WikiLeaks Releases the Secret Draft Text of the TPP IP Rights Chapter

sproketboy writes "WikiLeaks releases the secret negotiated draft text for the entire TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership) Intellectual Property Rights Chapter." The Syndney Morning Herald took a look at the leaked documents, from their article: "An expert in intellectual property law, Matthew Rimmer, said the draft was 'very prescriptive' and strongly reflected U.S. trade objectives and multinational corporate interests 'with little focus on the rights and interests of consumers, let alone broader community interests.'"

Comments

Business as usual

[Anonymous Coward]

When you have a gun pointed at the head of the world, you can make them do whatever you want.

Re:Business as usual

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Until everyone figures out that due to maintenance cutbacks your gun has rusted tight due to years of neglect and decay, and that you no longer possess the skills to competently load the gun, having replaced the loading procedure with an MBA designed "just in time" ammo delivery system designed to minimise the total number of idle bullets in stock, and in any case you no longer possess bullets due to even more cutbacks and the recent outsourcing of the last factory in your country that actually makes them.

But don't worry, you still have enough credibility left to bluff .... oh, wait.

Re:Business as usual

[Rob the Bold]

Until everyone figures out that due to maintenance cutbacks your gun has rusted tight due to years of neglect and decay, and that you no longer possess the skills to competently load the gun, having replaced the loading procedure with an MBA designed "just in time" ammo delivery system designed to minimise the total number of idle bullets in stock, and in any case you no longer possess bullets due to even more cutbacks and the recent outsourcing of the last factory in your country that actually makes them.

But don't worry, you still have enough credibility left to bluff .... oh, wait.

If the US's gun gets too rusty, and multinational corporations need to use another country's gun to force the people of the world into submission, it would be inconvenient, but not disastrous for them. They really aren't subject to weakness like "patriotism" or "community" or anything like that that us humans are.

Re:Business as usual

[Rob the Bold]

...with little focus on the rights and interests of consumers, let alone broader community interests.'"

No! Really?

You idiots keep electing rich fucks, and then everyone acts amazed when they continue to create and enhance systems designed to benefit rich fucks and leave the rest of your mucking about in the gutters. Since you've proved you're just exactly that stupid, I guess it'll never change.

Cheers. :)

Who were you replying to? The text you quoted is from TFS.

Re:Business as usual

[slick7]

...with little focus on the rights and interests of consumers, let alone broader community interests.'"

No! Really?

You idiots keep electing rich fucks, and then everyone acts amazed when they continue to create and enhance systems designed to benefit rich fucks and leave the rest of your mucking about in the gutters. Since you've proved you're just exactly that stupid, I guess it'll never change.

Cheers. :)

Too many words, we're gonna get fucked.

How do you act

[dangerousbeans]

when all our governments behave in this way. Their agenda is so different to our best interests it's horrific.

Re:How do you act

[gweihir]

Traditionally? Revolution and chop of the heads of the a*******. Unfortunately with modern police and military that does not work anymore.

Re:How do you act

[Anonymous Coward]

Facsism killed our pseudo-democracy

Re:How do you act

[Anonymous Coward]

Traditionally? Revolution and chop of the heads of the a*******. Unfortunately with modern police and military that does not work anymore.

This is a option but with limited end result. In my case since the restrictions on all products are being restricted and the consumers options are very limited or at times negated by the user agreements I have opted to do my own cars. This started some time ago when I realized OWNING a vehicle is not the same as it used to be where you actually OWNED the vehicle and could repair and modify to your liking. Proprietary systems LOCK out the user from the Property they paid for to insure the Dealer Network can rape you at will and you can only smile and take it.
My option was to take my vehicle and convert it to Electric myself, with help of others. Much cheaper in the long run. i now have a vehicle that provides 99% of my transportation needs, for trips I rent a car for pennies compared to owning and maintaining a gas guzzler much less the added Insurance. Converting when looking at using the vehicle for 15 years or so is much less than Gassers, even my TDI Jetta use over the same time. And my ass isn't sore from the Dealer usage. Sorry but only those with not interest or with great ignorance need the Dealer networks these days.
If you drive less than 120 miles a day nobody needs gas any more. For those that understand the restrictions like these put on the consumer we are discussing the only option is to not play their game. If nobody complies they will change or not sell anything. I love passing gas stations after gas prices rise. Besides after paying $9 a gallon in Europe and $5.27 for Diesel in Florida in 2008 I made a change since the only option was to be bent over from now on. I no longer support the middle east or other energy monopolies and my payments stay here.
 

