you have to admit that "children" wasn't really meant to be taken quite so literally. All the statement means is that the problem will get worse over time. He's reminding people that we need to think not only of our benefits now, but potential problems that will occur decades down the road. Referring to "our children" is merely a cliche that represents the future. Of course, this is deceptive for another reason; the only reason to use such figurative language is that references to our precious offspring are designed to subtly bring up emotional feelings.

Re:OH YEAH?

[DigitalHammer]

I patented it first!

Information wants to be MINE

[jafac]

The Business Software Alliance wants everyone to know that today is World Intellectual Property Day

Yes - they WANT everyone to know that. But since I Trademarked "World Intellectual Property Day" - they will be required to pay me (inserts pinky in mouth) one-million dollars - ah ha ha ha ha ha ha!

Re:Information wants to be MINE

[WillAffleckUW]

But since I Trademarked "World Intellectual Property Day" - they will be required to pay me (inserts pinky in mouth) one-million dollars - ah ha ha ha ha ha ha!

I overheard someone using the phrase All Of The Above (TM) today - which can't be registered since I trademarked that years ago, back in the 80s.

I thought about enforcing my trademark, but she was cute so I let it slide.

Did you catch the text at the bottom?

[mikeophile]

P.S.: apologies for the very US-centric map which makes Toronto appear not to be on dry land - I'd welcome pointers to any usable (public domain or Creative Commons) maps that include Canada. - David

What a surprise, they don't want to pay for intellectual property either.

Re:Did you catch the text at the bottom?

[shadow255]

What a surprise, they don't want to pay for intellectual property either.

I don't suppose you consider it costs enough for CopyNight simply to have hosting for their website without having to pay fees for graphics to put up (which inevitably drives up the cost of hosting over time too!). If they were trying to sell maps of North America, I might consider your comment understandable, but as it stands you're just another member of the peanut gallery.

Except

[Snaller]

intellectual property rights foster innovation, creativity and economic opportunity
Except it doesn't foster innovation or creativity, its all about making money - usually by slightly amoral means.

GNU/Hurd

[commodoresloat]

There is no stable release (but it is still under rapid development).

Interesting. Please share your definition of "rapid" with the rest of us.

Re:GNU/Hurd

[Noksagt]

Interesting. Please share your definition of "rapid" with the rest of us.

LOL. Perhaps "rapid" is an exageration. But tens of commits a month is a huge improvement over what was happening the second half of 2003...

Re:GNU/Hurd

[shutdown -p now]

E.g. see the nearby story about snails carrying DVD-Rs for more details on the transport layer used by versioning system of the project.

Re:GNU/Hurd

[suitepotato]

Rapid, *nix defintion: Any timeframe shorter than a Debian stable release.

Re:OK

[cookie_cutter]

That is interesting. I would even say that a 'convention' to open a programs source is somewhat more palatable idea (to some) than a 'right' to view it, as it emphasizes that their are benefits to be had by doing so.

Some might then suggest that this contradicts my original argument, since now calling something a convention makes it more attractive. However, I never said that calling anything a convention makes it less attractive then when it is called a right; rather, I was trying to emphasize that calling something a convention would help it to be viewed in a saner, more pragmatic manner.

In the case of IP, they would be taken less seriously; in the case of F/OSS, more seriously.

Food for thought

[earwiggie]

I feel the current system is not good enough. More thought should go into this. Just to give two exaples - the lawyer who patented the wheel and some attempts by people in the west to patent traditional knowledge known for generations in India.

Re:Food for thought

[RagingR2]

You are referring to people trying to copyright things that are very common. Luckily, people can't just patent every darn thing they want. There are rules, I don't know what they are exactly, but they prevent the sort of absurd examples you named.

Re:Announcing the Creation of Spam Sig Opt Out

[MBraynard]

Yeah, those free ipod folks suck.

as an intellectual artist

[digitalextremist]

intellectual property is such a horrific stain on humanity. I do my best to circulate my work because I believe by not 'owning' it, people will get better access to it. I further believe it to be superior to what my competitors can make, which means to me that whatever is made proprietary has more chance of being inferior, because it needs to be protected. What is good will be used, what is bad must be pushed. Those who _are_ good need not fear being copied because all they would need to do is expose the perpetrators and gain the user base of imposters when the originators obliterate the copy snake.

