Slashdot Mirror
Royal Society Issues IP Charter
An anonymous reader writes "The Economist
and the Guardian
both have stories about the release of the
Adelphi Charter – an international blueprint for how
intellectual property should be made – by Britain's Royal
Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufacture and Commerce.
The Economist says “The Adelphi group are a varied crew
ranging from Gilberto Gil, the Brazilian culture minister (and pop
star) to Sir John Sulston, a Nobel-winning scientist who helped
decode the human genome, and James Boyle, a law professor at Duke
University. They believe that the intellectual-property system is
starting to lean so far in favor of private enrichment that it no
longer serves the public interest.” The charter calls for
evidence-based policy, and a balance between rights protection and
the public domain. It also condemns business method and software
patents."
"Top mice vote to bell cat" Yeah, yeah, more we can't win attitude.
Will current posters please instead offer suggestions for how to get the Government to pay attention instead of whining? Or at least, do both? How many millions of smart (don't prove me wrong) people read this? We're a force of Nature on the Internet, capable of manually DDoSing servers into a meltdown.
Let's turn that power to doing good -- statistically, at least one person here is bound to have a good idea.
and naturally they shall be completely ignored. if these policies were adopted you would see a swing back to how capitalism really should be. all about servicing the people and using demand for services to drive innovation and competition.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
I think our lawmakers are bought and sold by big corporations, but perhaps, just perhaps, enough of them can be shamed into doing the right thing. And that's to remember that the goal of government is to serve the public interest, not the person with the most money.
Maybe it won't happen, but at least it's worth the try. Because I can promise you it will never happen if we don't *start* trying.
"The bass, the rock, the mic, the treble. I like my coffee black, just like my metal" - Mindless Self Indulgence
I've always thought that it's mind-bogglingly moronic to have anything but this. Surely laws of any nature should be passed only if there's evidence that it is necessary for the public good? And seemingly no law that's been passed in association with copyrights since I've been alive has had this.
I asked this question in the AWOL Sid Meier interview, but I'll ask it again: which software company would find it infeasible to continue if software copyright terms were limited to fourteen years? Fourteen years ago, Atari and Amiga were mainstream systems. Fourteen years ago, the WWW was being invented. Fourteen years ago, Windows 3.1 didn't exist. Are there seriously people out there that argue Microsoft depends upon copyright protection for Windows 3.0 today?
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
But our power can be more usefully applied as a grassroots political force than by merely DDOSing all and sundry in an ineffective attempt to change policy. That tactic just gives the opposition a ready ad hominem attack with which to dismiss us, no matter how just our cause or how rational our arguments. As with SCO, every web site outage for the next six months suddenly becomes the work of lawless commie pirate hackers who want to selfishly stop people making music and... well, everyone looses interest, expect maybe to pass tough new laws further restricting free speech online.
Not that I'm saying that was your suggestion, but I'd hate for someone to misread it that way. I'm sure you understand.
Let's turn that power to doing good -- statistically, at least one person here is bound to have a good idea.
I think the good idea is the charter from TFA. This is a tremendously valuable contribution to the debate. For one thing, the Royal Society have considerable prestige. It's a lot harder to laugh them off than it is slashdot. The diversity of the authors helps in this regard as well.
For another the charter gives us a good talking point - something to campaign for. So you can contact your local lawmaker type and ask what he'd doing to bring about compliance with the Adelphi Charter. We can use it as a justification to ask whether the public good has been considered in respect to a specific IP ruling, and as further support for the abolition of software and business methods and software patents.
This doesn't give us any new techniques for getting the attention of government - but then we don't really need any - the old ones still work. What this gives us a lot of new, high quality ammo. My bright idea would be to suggest that we use it.
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
Who says there needs to be a balance at all? You have 2 extremes when it comes to intellectual 'property': a) none, read: no IP protection of any kind, and b) the kind that would give **AA bosses a wet dream. You think (what is best for society as a whole) is somewhere in between? Personally, I doubt it. I seriously doubt that the whole concept of intellectual 'property' has ANY net postive effect for society as a whole. I think it's more like DRM: good for some, but mostly a net negative, overhead, 'red tape'.
Now since around the same time that the concept of IP was introduced, there's been an explosion in literature, music, scientific advances etc. And proponents of IP protection like to say that's cause and result. I think that's bull, and pure coincidence. Anyone think the world would never have seen beautiful animated movies like those coming from the Disney studios, had there been 0 IP protection? Or that MP3 audio format would never have been developed?
We'll never know, since there's no way to find out what our world would be like if IP protections hadn't existed. But I do know one thing for sure: the overhead that IP protections cause, exist. No doubt about that. Drawing up licenses costs money, enforcing them costs money, fighting over them in court costs money, destroying 100,000 counterfeit CD's is waste (of energy and production capacity), reading EULA's takes people's time. Anyone ever tried to make an estimate how big a cost to society this all adds up to?