Let me guess.

[Anonymous Coward]

They're mandating net neutrality, eliminating bandwidth caps, and dramatically scaling back copyright terms in light of the fact that the Internet offers a worldwide market for copyrighted material with instantaneous delivery of goods?

Re:Let me guess.

[stewsters]

+1 funny.

Re:Let me guess.

[Dr Caleb]

More like "+1, Almost a laugh but really a cry"

Re:Let me guess.

[Anonymous Coward]

+3 pigs

Re:Let me guess.

[frank_adrian314159]

And something like the OP will happen when pigs fly, making the Floydian metaphor complete.

Re:Let me guess.

[turgid]

Those that studied their Floyd properly know that pigs could fly. I'm only here to make a buck.

Re:Let me guess.

[tqk]

Those that studied their Floyd properly know that pigs could fly. I'm only here to make a buck.

People who studied their Floyd properly know that they were talking about real flying pigs, aka "Jetsetters." They're the ones who don't give a fuck about anything except where their next buck comes from.

I prefer The Division Bell.

Re:Let me guess.

[turgid]

Forgive me if I hesitate. It's incredibly hot in here today.

If this is the draft version

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are European politicians involved in "negotiations" at all? They could save their time and just sign a document written by the U.S. government. Same result with less effort.

Re:If this is the draft version

[Joce640k]

Why are European politicians involved in "negotiations" at all?

They get travel expenses and fine food plus hook^Wentertainment...?

Re:If this is the draft version

[Gonoff]

Why are European politicians involved in "negotiations" at all? They could save their time and just sign a document written by the U.S. government. Same result with less effort.

There used to be a legal principle that secret laws were invalid. "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" is only valid when the laws are available.

Now admittedly our laws have taken a beating due to the US Economic Hit Men and some of our politicians have shown themselves to be obedient to their masters. Someone is eventually going to point out that secret laws have less validity than unwritten agreements.

That may be why...

Re:If this is the draft version

[Anonymous Coward]

Easy. They're holding out for more bribes.

Re:If this is the draft version

[TWiTfan]

They have to put on a nice show that they're doing something, or someone back home may actually catch on to the fraud.

Re:If this is the draft version

[Princeofcups]

Why are European politicians involved in "negotiations" at all? They could save their time and just sign a document written by the U.S. government. Same result with less effort.

It's for show, the illusion of representative democracy. The decisions were already decided on a golf course in the Bahamas by the multinational industrialists who really wrote it.

Re:If this is the draft version

[dgatwood]

"Ignorance of the law is no excuse" is only valid when the laws are available.

Not even then. It's only valid when either all the laws are common sense or the number of laws is sufficiently small that a reasonable person can avoid being ignorant of them.

Without those limits on the law, you end up in a society where lawyers run the world, and everybody is constantly having to run everything by their lawyers before they even have a simple conversation in public. We're rapidly approaching that point, assuming we aren't already way past it.

Re:If this is the draft version

[greenbird]

Why are European politicians involved in "negotiations" at all? They could save their time and just sign a document written by the U.S. government. Same result with less effort.

Why are European politicians involved in "negotiations" at all? They could save their time and just sign a document written by the US content industries (RIAA, MPAA). Same result with less effort.

FTFY

Re:If this is the draft version

[s.petry]

There are countless people that still believe the charade that their Government works for them and their citizens, not the same corrupt fuckers that "that other Government" works for. The people in power will keep trying to hold up the curtains until they are removed from social influence (which will eventually happen).

Re:If this is the draft version

[meta-monkey]

"Ignorance of the law is no excuse" is only valid when the laws are available.