Re:as an intellectual artist

[KillShill]

and of course the real meat of the argument is that you don't "own" it in the first place.

information is in the public domain and always has/will be.

people who claim otherwise are of course spawn of the devil.

Re:as an intellectual artist

[digitalextremist]

yep. couldn't have said it better

Re:as an intellectual artist

[RagingR2]

I don't know what you do for a living, but I'm glad for you that it earns you enough to pay the bills. Remember however that a lot of people depend on the software business for their living.

Besides, I don't know what great inventions you did, but please be so realistic about it as to acknowledge the fact that not every innovation can be made by an altruistic individual human being like yourself. Some innovations require lots of money and effort (= employees = money), and without the safety of returned investments these innovations won't occur at all.

Re:as an intellectual artist

[digitalextremist]

I've found that people who want something enough will contribute time, and someone who wants it also but has no way to help will contribute according to their kind of work as well. My inventions are in the process of being released publically, I got commercial funding for one project, maintained specific rights to it, then spun it into a freely contributable technology set for nearly any commercial application of information. I can acknowledge all I want but that does nothing to make something actually the case, and the same goes for you. The simple fact is, because of how this goes now and because of how that goes now, your first sentence included the word bills

Re:as an intellectual artist

[RagingR2]

Ah... so I understand what you propose is getting rid of bills and money? People have tried that before, and all motivation for inovation was gone, so if you wanna see any technological innovation in the future, that doesn't seem very logical. Sure, 100.000 years ago there wasn't any money. But there's no denying in the fact that inovation has sped up a little since money was introduced. And before you say well let's get rid of motivation then and find other ways to get happy... be so kind to think of all the other consequences that would bring.

Re:as an intellectual artist

[digitalextremist]

I never said I would abolish money, nor did I say bills were always avoidable. I was just saying that not everyone needs to take such a view. Part of the problem of today is that all that we percieve to be money is actually just smoke and mirrors.

All I am suggesting is that you don't be surprised if someone comes around with an alternative, you'd be caught with your mental pants down apparently.

Re:as an intellectual artist

[RagingR2]

I never said I would abolish money, nor did I say bills were always avoidable. I was just saying that not everyone needs to take such a view. Part of the problem of today is that all that we percieve to be money is actually just smoke and mirrors.

Well if you look at it, indeed you could say that money is just smoke. You're spending it as fast as you earn so in the end you have nothing more than you started with. (appart from the fact that you're still alive because you have bought food in the meantime, and you still own your house because you pay the rent). But if that's your critique on money as a concept, than maybe we all need to start seeing money the way it was originally meant: not as a property in itself but as an intermediate administrative unit. It merely administrates how many goods you're allowed to take from the store, based upon the amount of work you did earlier that day. Considering the fact that humans are humans and humans are materialistic, it makes sense to implement this kind of relation between amount of work and amount of goods that you can have, since it builds in a perfect motivation for people to do their best at their jobs. I'm still wondering how else you could arrange this?

All I am suggesting is that you don't be surprised if someone comes around with an alternative, you'd be caught with your mental pants down apparently.

Excuse me but I'm not really sure what you mean by this sentence. :x Do you mean I should expect people to come up with a suitable alternative for money? As I said, I'm still very curious what that idea would be, and I'm also very curious how we could be sure that this alternative would work, and would work better than the present system.

Re:as an intellectual artist

[digitalextremist]

sorry, i had things to take care of I think money is smoke for other reasons, more because even if you have a lot of it, you hold nothing. The reserve backs your dollars? Hah. Try easterners who own everyone, including rights to our debts, upon debts, upon debts. When my first child is born, where I to consider myself citizen bound, he or she would owe the US over $94,000 for taking a breath. Yeah, that's reality. The key is dismissing money as something in and of itself and realizing it to be the tool of the owner of all wealth. The money still says In God We Trust does it not, and that is where my base is. I am on course to a life without money, in the mean time it is all that can be used to maintain the quality of life we are blessed with. New houses and equipment can only be had by those who use money right now, but that doesn't mean it is an object yet. It is a tool for illusion toward the person who places value in it, not the person who gains value by it. The current system does not work. What we think of as working is actually not failing entirely. You will see the new system unfold because you are exactly where it will, on the internet.

Oh, joy!

