Slashdot Mirror
The Guardian On Intellectual Property
mykdavies writes "The Guardian has an excellent article giving lay readers an overview of some of the problems being caused by the concept of 'intellectual property', including references to stories familiar to Slashdot readers, such as DVD Jon, the Sony rootkit, Amazon and Google business patents." From the article: "Even facts about the world can, in some cases, become the property of commercial companies. It was the promise of gaining patents on the human genome that lured investors into the private consortium that attempted to sequence it in competition with the public effort. Laboratory animals have already been patented, starting with the OncoMouse, an animal whose genome has been manipulated to ensure that it develops cancer."
I look forward to the day when cancer patients get sued for having infringing copies of patented cancer genes in their bodies.
Online backup with Mozy, sounds like Ozzie, but more!
I've said it before, and I'll say it again ... if western society thinks it can stop other countries from using existing ideas to build new ideas, we're crazy.
China, as an example, has shown a complete lack of respect for the copyrights on software, and I see nothing to convince me that they are going to pay any attention to north american IP laws when push-comes-to-shove...
At some point the 'powers' are going to have to realise that ideas are not the same as physical property, and can not be treated the same.
All new knowedge is built on the work of those that came before. The rate of increase of new ideas is directly related to how quickly the new idea can be passed on to. So why is it that now when the dissemination of information is essentially instantaneous and free we are working hard at creating artificial barriers to impede progress?
If you think imaginary property and real property are the same, when does your house become public domain?
It also gives us an excellent argument to use when companies offer us restricted content that might not be available if their servers don't authenticate it:
"The obvious answer is to pay for [DRM'ed content] with money similarly protected - special digital rights money, which would vanish, like fairy gold, when you stopped playing with the new toy. Nobody would accept payment on those terms. Why are there companies which think the opposite is fair?"
Yeah, I thought the same thing when I read it this morning. However, I did actually read it in the newspaper, and it's the Saturday one at that, which I think a lot of people get when they might not get it normally (because it has lots of extra stuff), so hopefully enough people will read it that a few of them will really take exception and Google about it, in which case they will doubtless stumble upon the people fighting this stuff. It may not be perfect, but it's good that the issue is working its way out there. This intellectual property bullshit has gone on long enough; just ask any man on the street if they think you should be able to patent a mouse, website or film plot and they will tell you it's madness.
/. is: If by purchasing a CD I am only buying the right to listen to that music, then why can't I snap my CD in half, take it back to the shop and ask for a new one for £0.50 or however much the materials and manufacturing actually costs?
I think the article makes a very good point when it talks about how the companies who are so vigourously in favour of IP would shy away immediately if it worked both ways. A typical example I often see posted here on
I'm constantly amazed that the American and European global media companies are so obsessed with China copying movies and pop music CDs. Because I can't understand why anyone in China would be that interested in American movies and rock'n'roll.
Sure there are always going to be a few people in the coastal cities, the oxymoronic Chinese super-hip people of Shanghai and Hong Kong who follow the latest western trends, but the average person? I don't get it.
Why would a factory worker in some interior provence have any interest what-so-ever in some Steve Martin suburban comedy? How could any female office drone file clerk relate in any possible way to gangster rap?
especially since the pirated product is most likely not translated into Mandarin!
Media company executives are making fools of themselves (a redundancy, I realize) by insisting that they are losing billions of dollars to piracy in China. Their obsessional vanity in believing that hundreds of millions of people in China would pay billions of dollars for Hollywood product is really embarrassing to watch. If they weren't paying so much money in bribes to American politicians, then their absurd claims of losing billions of dollars to Chinese copyright pirates would be laughed away.
These people really do need to come to their senses.
Perhaps it's because I'm an ardent capitalist that I find the current situation of economic incentives appealing. There are areas of expertise that require multi-million dollar installations, or highly specialised staff (read: well paid) in order to cause additional advancement. We are, fortunately, past the point where a guy can get hit on the head by an apple to have a revelation.
My only real concern with these protections is that they seem to last forever, and basically prohibit anyone from building on the existing knowledge. Yet at the same time, how do we encourage economic investments to occur if there is a virtual guarantee that the new idea will be given away the moment it is created? Would you invest your money in this? Your time, perhaps, but I doubt your money.
So! While I agree with you that these protections are harmful, they are also beneficial, and have yet to hear from anyone a better way... any suggestions? This isn't a troll ... I'm genuinely wondering if anyone has a better way?
If you think imaginary property and real property are the same, when does your house become public domain?
The way I read "fair-use" in the US, is that it is protection granted to comment on works. I don't see how copying the entire work onto a different media would be included in that definition.
From stanford.edu:
Fair use here in Canada though (not looking for a backing link, but I'm sure of this) does allow making of "backups" or alternate copies of something once you own a single copy.
If you think imaginary property and real property are the same, when does your house become public domain?