For me it's been clear for a while: I fundamentally don't like the concept of intellectual property (even for what I might produce myself), and simply try to ignore it as much as I can get away with. Like so many people do in practice. Oh and BTW: that doesn't mean none of my money goes to creative folks like musicians etc. It's just not IP laws that make me do that.Jesus, people continue to pirate receipes every day and the law does absolutely nothing about it. It only takes mediocre cooking skills to follow a receipe, which means people who would otherwise need to engage the services of professional chefs are capable of producing meals that are comparable to restaurant quality. No wonder chefs are so poor! If they had some legal protection they could continue to advance the culinary arts without giving up their livelihood. Stop home kitchens now! It's not like software is any more complex than a cooking receipe, and programmers get legal protection for their works.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Every time I read something about IP law, whether copyrigt or patent or whatnot, I always see the same argument that if IP law were not present then the whole economy would collapse because all the content and idea producers would stop producing their wares due to lack of profitability.
Pure BS. I can guarantee that at this point in our society the abolition of IP law would do anything BUT destroy the economy of a nation or the world. Why can I guarantee this? Because the general public has become accustomed to being content consumers. When something comes along (say, digital music) that is significantly useful or good, people will consume regardless of the "legality" of it. Hence, the widespread piracy of music and the eventual development of legal download services.
People want their music, their movies, their medicines, and their meat. The incumbent monopolies keep saying that without DRM, broadcast flags, or patents, they would never produce the products that they do. I say that's just fine by me. Because even if the big companies halted all production in protest of the removal of IP laws, the public would still maintain its desire to consume, so at that point the market will be wide open for ANYONE to fulfill the neeed of the people and profit from it.
I'm not saying the IP laws SHOULD be abolished, just that they are seriously flawed and need some reform a 'la the article above. Also, the public's need for "stuff" is a powerful force (capable of toppling governments in the past), so it is only a matter of time before the current establishment of monopolistc laws fall as well. The sooner the change comes though, the better all will be.
The problem is that the scumsuckers of the corporate world have latched onto the "no government so we can rape babies for cash!" (to use their words) concept of libertarianism and have perverted it into what the original poster, and the rest of the mortals who don't spend their days reading economic texts hears about the concept.
Looks like "libertarian" will be this decade's "hacker".
Putting 1000 leaflets in letterboxes is an immediate action you can do yourself right now. There is no need to get consensus or permission from anyone. Just go out and DO IT!
Where's their proof that the ideas they're putting forward are right.
Yes, I know, this is /. & we have a million examples of patents stifling innovation... but no legitimate analysis. Until there is a enough money behind the idea that copyright/patents are overbearing, no one is going to seriously try to prove it.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Yes, I know, this is /. & we have a million examples of patents stifling innovation... but no legitimate analysis.
No such analysis is needed--that's the whole point of the Adelphi principles--the burden of proof isn't symmetric.
Patent proponents want society to give them something truly extraordinary: a 20 year monopoly on the exploitation of an idea. That demand requires justification by people who want that kind of monopoly. No counterargument is needed--if proponents can't provide a clear justification, patents should not exist.
> A Libertarian tends to believe that the companies which treat their employees
> fairly and those that aren't greedy will be the ones that succeed in a "real"
> free market. Buying congresscritters and lobbying for unconstitutional laws
> would not be an option for companies in that market.
This is nothing but wishful thinking of the worst kind. It boils down to "vote with your wallet", and that will never ever work. Relying on "vote with your wallet" effects is about as stupid as saying "everybody pays as much or little money for the sewage system as he sees appropriate" and then expecting that enough money to keep it serviced will show up because people do want a working sewage system.
[i have an opinion and i am not afraid to use it]
And what would prevent you from copying the CD? Why, that'd be a law. You seem to understand that Libertarians view laws as a necessary evil that should be minimized wherever possible. But you don't extend that to copyright... law.
Let's review exactly what the Constitution said which resulted in copyright law and the patent office:
We can debate whether even this much is necessary. Without copyright and patent law, would people continue to sing and paint and invent, or would they say "why bother"? I bet the former. But let's assume that some form of government protection of copyright is necessary. What the Constitution doesn't say is "To procure an eternal source of revenue for businesses". That's what copyright law has been mangled into, and a Libertarian administration would reverse that trend. A Libertarian administration would certainly never pass the DMCA, which is what changed some forms of copyright violation from civil to criminal law.
As a Libertarian, I think the market no longer needs even these protections. The market would prosper even in the absence of copyright or patent law. But, if we must have it, I would be thrilled if we simply returned copyright to its original term of seventeen years. After that, copyright protection would no longer exist, and the ideas would become public domain. (How thrilling it would be to see "Star Wars" enter the public domain!)
And there'll be no more talk about Libertarianism not supporting the rights of the individual. Libertarianism is founded on exactly that principle, and goes to far greater extents to preserve the rights of individuals than any another political party in the US.
Certainly more so than you do! For instance, unlike you, I support the right of a restaurant owner to be able to choose his clientele. I think he's an idiot and a bigot if he chooses to not serve people based on their race, and I would choose to take my business elsewhere. But I feel it is his right to make that decision. You seem to suggest that this is a bad "right" and laud the government for taking it away. I do not. "Personal liberty" means having the right to make your own choices, even if they are bad choices. I, and Libertarians like me, support more "personal liberty" than you do.