[OverflowingBitBucket]

World Intellectual Property Day eh? From our good friends at the BSA (oh, how appropriate the acronym, but I digress).

How about ingrown-toenail day? BSOD day? Stomach ulcer day? Patent appreciation day?

It's a regular party. :)

Re:Oh, joy!

[Jim_Callahan]

What's wrong with the acronym? I liked the Boy Scouts of America, they let me climb tall things and play with fire, sometimes both at once.

Re:Oh, joy!

[OverflowingBitBucket]

What's wrong with the acronym? I liked the Boy Scouts of America, they let me climb tall things and play with fire, sometimes both at once.

Y'know, the acronym doesn't sound quite so bad when you put it that way.

Parteeee

[Digital Pizza]

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."

Wow. Sounds like fun.

If you're a square.

Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.

[Gentlewhisper]

Why not give out free copies of Office and XP as part of CopyNight celebrations?

Re:Unoriginal Argument.

[Seraphim_72]

And I want to develop a drug that cures cancer. Who's going to fund it? You? Obviously not? Government? Do you really want the government getting into the drug making business?

Yes I do. I really really do.

Sera

Uh, strange...

[c0l0]

I misread this as "World Intellectual Poverty Day" twice, until I finally got the message. Must be freudian dyslexia or something...

And yesterday...

[jav1231]

Wasn't yesterday "Bite the hand that feeds you by turning your boss to the BSA Day?" Gotta love the BSA!

Copynight is...

[MadAhab]

... the only place you're even less likely to get laid than sitting at your computer posting on slashdot. I love the "if anyone could copy it, no one would do it" argument. It has such vitality, such long life, and such total avoidance of reality. It's as bad as "homosexuality is unnatural": to believe that, you'd have to never have seen a dog - or a pig, or many species of birds, or many kinds of primates. Anyone ever seen that silver painted robot guy street performer? You know, with the top hat? Of course you have, because there are hundreds of them. Somehow, without copyrights, without trademarks these guys are making money.

Obviously, this argument is limited, but it's only meant to point out the absurdity of the "forever and a day copyright" capitalist-hating aristocratic-asslicking anti-democratic money-fucking pigs like Valenti, Bono, et al.

Bottom line: intellectual property is not property; it's a government-sponsored monopoly. It has LIMITED support in the U.S Constitution. It has much stronger support in Europe, where they still have the royalty from whose authority both patents and copyrights descended - the "capitalism needs IP" argument is simply an after-the-fact fairy tale. Any American who believes in Very Strong IP is a traitor to Our Values, plain and simple.

Happy Intellectual Property Day!

[MilenCent]

You have the right to remain silent!

Re:Happy Intellectual Property Day!

[Xyrus]

They were going to sing songs, but the RIAA owns them all.

They were going to roast marshmallows, but someone patented the technique.

They were going to show movies, but the MPAA took them away.

They were going to take pictures, but all the signs were trademarked and copyrighted.

They were going to go out to pizza, but they couldn't pay royalties to the guy who patented the wheel.

They were going to show research but all the reports were copyrighted.

So they just sat in plain beige room all in gray jumpsuits and flip flops espousing the greatness of intellectual property.

Great future.

~X~

Re:Happy Intellectual Property Day!

[maxwell demon]

No, silence is already copyrighted by John Cage. (4'33").

A Bitter Protest Against Copyrights

[argoff]

Well I for one intend to celebrate by reposting this ....

A Bitter Protest Against Copyrights

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. But just as much of the Renaissance happened without copyrights so should the information age.

Calling copyrights "intellectual property" is intellectually dishonest. The moral and historical foundation of property derives from mutual respect and the fact that not everybody can posses something at the same time. The foundation of copyrights derives from kings who granted publishers monopolies in return for not publishing bad things about the monarchy. Copyrights are about control, censorship, and not a free market property. In fact, they cheapen property rights by treating things that have natural limits in supply such as food, shelter, and medicine like information that does not.

Worse, is how people who copy are slandered with names such as "thief" and "pirate", as if copying was akin to boarding a ship and murdering people. They are even accused of stealing food out of the mouths of starving artists. Yet these verbal assaults hide a cold and calculated lie, the one that says "copyrights benefit creative people". 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. Copyrights not only cause them to be drowned out in a sea of hype, but do so deceptively.