I think this is somewhat on-topic here. I was in a meeting this evening, and I'm a bit provoked; I hope you will forgive me if I step on somebody's toes. Torstein Bugge Høverstad, the man responsible for the norwegian translation of Harry Potter was there. Part of the translation involved translating the names, and by norwegian law, he has limited copyright on these names (it is derived work); if Warner Brothers wants to use these names they have to ask him (and also the other way around, of course). He told us* that he had gotten a "request" from Warner Brothers demanding that he gave up all rights to these names. Luckily, by norwegian law, Høverstad can't give up his "honorary" rights (IANAL, probably a nonexisting term), meaning that Warner Brothers has to cite him when using the norwegian names, but he could give up his economic rights. Warner Brothers now can use the norwegian translation of these names without his consent and without economical compensation.
* He certainly was not whining; he wasn't even prepared to tell us this, but he was asked whether he got a percentage, and he wanted to give an explanation of why he, in fact, got half a percent (that's half a percent of a book that is only marketable to a total of 4 million people; hardly anything to become rich from).
These "peers" you speak of work for large corperations devoted to MAKING MONEY....But hey I'm sure they value their jobs money and freedom more than the lives of countless millions.....
Free markets are not about choking off supply by creating artificial restrictions for the sake of profit, but about freedom. When people are free from controll, they tend to use that freedom as an opportunity to create wealth and prosperity where non existed before. That's what pays for the jobs, and the business. An artifical monopoly though, by definition, almost never benefits but a few at the top.
If a patent holder does not maintain or provide his creation to the public in whatever capacity he deams fit he could loose control of the rights to that patent.
I presume that what you're trying to say is that an inventor will hide his creations from society if he doesn't get that monopoly. Well, perhaps I won't grow cotton unless I can own slaves on the plantation. The point is that the harm to society is far worse than the benefit, and even if it wasn't - you don't have that right. Considering that many inventions are progressive, incremental, and likely to happen anyhow - having that kind of controll is simply asking too much.
So what are you saying? that since they treated their people so poorly, it's allright for us to compound the problem? Besides, I think that was 2 out of a dozen countries. The focus should be on prevention - that agrument can be made in the western world too.
The real problem is Patents for $. Essentially corporations can buy almost any patent they wish for the right amount of green. The USPTO now operates at a *PROFIT* and are REQUIRED TO DO SO. Thus they cha-ching the lawmakers kitty. This practice is downright theft not to mention UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Get rid of this kind of CORPORATE COMMUNSIM and we could yet have fair but firm IP protections beneficial to inovation and the people.
:T:R:A:N:S:
I must say, this is one of the worst articles on IP I've ever seen. Whoever thinks it's 'excellent' is just hankering for some anti-establishment echo-room action rather than reality. I don't think I have time to cover them all, but here are just a few.
This is baloney. It's been quite a while since the constitution was written, and right there in Article 1 section 8 clause 8 is the statement by the framers that is the basis for our patent system. Ideas could be owned in 1789, and long before that as well, as England also had a patent system.
Not to mention the fact that money is an idea, equitable servitudes are ideas, usufructs are ideas, loans are ideas, contracts are ideas, and, now this will really blow your mind --
options on options...
well, you get the idea.
Facts about the world, laws of nature, or abstract mathematical statements or equations, cannot be patented.
Gene sequences may seem to be getting close to that line, but you can only patent a gene sequence that you can extract and replicate; it's analogous to extracting and purifying a chemical compound from a naturally occurring mixture of substances, in effect making available a new substance that no one could put to practical use before.
An animal that's human-engineered is certainly not a 'fact of nature' -- it never existed before someone made it. It's a result of engineering just as much as an electric circuit or a toaster. It's just alive.
This is one of those completely unsubstantiated statements. I tend to think that many of the drugs that the developing world uses were developed at least partially due to the patent system. At any rate, what's really clear is that they ALL come from the U.S. and Europe.
I would just like to point out that both sides have lawyers -- this makes it sound like lawyers are the enemy. In fact, lawyers are just the guys that help their clients get what they deserve under the law.
People with more money have always been able to hire better lawyers in our legal system, and that problem has nothing to do with intellectual property.
The system is supposed to work this way. It incentivizes companies to research and patent things as fast as they can, pushing the limits of technology, and then disclosing them to the public. Otherwise, they might do less research, and might keep their research secret, thereby keeping it from the rest of us much longer than the 20 year life of patents... Sometimes reverse engineering is possible, but sometimes it's not.
How about so I can pay my programmers? How about so I can invest i
I had looked up the Sony case, but others have already covered that just fine. You can read a fairly comprehensive definition of Fair Use in the USA on Wikipedia.
This is even part of the DeCSS case, where you have a right to archive your own DVDs, the copyright holder isn't obligated to give you a legal method to do so.