In the Before Time, in the Long, Long Ago, back when legal principle meant something, the level of ignorance a person could show of the law and still be bound by it existed on a sliding scale. This was the difference between malum en se and malum prohibitum. For instance, you don't need to be aware of laws against beating a man to death in order to be found in violation of the specific law against beating a man to death. That act is malum in se. Evil in and of itself. However, if there's a law against walking your dog by the river on Tuesdays, that act is not evil in itself. It's just prohibited because, I don't know, maybe the local cat trade is huge, and new shipments of cats come in on Tuesdays, and it's really better for everybody if dogs are just kept away from the river that day. Then, you can be guilty of the act, but if it's not well publicized with signs posted saying "Illegal to walk your dog by the river on Tuesdays," but not have done so intentionally and be found not guilty of the crime. Particularly if the law is well crafted and has words in it like "willfully" and "knowingly." That is, you knew you were walking your dog in the dog free zone (because you were caught next to the 'no dogs allowed' sign) and you willfully did it anyway, you're busted.

That is no longer the case anymore, though. Today laws are rammed through congress completely without the mens rea components, which leads to things like the Lacie Act where there are literally people in jail for having possessed the wrong kind of crustacean in the wrong kind of package without having any idea that was a violation of some obscure law.

Re:If this is the draft version

[TapeCutter]

The other half of that is the tendency in the US to lock people up for trivial misdemeanours, giving "the land of the free" the highest incarceration rate of ANY nation on the planet, roughly 7X that of China's.

Re:If this is the draft version

[Anonymous Coward]

(Score:4, Insightful)

Need I say more?

PS: the CAPTCHA was 'Nipple'.

Re:If this is the draft version

[Anonymous Coward]

This!

Mens rea elements are just as important as our constitutional rights. Unfortunately our courts stopped enforcing them long ago. A mens rea requirement is too moralistic, and smells of "natural rights", which both conservative and liberal judges (but especially conservative) have moved away from over the past 100 years.

This goes hand-in-hand with the rise of the regulatory state, and the adoption of continental European ideas about government, democracy, and liberty. In the continental model, the sine qua non of freedom is the legislature. If the legislature passed a bill, then that's the end of the story, because theoretically it was done with the consent of the people. There are exceptions for a very small set of basic human rights, but usually the legislature wins out. Constitutions are usually narrowly interpreted to provide maximum freedom for the legislature.

It used to be that in America we had a very sophisticated and comprehensive set of laws which protected our liberty. Our constitutions were just the cap stones, and our legislatures only the regular--not exclusive--mode of law making. Far more important were a plethora of rules created and used by courts when applying and interpreting the law (most of the Bill of Rights simply enshrined many of these rules). A mens rea component was one such interpretive rule--mens rea was always an element for any serious crime, even if not explicit in legislative law, simply because some judge, long ago, said it was so, and it was wise enough that other judges adopted it.

But this sort of power in the courts is now often called "judicial activism". In other words, any exercise of independent authority by our courts, especially when it butts heads with the legislature, is now apparently a bad thing.

Oh well.

Re:If this is the draft version

[iiiears]

When you say "laws" is it domestic laws? This supercedes that and becomes enforceable on all of us without so much as a "by your leave." These agreements easily bypass the wishes of any local electorate or protections they find important,

Has anyone used dissent to revoke a recent trade pact?

Re:If this is the draft version

[key45]

It's the "Trans PACIFIC Partnership". European politicians are not involved, unless Europe has recently moved.

Re:If this is the draft version

[Agent_B-7]

"Ignorance of the law is no excuse" is only valid when the laws are available.

One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all"

Re:If this is the draft version

[RockDoctor]

The TPP is a proposed free trade agreement under negotiation by (as of August 2013) Australia, Brunei, Chile, Canada, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States, and Vietnam.[10](From Wikipedia)

Why are European politicians involved in "negotiations" at all?

Yes, why indeed?

Oh, bollocks, it's another crack-smoking AC.

Intellectual property is a hoax.

[MRe_nl]

Property versus Knowledge
Property can be held, physically possessed.
It is easy to see who possesses a piece of property. Knowledge cannot be physically possessed. It can only be known.
When I take property from you, you no longer have it.
It is easy to see that property is (or can be) exclusive, or what the legal beagles call "rivalrous", a zero-sum game. To the extent that one person uses it, they limit the amount that another person can use it. Knowledge cannot be taken away from you; when I learn some knowledge that you know, you still know it.
Property has a clear origin; you start with raw materials, sometimes you you add labour.
It is easy to see where property came from. It is easy to trace the movements of a piece of property. Knowledge doesn't have a clear origin; it is all derived from existing human culture and knowledge.

http://darksleep.com/notablog/articles/Intellectual_Property_Is_Fraud

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax.