However, these aren't the only problems related to copyrights. They are just a sample of many that are constantly blown off, glossed over, or ignored. Like the failures of Hollywood culture, the failures of big media to offer quality material, the failures of the market to offer competitively priced books for college students while tabloids are dirt cheap, and massive anti-trust behavior in the software industry to name a few. Their hypocritical pleas like, "how will we make money without copyrights?" is like a mobster asking "how will I make money with out victims to extort?"

The burdens of imposing copyrights might have been bearable a quarter century ago when the biggest issue was copy machines. But today in the information age there is no technical distinction between copyright content and free speech content. Information is so easy to copy and manipulate, there can be no "middle ground". Our society must make a choice: Our communications will either have to be monitored or free, our privacy will either have to intruded or protected. Our speech, writing, and free expression will either have to be abridged or unabridged. Any institution that has the power to control one, must have the power to control all. Copyrights are like a vine that will never stop growing to choke off our freedoms until we cut it off at the root!

Consider parallels to other periods of transition like the industrial revolution:

History teaches that during the 1800's there were many people who believed that the entire meaning and purpose of the industrial revolution was to leverage inventions like the cotton gin to expand their plantations for unlimited growth and profit. Ironically just the opposite was

Re:A Bitter Protest Against Copyrights

[RagingR2]

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.

Re:A Bitter Protest Against Copyrights

[stinerman]

Collective property has been tried before and it didn't work... people got lazy because there was no motivation.

I think those that work on FOSS programs disprove your theory. I know that I'd be more movtivated to help write the Linux kernel or OOo than I would be to write IE8. In fact, I'd love to work for free on any FOSS program. The only problem is that I need to be paid enough for food, clothing, and shelter. If those were taken care of, I'd work for free.

Re:A Bitter Protest Against Copyrights

[fearofcarpet]

...In my humple opinion, only then can society reap the benefits the information age has to offer.

Uhm, would you settle for better limits on copyright laws? If I understand correctly, you want to toss IP laws out the window because of draconian measures like the DMCA. That is sort of the definition of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I mean, patents, copyrights, trade secrets and the like are meant to allow people to protect their IP for a short time before it becomes public property. In my line of work, I'm basically paid for my ideas and I think I have a right to make a living at it, which wouldn't be possible if I weren't able to protect my ideas from being spun-off after I do all the hard work (too bad I can't get paid for run-on sentances and poor spelling).

Let's say we had no IP laws. In our capitalist society there would be an entire industry created around snatching up the work of others and profiting on it. Imagine a company that scours the country for inventions that are just about to make it to market - but have no IP protection. They then swoop in at the last minute and bring the product to market, while I've invested all this capital inventing, testing, streamlining, etc. The same applies to copyrights... One could wander around compiling hit-songs by simply recording live performances and selling them before the artist can even make enough money to buy a CD burner... Moreover the level of secrecy that would have to be maintained in order to prevent the poaching of your ideas would stiffle progress and creativitiy as it would rob us of the right to "stand on the shoulders of giants" as it were.

Now in the real world, copyright laws have gone too far. Companies do wander around finding the next greatest hit, but they sign artists into shit-end-of-the-stick contracts (sometimes going as far as "purchasing" the IP from the artist), lobby the government to extend copyrights indefinitely, and sue people who don't adhere to their square-peg-in-a-round-hole business model. Disney has managed to extend the copyright on Mickey for how long..? Drug companies are able to weasle out of patent restrictions through a myriad of poorly thought out laws (often drafted by the very lobbiest that represent said drug companies) and when that doesn't work they just ban re-importation from countries that don't respect those poorly written laws.

Look at it this way; I should have the right to make a career out of creating things. If those thigns happen to be ideas, I should still be able to make a living at it. What if, at the end of the month, everyone's paychecks were dropped from an airplane and the first person to the bank had the right to cash them? Would that be fair?

Re:A Bitter Protest Against Copyrights

[RagingR2]

I'd love to work for free on any FOSS program. The only problem is that I need to be paid enough for food, clothing, and shelter. If those were taken care of, I'd work for free.

Ahh... now we are discussing within the realms of reality again. Indeed you need food, clothing and shelter. Which costs money. Which someone has to provide for. In other words, in one way or another, money has to be generated. Besides, if you and a bunch of other guys work on this project together, the least thing you're gonna need is computers I suppose. And who's gonna pay for them? Now if all of this is gonna cost so much that you can't afford it any longer, why, or better put, *how* are you gonna continue it?