Another "fine line" regarding Fair Use: Borrowing copyright material for parody is considered Fair Use, but satire is not. Look that one up for fun and profit.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
My thoughts on solving the matter:
1. Any non-tangible thing (i.e. ideas, art, music, computer programs) cannot be patented.
Those are to be copyrighted which means that nobody can directly copy your work but create something that can compete in the market against the first person. That's capitalism. IP patents would lead to situations where there would only be one rock song, one love movie, and one spreadsheet program. That would be a monopoly, which are the dearth of capitalism.
2. Copyrights need to expire in 15 or 20 years like patents do. Not in 75 or 120 years.
This was the original letter and certainly the intention of the law- that the copyright was supposed to allow the holder from getting something ripped off (so that there would be an incentive to invent new things) but eventually place the knowledge in the public domain so that it could benefit society. I think that is a very fair tradeoff and so did the original writers of the copyright laws. This perpetual copyright holding that is going on is all take from society ($$$) and no give (the IP). Relationships can't happen like that or people will cheat (and pirate.)
3. The public needs to be let to use their fair use rights for the materials.
Much DRM and licensing schemes do not allow somebody to even make a backup or transfer a program from a broken device to a working one. So, that technically goes against the Electronic Materials Copyright Act of 1976 and any EULA or DRM scheme that goes against that should be prosecuted. If people take advantage of the ability to break the laws, they should be punished.DRM is analogous to the government or an automaker limiting the maximum speed of its cars to 15mph so that nobody can speed anywhere instead of allowing people go whatever speed they want and fining the ones who speed.
4. Guns don't induce people to kill others, the person used the gun as the tool to kill the other person."
The same reasoning holds true with the Induce Act. Devices should not be illegal if they have any legitimate use, even if they are frequently used illegally. Only things that have NO legal use (like cocaine or land mines) should be made illegal to posses. Prosecute the people who use things illegally.
That's my solution, what do you think?
Just "gittin-r-done," day after day.
no it doesn't but if those mice escape and start breeding and someone collects breeds and sells them should that person be liable for patent infringement?
applying patents to something that can self replicate and interbreed with a natural variation of itsself leads to a nightmare scenario in which you can be sued because a customer of the patent holder contaminated your stock!
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
1. Make everyone shareholders. I think this idea is no better than what we have now, and probably worse. Anyway, set a "release" price on new works (ideas, art). When enough people have collectively put up enough money to meet the price, release it to these people only. They are now shareholders. Whenever outsiders want in, they buy shares. Everyone who is already in gets a bit of this money, thus the incentive not to give away property. You can't sell out, because proving that you've forgotten an idea is impossible. As more people buy in, the share price goes DOWN, because what it is really doing is spreading the release price plus some profit out among more and more people. It doesn't go down entirely proportionally, so that early adopters are rewarded for their discernment, and of course the creators/inventors/authors are the first people in. As an example, suppose the release price was $1 million. 100,000 people put up $1, 50,000 put up $2, and a wealthy impatient person puts up the other $800,000. Then it's a hit and a million people decide to jump in for $1 each. The first shareholders will get some, not all, of that money, and the share price can be lowered to, say, 75 cents. When the price goes below some minimum (1 cent?) the shareholding arrangement is dissolved and the "properties" are thereafter public domain.
2. Similar to 1, but skip all the shareholder stuff and release it to the public, not to "shareholders". Rather like this idea.
3. Change to a "Creditright" system. All ideas are freely available. The only obligation is give credit where due. Accreditations are counted. How exactly this can be achieved without inconvenience, cheating, or violating privacy isn't easy, but it can be done, and has been done for centuries. The process is called "voting". Voting is of course a high stakes, expensive, slow, trouble prone and inconvenient process, but I think computers and the Internet could really be an enabling force here, making it possible to have the needed frequency of votes at a reasonable level of convenience and reliability. Then, to "promote the arts and sciences", appropriate organizations will have as their sole duty keeping the counts and giving out money proportionately. Something like Distrowatch could be a starting point. They would be funded by tax revenue, which makes sense because if it is everyone who "owns" an idea because trying to restrict copying is absurd, then it is everyone who should reward the creators proportional to the value of the idea. Shut down the patent office and set those people to these new duties. Perhaps the government should do it, maybe by having an agency devoted to the task. Or perhaps independent corporations would handle the task. After all, we have safety organizations such as Underwriter's Laboratories. So, like every time someone listens to a song, the counter for that song ticks up another spot. All this does is count votes. The problem of haggling over how much money each vote is worth can be left to annual budget battles. If the government feels that there isn't enough research, it's very easy to pump more money into this system. Also, could have charitable organizations help out. Great way to "feed starving artists". All kinds of questions can be fairly handled in this "Creditright" system. One example is "reach through patents". Would be easy to count. For example, if a particular song uses a particular new instrument, could have anything from add 1 to the count for that instrument, or add the counts for that song to the counts for that instrument. Let voters or arbitrators or the courts or official boards or committees decide how the counts should be interpreted, and what they're worth. But of course we would develo
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"