[i kan reed]

Intellectual property is a useful social construct. This post is a bit like saying "manslaughter is a hoax" because all the distinctions between it and murder are subjective. The problem isn't the existence of intellectual property as a concept, but its treatment as a shining jewel of fundamental rights. Ignoring the purpose of something in legislating about it is always a problem.

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax.

[Anonymous Coward]

Good distinction. Also different from both property and knowledge is potential to profit.

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax.

[djmurdoch]

Intellectual property isn`t knowledge, it`s various forms of monopoly rights. Copyright is a monopoly right to make copies. Trademarks are a monopoly right to use certain forms of signs. Patents are monopoly rights to make use of various inventions.

The idea of monopolies as goods that can be traded is a little abstract, but it`s similar to lots of other contracts. If you deposit money in a bank, they only need to return it to you because of an abstract concept of ownership. Nothing really changed hands in most cases, you and the bank just agreed on a contract.

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax.

[Anonymous Coward]

Creating (or finding?) knowledge has associated costs. Time, money, and labour are all spent on the development of more knowledge.

So by preventing anyone from reasonably exploiting the knowledge they have created/found, where is the incentive to continue advancing knowledge?

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax.

[Anonymous Coward]

I physically possessed your mother last night. You could say I knew her in the Biblical sense.

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax.

[mrchaotica]

I've been making the same kind of argument here on Slashdot for years now; it's nice to see someone else doing so.

I'm not sure calling it a "hoax" helps the argument's case though: the concept of [copyrights, patents, trademarks and trade secrets] is real enough; it's just the attempt to conflate it with actual property that is a lie.

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax.

[Joce640k]

Intellectual property is a useful social construct.

Sure. The problem is that these people think that draconian legislation is the answer to a changing marketplace that made their business model obsolete.

Imagine if the buggy-whip manufacturers had had enough money to bribe the government to pass laws preventing manufacture of automobiles...

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a semantic game around terminology that ignores the real issues. While Slashdot circle-jerks over whether or not this is "property" and whether or not infringement is "theft" the world is moving on regardless, using those terms as useful real-world anchors for the deeper concepts involved.

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax.

[FlyHelicopters]

There are a few issues with that...

Without copyright, patents, etc. then you would have fewer inventions that benefit all of humanity.

My father owned several patents years ago, ran a business for years based on them. He is retired now (and of course those patents are long expired), but for a time those provided us a comfortable living.

He invested his parents life savings to make those inventions and get them patented. Do you really think he would have taken that risk without the chance of a reward?

If he had to invest his parents life savings, and in return the government says, "sorry, that is just knowledge, anyone can copy it now that you've invented it", do you believe he would be inclined to do so?

If you're honest, you'll agree that he would not, most people wouldn't.

Could you find an example of someone who would? Yes, of course, there are always exceptions to the rule, but the majority of people would not.

Our world would be a very different place (and not for the better) without such laws in place.

(Note: Patents are about right, 20 years... copyright has been extended too many times and lasts too long, I'd personally reduce that to 20 years to match Patents).

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax.

[K. S. Kyosuke]

You could say I knew her in the Biblical sense.

You mean you found her sort of quaint and near incomprehensible?

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax.

[king neckbeard]

There are issues with just using 'intellectual property' as a catch-all term, because the dynamics ofcopyright, patents, trademark, and trade secrets are quite different. However, I would debate that copyright and patents are useful as a social construct, especially when couched in the 'property' metaphor. Property is a solution to the problem of limited resources, which doesn't exist with the intangible.

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax.

[TWiTfan]

My father owned several patents years ago, ran a business for years based on them. He is retired now (and of course those patents are long expired)

The problem is that copyrights, unlike patents, NEVER expire anymore. Not in the U.S. anyway, and the U.S. is all that fucking counts (because the rest of your pussy leaders will damn well do what the U.S. Government tells them to OR ELSE!)

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax.