If money is generated from the finished product, isn't it only fair that the people who made it get a reasonable share of it? After all they paid for all the computers and the food, clothes and shelter that were needed while developing the product. Society can't expect from you and your collegues that you're gonna do all these expenses on an altruistic basis right? I mean, at least you're gonna need money for upgraded computers to work on the next project once this one is finished.

Re:A Bitter Protest Against Copyrights

[stinerman]

That is exactly the problem. Those of us who are willing to work simply to better ourselves and society cannot do it because our current economic system is incompatable with that ideal.

If everyone worked simply to better themselves and society, my scenario would work perfectly. Its called a gift economy , and has worked well in the past.

Re:A Bitter Protest Against Copyrights

[panaceaa]

From reading your previous posts, I notice that you're a GPL proponent. Don't you notice that you're being hypocritical? Without copyrights, the GPL would completely dissolve and anyone could take GPL code and put it into proprietary applications. If this what's 'right' in your mind, you should be a BSD proponent instead.

Re:A Bitter Protest Against Copyrights

[argoff]

You know Ely Whitney (sp) didn't make a penny off the invention of the cotton-gin because everybody coppied it, but made millions of off gun manufatcure contracts that he never would have had a chance at without it. I think that thould tell you allot about free markets and innovation.

Right now the market centers arround whatever information gets the most hype or attention, when copyrights die (which they are) then the market is going to center arround which people create the most valuable information as a service - google has created over 1000 millionaires, yet there are no copyrights on databases. Copyrights are a regulation on how people use information, and have nothing to do with free market property rights.

Please, go back up and read it the essay very very carefully again - I know where you're comming from, I spent four years considering every side of the copyright argument before I wrote it.

Re:A Bitter Protest Against Copyrights

[argoff]

Then you need to read more of my posts, because I clearly consider the GPL as fighting fire with fire and completely unecissary in a copyright free world. And I could never consider being a BSD proponent, because it allows that someone to fork off a closed copy, modify it, distribute it, and coercively halt others from doing the same to that fork.

Re:A Bitter Protest Against Copyrights

[RagingR2]

If everyone worked simply to better themselves and society, my scenario would work perfectly.

Well there's a problem. You work either to better yourself, or to better society if you ask me. To maintain both ideals at once is too ambivalent for people I think and a person is bound to make a choice at one point. Working to better yourself is obviously what drives the capitalist system. That works pretty good if you ask me, as long as it is guided by some government supervision -- plenty of examples from reality can be named, and the USA is not one of them ;-)
Working just for the good of society on the other hand is pretty utopian, I think. People aren't really altruistic, I mean common we're not the freakin' Borg. Unless the individual benefits to a certain degree, people will give up. That's human nature, and calling it good or bad is pretty useless I think. One thing to NOT do, is deny this and design society in such a way that individuals can't realize benefit for themselves (such as communism) -- it simply isn't gonna work.

It's called a gift economy [wikipedia.org], and has worked well in the past [wikipedia.org].

Personally I think it really makes a difference whether it's native Americans you are talking about or our society today. I mean they're both people from the same species, but the fact is our society and the people in it have become used to certain things that native Americans didn't have at all. Still, I think most of us wouldn't want to do without home computers, cars, airplanes, DVD's and cellphones. And I really think it would be quite impossible to maintain our current standards of living after returning to a gift based system -- not even mentioning the fact that such a drastic change would be quite technically undoable in itself.

Re:A Bitter Protest Against Copyrights

[panaceaa]

And I could never consider being a BSD proponent, because it allows that someone to fork off a closed copy, modify it, distribute it, and coercively halt others from doing the same to that fork.

The same thing could happen with no copyrights. The only thing keeping GPL documents free is that they must remain free or the copyright owner does not grant people the right to modify and redistribute their creations. Without copyrights, all GPL'ed source could be used in whatever way people want without the copyright owner's permission. Thus, GPLed code would basically be BSD licensed.

Re:A Bitter Protest Against Copyrights

[bit01]

Thus, GPLed code would basically be BSD licensed.

No. In a copyright free world anybody could use the code incorporating "GPL"'ed code. In a copyright restricted world, code incorporating BSD code can only be used in the way the creator of the derivative work says so e.g. paid for.

