Slashdot Mirror
Copyright and Patent Laws Hurt the Economy
Norsefire writes "Two economists at Washington University in St. Louis are claiming that copyright and patent laws are 'killing innovation' and 'hurting [the] economy.' Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine state they would like to see copyright law abolished completely as there are other protections available to the creators of 'intellectual property' (a term they describe as 'propaganda,' and of recent origin). They are calling on Congress to grant patents only where an invention has social value, where the patent would not stifle innovation, and where the absence of a patent would damage cost-effectiveness."
Now seriously, everything I create has automatically my Copyright attached to it. And economy has nothing to do with it. It's just my right, just like the right I have to have a son/daughter and give them an education.
It's time to realise that Abble's products are the biggest abomination these days. Just say NO to the dumb iAbble way!!
If I do, I'll buy it used. That way, they won't be forced to violate their principles by getting a royalty from the sale.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
GPL hurts the economy !! It's confirmed by MIT !! Hahahaa -suck it up freetards !!
If you want it to be free, and you love it, make it PUBLIC DOMAIN !!
Why should intellectual property, which actually generally does take a significant amount of effort, be different than physical property? If I own a building, I can continue to lease it to someone indefinitely. Wouldn't society be better off if anyone could use my property. After a few years, I should have been able to make any money off of it and have to go buy another one, or perhaps get out and find a real job.
Or, for that matter, why don't we say that any tangible asset (say, bank accounts, stock portfolios, etc) should be taken away after X years where X is single digit, or Very low double digit.
- because you don't understand modern technology at all. I will use your analogy and reference.
If the workers slaving away at the factories in china and south los angeles were suddenly able to be freed from their intensely horrific living and working conditions because of technological advances, would it be just or righteous to keep insisting that they keep following the same model, and the consumers as well? To whit: digital copies reflect the first wave of replicator technology that humans have achieved. A FIRST, well beyond anything prtevious, well beyond the assembgly line or the printing press.
This is of TREMENDOUS importance, and it is just the first wave of such technology, and we have utterly failed to take advantage of it as a society, in fact, it has been made criminal to eliminate artificial scarcity using the technology that has been developed, to a large extent anyway.
If we could now replicate that pair of shoes or a handbag or an electronic gadget for so close to free as to be almost immeasurable, like we can do now with digital copies, so that everyone on the planet could now have that stuff for so close to free as being almost impossible to calculate, would it be wise to "outlaw" that tech, call people "pirates" when they used it?
Yes, it is a huge game changer when it comes to business, but business is NOT the ultimate, the ultimate is to completely eliminate want and have our species evolve to the next level of CIVILization, instead of being stuck at a level we are at now which is barely out of the medieval period yet.
If we follow the current anti technological law system as pertains to intangible products that are fully replicable for fractions of fractions of currency unit of choice, what will happen when we finally achieve replicator tech for tangible products? We will insist on keeping the same business structure of time previous just...because? Societal inertia?
Now do you see how loopy this position is? If we can't get this replicator technology sorted out properly now, when it is still easy to get to and we have the time and the cushion to really work it out, we as humans are condemning ourselves to an eternity of enforced artifical scarcity and enforced universal poverty and want when it wouldn't be necessary at all.
Would YOU want to give up being able to use a "replicator" because of some goofy law, if you knew the tech existed to eliminate your personal wants for any number of things, for ridiculous cheap to free cost?
Tech advances can and should change business models, and some business models should be rendered obsolete when their time comes. Digitized "products" are in that category right now. That's just the facts.
It is enforced luddism by government fiat, we are being forced to accept the lie that digital copies are "scarce" and are therefore priced like they are "scarce" at the point of the governments gun, lead on by those businesses that themselves take advantage of digital replicating technology, but want to severely restrict the other 99.9999% of the planet from it, so that they can "sell" the same product over and over and over again, without doing additional works. No one else gets to do that, yet we have codified into law now that a very tiny fraction of the population is allowed to do that.
This is humanity at its worst, sheer greed and failure to embrace the wonderful things of the future that got here, part of true amazing and powerful tech advances which are being stifled and made illegal by a very few last century thinking luddites.
I am in a tangibles production business, when and if a "replicator" tech advance comes along that renders my business obsolete, as in I couldn't "make money" without a law change insuring my then obsolete business, I would reject that, would not work for it, it would be unrighteous of me to even try to. I would GLADLY go on and do something e
Ohhh! So now YOU are deciding when "they" have made enough money. Gee, what a hypocrite.
No, I am suggesting an amount of time which would give someone a reasonable opportunity to exploit their own work
What you wrote has EXACTLY the same meaning as what I wrote. Quit fooling yourself.
Apparently you regard the service of printing and distributing a book to be far more valuable than the service of actually creating the words which go into that book.
Yes I do. Creation only needs to be done once, printing and distribution costs money for every single physical copy printed and distributed. Oh wait, "the calculus of supply and demand" does not apply. I should have remembered...
When information is power, privacy is freedom.