[spire3661]

Which is EXACTLY what the RIAA tried to do to the first MP3 player. Those moments turned me into a lifelong enemy of ALL copyright. I have seen copyright stifle too much innovation for it to be useful to society in its current incarnation. The verdict is vengeance, a vendetta.

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax.

[Anonymous Coward]

Open S/W seems find the necessary incentives, which says that there is more than one possible model.

The IP folks have forgotten that the reason they have the right (not property) in the first place was because of a two sided deal with society.
        The forever refreshing of patents and copyrights and the ignoring of fair use are examples of renigging on their side of that deal.
          (The Internet has enabled wide spread renigging on the other side of the copyright deal.)

Although there are wrongs on both sides, it does seem that lobbying is pushing things a bit too much to one side.
    The rights holders are (as usual) shooting themselves in the foot in this respect because eventually there will be a backlash which fixes the Mickey Mouse laws.

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax.

[spire3661]

O look, someone with a vested interest telling us its good for us......

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax.

[FlyHelicopters]

Oh look, someone who has never created anything wants everything for free...

Those patents are expired, maybe I should spend all my savings and invent something new, only to have you take it for free.

Yea, no thanks. What have YOU invented with all your life savings and then given away?

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax.

[FlyHelicopters]

If you read to the end of my comment, you'll notice that I said the same thing.

If patents lasted as long as copyrights, I'd still be getting a royalty check to this day...

I'm not, because they expire. And I'm ok with that, we were paid for 20 years, that is long enough.

Copyright? Nuts, just nuts... move it back to 20 years...

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax.

[spire3661]

I have created plenty, and I give it all away. Standing on the shoulders of giants and all that. The difference is i dont attempt to make things just to profit from them. I design with the idea that whatever I make is already owed to the cultural that educated me.

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax.

[mrchaotica]

Allowing the "Intellectual Property [sic]" proponents to frame the debate just makes it that much easier for them to win.

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax.

[Mathinker]

It may be useful to have anchors for these concepts, but ignoring the fact that humans are swayed by how language is couched is simply naive. I personally prefer to communicate as I think best, rather than mindlessly subjugate myself to whatever convention is currently accepted by society. I can understand the other position, however... a lot of people don't feel comfortable wearing the non-conformist hat...

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax.

[gmuslera]

Is worse than that. US is officially not acknowledging the right of intellectual property of anyone in the planet (except of for the insiders) with its wide surveillance (and sabotage/backdooring/etc) effort, including specially every single citizen of those signing countries. Why them should acknowledge that right of for US citizens/corporations, unless they are in the bag already?

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax.

[FlyHelicopters]

You can and should be an enemy of lifelong copyrights, but you wouldn't want all copyright to be gone, would you?

If movie theaters could just show movies without paying the studio anything, how would new movies get funded?

If authors didn't get paid anything for writing books, do you think we'd continue to have as many books?

If software wasn't protected by copyright, would as many programs get created?

Do you really want to live in that world?

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax.

[tepples]

Labor to create new intangibles is a limited resource. According to the constitution of Slashdot's home country, copyrights and patents exist ostensibly "to promote the progress of" fields that revolve around these intangibles.

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax.

[FlyHelicopters]

It would seem so, until you think about it more...

That free, open source software, is written on computers that are anything but free, that were developed for the purpose of making their companies a profit.

The development work that FOSS is built on was all "for profit" software.

You wouldn't even have a computer on your desk in the first place if it wasn't for "profit".

Yes, there are people who are willing to work on FOSS, but they have an income from somewhere, you can't eat "love and happiness".

The irony is that just a few stories back on SlashDot, there was a story about how to get more young people involved with Linux, the core developer base is aging. The best reply in the whole thread was, "because people like to get paid". It helps with minor things like... keeping a roof over your head and eating on a semi-regular basis.

Making free software doesn't do any of that. (and free GMail accounts aren't "free", you're the product being sold)

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, lying through her teeth, trying to command all the idiots.

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax.

[Anonymous Coward]

> Intellectual property is a useful social construct.
Because you say so?