GPL is an appropriate tool for a copyright world if you want more libré software, even at the cost of less users. BSD is good if you don't care if your software is used in a closed source product and just want to increase the userbase. Just depends on your priorities. Both are streets ahead of the typical closed source license.

---

Large public or private organisations paying perpetual, recurring, per-seat licensing for software are being economically stupid.

Monopoly perpetuation

[Kaorimoch]

Copyright law used to be about promoting innovation. Now its about perpetuating monopolies on something truly unique and valuable to the human race - knowledge. Copyright nowadays brings to mind lawyers and lawsuits, not innovation.

The very fact that bodies such as the MPAA and RIAA are suing their customers left and right is a clear indication that copyright law as it stands has failed. Any chance of loosening it up for the benefit of consumers?

Owner restrictions instead ?

[Eternally optimistic]

I think they should be considered rights, since people have created these things that the public finds useful. Having created them should give you more of a right to them than, say, squatting on them as you do with real estate.
Having said that, perhaps we should give these rights only to natural persons, not corporations.

Not celibrate

[Pyrosophy]

You should never mix up the spelling of "celebrate" and "celibate". Never, never, never.

it's more important to remember

[Anonymous Coward]

April 26 is the anniversary of Chernobyl. 3.2 million casualties.

Now THAT's worth remembering.

Now, remember, kids...

[smithmc]

...Don't Copy That Floppy!!!

Disneyfication

[tepples]

About the only condition I would think is justified, is that Disney should not be allowed to pretend that THEY wrote the story (i.e., they shouldn't be allowed to commit fraud).

Except Disney writers often replace the story completely, just using the same character names. Just look at the travesty of Collodi's novel that was Disney's Pinocchio (1940). Disney fixed the story problems in the 2002 live-action remake it distributed, which unfortunately suffered from bad casting (Benigni was way too old to play a little wooden boy) and a bad English dub.

More like AllOfPayPal

[tepples]

If you buy music from allofmp3.com, none of that money goes to the artists.

That's why you follow up by tipping the artist directly at allofpaypal.com, short-circuiting the vulture-capitalist labels.

Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.

[ddimas]

"I'd rather be ruled by a competent Turk than an incompetent Christian." --Martin Luther

Martin Luther was an idiot. Today is the commemoration of the genocide of 1.5 million Armenians (Christians all) by the Turks during World War I.

Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Turk - in this instance - is used as a generic term for Musulman or Moslem. This was a common usage from the 14th through 18th centuries. It is not nominative of the Turkish nation-state, arising in the late Ottoman times, nor does it refer to the dominant ethnic population of Anatolia.

Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.

[ddimas]

Please be aware that you are speaking to a Greek. The reason for that particular usage of the word Turk is that the Ottoman Turks had conquered all of the Middle East at that time. The Ottoman Turks currently occupy Eastern Greece (in Greek: Anatoli Ellas) or Anatolia. Therefore the term does in fact refer to the dominant ethnic population of Anatolia. The ferocity of the Turks was well known at the time of Martin Luther.

Dammit!

[Legion303]

Only 2.25 hours left for World Intellectual Property Day in my timezone, and I have 90 minutes left on this Sin City download...and the server's busy! Why, God, Why?!

Grants

[benjamindees]

They should be called "grants". Because that's what they are. Everyone knows the government doesn't "grant" rights. But it does grant copyrights, and patents.

Copy Grants, and Patent Grants... gubment cheese.

BSA Ad - New York Software Truce

[Dlugar]

I've got an MP3 of the radio ad that the article talks about. It's called "New York Software Truce". If you can't find it online, reply to this post and I'll send you a copy. Googling the title returns a lot of articles talking about it, at least.

Dlugar

D*MN BSA Stole my idea

[Tjp($)pjT]

'nuff said folks.

Re:A perfect reverse-judo move

[Infonaut]

I've got a feeling this is going to be like a lot of those WTO protests, where about 50 idiots in suits show up, along with 50 agents provocateurs, so that the remaining 4,000 dissidents can have the ever-lovin' shit beaten out of them for the entertainment of the local news media.

Interesting point. But also remember that until the WTO protests, most regular people knew nothing about the WTO or globalization. The protests did get attention, and they have even forced the WTO to broaden the scope of discussion

My feeling is that if nobody protested the WIPD, nothing would happen. But by raising the notion that not everyone believes in the validity of the WIPD's message, the CopyNight people may wake up a few regular citizens who might not otherwise care.