By "the company store", I gather you're referring to a "truck system", and not things like the Microsoft company store (where you can buy T-shirts and XBox games). If the system in question is not fraudulent, then yes it would be permitted under a Libertarian regime, and people would be free to choose for themselves whether or not they wished to sign up. And? It may very well be better than what they've got. Again, they would have the "personal liberty" to choose whether or not they signed up.
Of course, practically speaking, America is a rich and populous country. If America became a Libertarian society tomorrow, I would not expect to see "truck systems" become common, because other employers who offered a more conventional system of remuneration would certainly be more attractive to workers. I certainly wouldn't work for one, and I gather you wouldn't either. Most people wouldn't. So even if America became Libertarian I suspect you have little to fear from this.
As for toxic waste dumping. Libertarians policies are far better than current USG policies regarding the enviornment. Polluting someone else's property is trespass, which is a violation of someone's "personal liberty", and therefore un
I have no intention of getting into a long quote-fest. This post (on previewing it) is already too long as it is. Most of your points are that a libertarian market will tend towards superior products and services. This is absolutely false. Under a libertarian market, it's absolutely OK to sell drugs that will kill you. It's absolutely OK to sell cars that are unsafe at any speed. It's absolutely OK to trick people into entering a system that serves only to put them ever deeper in debt with no hope or possibility of escape.
You, like most libertarians, pretend that some good ideas are compatible with libertarianism. You also pretend that the advances that have come due to socialism are actually due to prosperity. I'll highlight a few examples.
Let's review exactly what the Constitution said which resulted in copyright law and the patent office:
The Congress shall have Power [...] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries
To a libertarian, the promotion of the progress of science and the useful arts is not a legitimate task for the government.
As a Libertarian, I think the market no longer needs even these protections. The market would prosper even in the absence of copyright or patent law. But, if we must have it, I would be thrilled if we simply returned copyright to its original term of seventeen years.
As a libertarian, by what moral right do you claim allows you to take George Lucas' property from him?
And while on unsafe goods, let me point out that seat belts became standard equipment on cars long before the US Government mandated them.
No, they didn't. I've provided a hint in my opening paragraph. If that's not enough, look into what Ralph Nader used to do before he let his own ideology get out of sync with reality.
You're right, personal liberty is wonderful. That's one of many reasons why I'm a Libertarian. And, if you really meant it, and you were better informed about what the Libertarian party stood for, you might become one too.
The libertarian party is a party based on irrationally treating a contradictory notion as an absolute. It is impossible to have a society without placing some limits on personal liberty. I repeat it's absolutely impossible. I don't mean in order to have a good society, or to have a civil society, or to have a prosperous society, etc, you have to limit personal liberty, I mean that there exists no possible way to have a society without limiting, in some way, personal liberty.
Libertarians ignore this fact, and by living contradictory to reality, they promote a system which cannot work. In order to design a system that works, one must accept the facts of reality, even if those facts aren't what you wish were true.
Libertarianism is one of those ideologies that doesn't allow for correction. It's a system that stems from the logical application of a simple and singular ideal. Libertarianism says, "x is absolute", and even when treating x as absolute is detrimental (or even impossible), it does not allow reality to suggest a more rational system.
Under libertarianism, you allow slavery conditions. How absurd that a philosophy that intends to promote personal liberty allows slavery!
I'd like to end this already-too-long post by pointing out that I don't generally disagree with the ideals and values of libertarians. I support limiting government powers, and enabling the individual as much as possible. But sometimes society is better when laws limit individual freedom. For example, a company's right to save $0.50 on each car they sell vs the benefit to society of dramatically fewer fatal accidents. I'm sure you can think of other examples where laws place little burden on corporations while providing great benefit to society. Or that place little hardship on the individual while providing great benefit to society. Unfortunately, the libertarian will choose a lesser society for the sake of an irrational (but lofty) ideal. In that way, they share a flaw with other idealistic ideologies I'm sure you can think of.
Except that the united states started going through its industrial revolution in the late 1700s, and didn't abolish slavery until the late 1850s. Plus the whole bit where the rise of the factories just replaced legal slavery with debt slavery...
Maybe our point is valid, I wouldn't know, but the argument that got you there is complete, as you say, "bunk". Also, your last paragraph intrigues me, and I would like to subscribe to your planet's newsletter. The perspective of a people that apparently haven't even had radio contact with the earth for the last half century sounds interesting.
...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
This is indeed one very good solution - to allow contribution to come only from individuals, and for those over a certain cost to be publicly disclosed. This is called the 'Open-funding system'. In contrast, the 'Closed-funding system' is one where any body or entity may make any donation to the government for their own desires and no information beyond the two parties may ever know. So in an open-funding system, for a company to make a lobbying contribution they would need to do it via an individual, and this would be more transparent and accountable, and it would be visible to shareholders and the public through publicly accessible accounts. The only problem is the transition to a more open system would be lobbied against by the large corporations out there.