Intellectual property is an invention from Lawyer & Accountant Hell, first introduced as a metaphor to subsume copyright, patent and trademark laws (in themselves very disparate things, and rightly so!), and slowly mutating into something comparable to "Real Property", so as to be able to play the same casino capitalism on it as it is played on "Real Property".

Which is less-than-funny when said "Real Property" is food, but I disgress...

When said Lawyers & Accountants are done, our lives won't be as much fun as they still are.

I think we should resist the introduction of this term.

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax.

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe we just wouldn't get so many movies that are crap by people who are only there to make a buck.

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax.

[FlyHelicopters]

So you work for free and refuse a paycheck? Impressive. How do you eat?

If you write software in your free time as a hobby, more power to you. You're able to do that because you do something that earns you money, and the computer that you write that software on only exists because of people who wanted to earn money.

The patents and copyrights on the hardware and software are what enabled computers to become what they are. Without that profit motive, Intel wouldn't be spending $5 billion dollars to build new manufacturing facilities.

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax.

[jedidiah]

Except the differences between copyright and property are not subjective. That was the entire point of the OP.

The differences here are very real.

Plus the corporate interests want to have it both ways. They want all of the advantages and none of the downside. They also want rights only for them and no one else.

It really doesn't work that way. Trying to will bring the whole house of cards down for everyone.

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax.

[Anonymous Coward]

Movies and books could be made by people who want to share what they know, think, or feel.

Software will be written to be productive and useful. (I say "will be" because I am a software developer, and I would work under this arrangement.)

Yes. I really want to live in that world. I want greed to go away. I want greedy people to die.

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax.

[jedidiah]

Necessity is the mother of invention, not avarice.

The same argument you use in favor of patents run amok can also be applied to the victims of patent trolls.

Re: Intellectual property is a hoax.

[Anonymous Coward]

people with the knowledge to create new intellectual property are scarce because of artificially imposed scarcity of knowledge, created by intellectual property laws?

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax.

[jedidiah]

> It's a semantic game around terminology that ignores the real issues

Semantics are the issue. Corporate shills pretend that copyright is a natural right to align their interests with the Bill of Rights when the exact opposite is the case.

Semantics is at the center of the pro-corporate propaganda here.

Knocking down this propaganda is the first step to restoring balance to this situation.

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax.

[Anonymous Coward]

You do know that Hollywood is only where it is because they fled as far away from the east coast as possible to infringe on Edison's patents without consequence, right?

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, that was already done in Britain a century and a half ago.

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax.

[Anonymous Coward]

You can and should be an enemy of lifelong copyrights, but you wouldn't want all copyright to be gone, would you?

Yes.

If movie theaters could just show movies without paying the studio anything, how would new movies get funded?

My two favorite solutions:
1) Crowdfunding. For example, Kickstarter campaigns by your favorite authors and movie studios.
2) Prediction markets - you bet against "a sci-fi movie by Steven Spielberg will rate over 80% on Rotten Tomatoes this year". When Spielberg decides to make the film, he sees your bet and everyone else's.
If you don't like these particular implementations that's fine - my lack of creativity shouldn't be your problem.

If authors didn't get paid anything for writing books, do you think we'd continue to have as many books?
If software wasn't protected by copyright, would as many programs get created?

Yes.

Do you really want to live in that world?

Absolutely. Do you really want to live in a world where the government can suppress useful information?

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax.

[spire3661]

I dont want to live in a world where the default is for art to be locked and expect payment from up to 7 billion other humans, its absurd.. I dont think its right to give explicit control over monetization and venue to content creators. ITs used to create artificial markets and drive up prices. I would like to see more FRAND-style doctrines. I think there should be very firm controls linking production cost to monetization when it comes to government granted IP monopolies. IP is a SOCIAL BARGAIN and we need to re-balance the equation. I think once you have reached a certain monetization threshold, your IP should weaken.

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax.

[jedidiah]

Bullshit. Intel lives on the bleeding edge. Patents don't do squat for their bottom line. Keeping ahead of their rivals is what creates their bottom line. A 20 year long monopoly is meaningless in a world where yesterday's technology is considered stale.

Intel is perhaps the WORST example you could have come up with.

Patents exist to encourage the disclosure of trade secrets.

Intel makes money by SELLING THINGS.

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax.