Then again, I may just be seeing the glass half full.

One problem...

[Yenin]

One problem with intelectual property is that more often than not, more than one person will have the same idea. Not only do you get a monopoly on your ideas and work, you also have a monopoly on MY ideas and work.

I hate this WIPD bullcrud.

[rice_burners_suck]

In other news, Darl McBride and Bill Gates just announced new legislation (remember, Microsoft bought the U.S. government) that will make it illegal to violate intellectual property rights. Well, it's already illegal, but their new law will make it punishable by immediate death sentence, with no trial. The same legislation changes the sentencing for first-degree murder to... the murderer has to write a five-paragraph essay about why it's not ok to kill people, and he has to promise to be good from now on, and then he's set free.

World Intellectual Bah Humbug Day... I hate the RIAA, the MPAA, SCO, and Microsoft. May all four organizations go directly to hell.

Re:I hate this WIPD bullcrud.

[radja]

ofcourse, if the murderer has copied his essay straight from the internet, he will be immediately executed.

Where does this shit end ?

[Builder]

The last three movies I've bought or rented all had a commercial at the front about a guy stealing someone's purse. The statement was 'You wouldn't steal a purse, so don't steal a movie'.

Then there was the FACT warning that you can't fast forward past.

Both my wife and I feel that this is bullshit - We're legally renting or buying these movies, yet we have to sit through this?

We are about to start looking into downloading DVD Rips from the Internet, not because we don't want to pay for our entertainment, but because we're sick and tired of being forced to watch this crap. We're hoping that the rips won't include this.

Calendar conflict

[smokeslikeapoet]

Damnit, this is running right in to Hitler Youth day. Now what are I an the new Pope going to do?

j/k, Me and the Pope are HY because we were forced to by Government. My relationship with the BSA exists only because I opened a box that inside said, "Because you opened this box you agreed to march in lock-step on 04/27"

interesting german blog about WIPO-day

[newthinking]

there is a very well written political statement in german language on the blog http://www.netzpolitik.org/index.php?p=707 about the day with lots of links. quite interesting for everyone who can read german.

Where's the pin-on ribbon???

[AetherBurner]

I care, I really, really care. So, I need a pin-on ribbon to show that I care. Let's fold floppy disks, better yet, Mag Tape, and wear them as a ribbon showing that we care. I will put it next to my $100 bill ribbon showing that I care about taxes....

hahahahaha

[ChaosCube]

hahaha! Well, this initially got blocked by slashdot's lameness filter, which is extremely appropriate. I had a lot more haha's, which was justified in this instance. IP Appreciation Day? iPAD? How lame is this? Well, it's about as lame as the lameness filter. Way to go slashdot, for supporting iPAD's stupidity! Alright, now I need some coffee to stop being lame myself. IP appreciation day...hahaha.

Rx©

[4of12]

wrote this interesting piece on the subject.

Copyright and patent protection are like narcotics on a societal scale- useful and effective in small doses for limited times, but addictive and inducing delusional behavior if used for extended periods.

Future World, vigorously protesting its demise.

[newpath4comVersion2]

On the surface David, it looks like you're someone who wants their hands on everything for free. If you want to replace this system -or any system of ANYTHING- you're going to have to replace it with something better. Maybe it's true what you say that the copyright system has its roots in evil but that isn't good enough. WHY?! Because man we don't live in the Past. We're in the Here, the Now. My first copyright I was real poor. I wrote a small instructional booklet that I would later market in the National Enquirer Classifieds. My wife & I were separated. Her and my 2 kids lived with her Mom. I talked her out of her share of our income tax return that year to pay a professional printer close to $400.00 to help me in the pre-print re-write and printing of several hundred initial booklets. The first one off his press, WOW, I was really proud of it. And we walked over to the Mall in Richmond VA to get some film for his camera to take pictures of me to use in the marketing as I needed. I was hopeful of getting my family back together on its feet. I showed my booklet to the saleslady. WOW. She liked it so much she asked to show it upstairs, or at least that's what I THOUGHT SHE WAS GOING TO DO. The b^tch took my booklet to the upstairs COPIER and brought it back... Since then I've become an inventor. I've gotten my websites copyrighted mostly, but not for Copyright protection as I realize that is an illusion. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS PROTECTION FROM A WIRED SOCIETY. I copyrighted my sites because I released several of my inventions there and I wanted legal Proof of Invention, using my Copyrights as "documentation", what's called a "Record of Invention". And even that didn't save me. Oh, it would IF I had money to hire a lawyer and contest the rip-offs, which I don't because I'M STILL POOR. And my family had the wonderful experience of learning to buy their clothes at the Goodwill Store because I pursued my course. Oh yeah, we also became the buying poor who buy stuff at flea markets and yard sales. Seems to me that your long diatribe there would put the World's creative people in my shoes, living my life, and staying poor. I don't think you're going to be successful selling that LIFE PROSPECT TO ANYONE. But, like I said, if you had a better system where people still got paid, might would work. However, for that to happen you'd have to GET ALL THESE CREATIVE, IDEA-RIDDLED PEOPLE TO AGREE WITH YOU "ACROSS THE BOARD". How are you going to accomplish that?! Do you have ANY IDEA HOW HARD IT IS TO SELL PEOPLE ON ANYTHING?! I fixed an engine that runs on 2 energies (hot/cold energy riding in on two inert elements of steam & liquified air) instead of one (gasoline, diesel, fossil fuel), a non-polluting engine. After 21 Months of telling it freely, word of mouth has refused to kick in, AND THE VERY IDEA OF AN ENGINE THAT DOES NOT POLLUTE IS SO CONTRARY TO WHAT PEOPLE CAN DIG DOWN INTO THEIR SOULS TO ACCEPT THAT IT SEEMS LIKE IT WILL NEVER BE PICKED UP AND BUILT. I can't do it because I'm on disability, never getting paid for my creations (at least not yet eh?). I MAY HAVE JUST AS WELL SLIPPED FROM MY MOM'S WOMB YESTERDAY. But, I'm learning. I have what I imagine to be my last great invention. I combined some aspects from 16 years of inventions to put together an engine that accomplishes an over-gravity force. A "Space Engine" that overcomes Gravity, reaches Earth orbit without needing to hurl people at 18,000 mph for "Escape Velocity"... and once such a craft (yes, I've designed the craft also) gets out far enough to be free of Earth's gravitational field it should go EXTREMELY FAST. Possibly close to Light Speed. But this time I've put a modest price tag to it instead of freely printing it online. After a few months, nothing. Imagine, an engine that could raise a person's car above an earthquake or tsunami, an engine that -attached to each floor of a building- would yield a building that no earthquake could bring down because it would be floating. EACH FLOOR WOULD BE INDEPENDENTLY FLOATING INSIDE A PAPERLIGHT FRAMEWORK, MAKI

And conversely

[phorm]

How about things that would have been invented, or followed through with. How many great concepts have been quashed because components/etc would infringe upon existing copyrights (or worse, patents)

Re:And conversely

[phorm]

Quash the former, accidentally hit submit before finishing (damn oversensitive touchpad). There are a lot of wonderful ideas currently that simply won't reach fruition due to copyright issues. There are also a lot of good things that wouldn't exist today without copyright.

What I was going to throw in is that there are a lot of things that both depend on and are threatened by copyright. On one hand, the copyright keeps the blatant forgeries down. On the other, others can blast them based on similar products/components. Copyrights (and moreso patents) give with one hand and take with another. The biggest problem nowadays is not their existance, but that the rules that govern them allow them to be easily abused.

MPAA's commercial... Eugh!

[Travelsonic]

I've seen a DVD or two with an overly-long commercial at the beginning that likens copying movies to stealing cars or purses, etc.

That would be the MPAA's "PiRacY: It'S a CrImE" commercial. It is a poor attempt to toy with people's emotions using logically and legally false ideas to make them look like the good guys, most visible is the "copyright infringement VS theft" argument which as continually been debunked.

How about a "World Copyright Reform Month"

[Travelsonic]

How about a "World Copyright Reform Month" instead? I think it would help in educating people with the problems and conflicts involved in current copyright laws VS creativity (length, corporate control, etc), and viable alternatives, including the Creative Commons licensing/Founder's Copyright system.

A good thing

[worldcitizen]

That this obscenity is being celebrated during spring break and elementary schoolers are not being force-fed today videos of how "evil" is IP violation