[PRMan]

They did.

You had speed limits of 9 mph, requirements to have a guy waving a lantern in front of you, etc., etc., etc.

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax.

[LocalH]

This thread shows one of the biggest failings of humanity, which we see on a daily basis across many issues.

People don't know how to compromise and meet in the middle for the good of humanity. People are taught never to waver in their beliefs, and if they give in even slightly they're taught that they're weak.

One the one hand you have the copyright abolitionists, who would insist that all media be free for the taking from day one. On the other hand, you have the pro-copyright extremists who feel that things are fine the way they are.

Copyright is a good thing, but it shouldn't last for over a century. Things are too much in favor of copyright holders nowadays, and under current law, the public interest may as well be nonexistent.

This is why many people have no problem violating copyright, and arguably it is moral to do so, as long as it is carefully restricted to works owned by corporations who wish to de facto abolish the public domain. There's a difference between violating copyright because you want something for free, and violating copyright because you have a philosophical and moral opposition to the current handling of copyright. The latter can arguably be seen in the same light as other famous civil disobedience, the former is just greed and self-indulgence.

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax.

[Anonymous Coward]

BS. Software I write (with 2 other developers) gets sold for high five figures per copy. We do not rely on copyright at all, but rather on contract law. To say that people cannot get paid without Imaginary Property monopoly privileges is nonsense

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax.

[Anonymous Coward]

I"m surprised you aren't complaining that GP is stealing food from the mouths of babies for producing software for free.

You may believe what you're saying but you really have no evidence that these things wouldn't have happened anyway under a different system.

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax.

[ultranova]

If authors didn't get paid anything for writing books, do you think we'd continue to have as many books?

Probably, judging by how much content the Internet has for free, but even if not, does it matter? There's more books than I, you or anyone can possibly read, and those written solely for money are unlikely to be great losses.

Do you really want to live in that world?

Seeing how "that world" produced the very tropes and settings current for-profit copyright regime is rehashing over and over and over again... yes.

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax.

[cavreader]

IP may be a SOCIAL BARGAIN but every society currently on the planet only cooperates in Social Bargains when they get something out of it. Nobody on any side is willing to agree or cooperate on anything if they feel they would be betraying their personal convictions and righteous crusades. Nationalism is on the rise, global cooperation is disappearing, misleading and biased rhetoric has replaced facts, and competition for resources is rising by the day. I see nothing to change these factors other than the complete and utter destruction sure to be delivered by WW3. Maybe the few hundred survivors can start over from scratch and hopefully do a better job.

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry but 'Intellectual Property' is not a 'useful social construct' because it isn't property at all and conflates actual social constructs coded in law with real physical property. I can only assume you have bought in to the idea that copyright, patents, trademarks etc. are like 'real physical property' as opposed to use rights granted to the 'original producer' of the intellectual work in question. Copyright has nothing to do with patents, patents have nothing to do with trademarks, they can not all be labeled under the same rubric of 'intellectual property', none of them are 'property' in any way shape or form. And this is nothing at all like the difference between manslaughter & murder.

If you want to argue/debate the usefulness to society of copyright, patents, trademarks etc., feel free to do so, but please remove the term 'intellectual property' from your lexicon as it is NOT useful in discussing what society should agree to in providing protection for originators of a work of art (copyright), or originators of an idea (patent) etc.

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax.

[gweihir]

Yes, indeed. But the unmitigated greed of the content industry is trying very hard to prevent people from seeing that, no matter the damage they do.

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax.

[Atzanteol]

The original idea is good - give that monopoly for a fixed period of time. That way "better" art can be more profitable than "crap." The period of time, however, needs to be reasonable and short. Certainly within the creators lifetime and probably a small fraction of that. I don't make money off code I wrote 10 years ago - it's absurd that an artist would expect the same.

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax.

[dcherryholmes]

*I am probably more with you than against you, ultimately*

That said...

"I don't make money off code I wrote 10 years ago - it's absurd that an artist would expect the same."

You would be if you had written and were selling the final product yourself. But something you wrote for your employer? Probably not. Likewise, an artist (maybe a scientific illustrator, for example) who produced art and was paid a salary to do so, probably isn't making any money off of it now.

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax.

[king neckbeard]

Yes, labor is a limited resource. Labor is also something that is pretty easily controlled by the producer. So long as we are not in literal slavery, you or I can choose to labor or not labor on the creation of intangibles, and we can do this for our own purposes or commissioned by someone else to do so.

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax.

[Anonymous Coward]

If authors didn't get paid anything for writing books, do you think we'd continue to have as many books?

Books have been around a lot longer than copyright, so it doesn't really enter into the discussion.

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax.

[aaaaaaargh!]

Intellectual property is a useful social construct.

Well, let me guess guess for whom it is useful...

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax.

[tepples]

Copyright exists to encourage people to create works of authorship by providing an economic incentive to "choose to labor" as you put it.

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax.

[FlyHelicopters]

Not everything in the world moves as fast as technology does, and rest assured that patents do matter very much to Intel.

Without patent protection, I could sell the same things as Intel and undercut them because I wouldn't have to spend billions on R&D, I'd just copy them.

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax.

[FlyHelicopters]

Copyright is a good thing, but it shouldn't last for over a century. Things are too much in favor of copyright holders nowadays, and under current law, the public interest may as well be nonexistent.

I totally agree, and said so in my original post.

20 years for patents strikes me as reasonable. We could debate 10 years, we could debate 30 years, but I doubt any of us think 70 years makes sense.

Copyright? 20 years sounds reasonable to me, again we could debate 10 years, or 30... the current system is indeed too long. Cinderella has been out for 63 years, the people who created it aren't even alive anymore, the fact that it will remain under copyright for well into this century is just absurd.

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax.

[FlyHelicopters]

Snarky comment, but not all of us think those movies are crap.

I personally think The Avengers was a fun movie, we've watched it a few times. That movie simply isn't going to get made without the system of copyrights that we have.

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax.

[FlyHelicopters]

That sounds like a nice idea, but the movie studios require big hits to subsidize their losses.

The Disney Company wrote off hundreds of millions of dollars from John Carter.

If you then go tell them that their next Pixar film can only make *x* dollars before they lose their rights to profit, that changes the deal and causes them to no longer want to take risks.

Unless you plan to subsidize their losses for them using taxpayer dollars. I'm sure you're not suggesting that!

The SOCIAL BARGAIN as you put it... is that a private company invests their time and money into a project like John Carter (or Cars 2), and if it is popular they get to make tons of money. If it flops, tough luck, they lose.

You can't change one half of the bargain without changing the other half. If you cap profits, then you have to cap losses or otherwise protect the company from them.

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax.

[FlyHelicopters]

I think most of us would agree that copyright is too long. But you can't compare it to software code, nothing else in the world moves as fast as computers do today, a book or movie would be a better analogy than software.

The time will come when computers slow down their annual improvement. When software gets used longer than a few years, then a 20 year copyright on software will be more reasonable.

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax.

[FlyHelicopters]

I think you *believe* that you want to live in that world... If you actually did, you might be shocked...

There is an old saying... "be careful what you wish for, you might just get it".

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax.

[Gavagai80]

Indeed. I make my living on copyrighted software, but would happily support copyright terms as short as 5 years and expanded fair use. I don't support criminal penalties or excessive fines for software/media piracy either. In most cases, ideological extremists are fools who only hold onto their extreme positions by their inability to comprehend alternative points of view.

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax.

[Atzanteol]

Ah, yes that is true. I was a bit myopic thinking about my specific circumstances there. But you are right - COTS stuff is being sold well after the original development has been done.

Re: Intellectual property is a hoax.

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't quite tell if you're serious.

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax.

[cheekyjohnson]

Intellectual property is a useful social construct.

There's also zero proof that it's beneficial to begin with, and yet we get stuck with laws that infringe upon people's freedoms. Actually, the mere fact that it infringes upon people's freedoms (freedom of speech/expression and private property rights) would make me oppose it even if it could be proven to be beneficial, but it hasn't been.

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax.

[cheekyjohnson]

Time, money, and labour are all spent on the development of more knowledge.

Yes. Money that they voluntarily chose to spend. They don't get government-enforced monopolies over ideas just because they can't figure out a working business model, or at least, I don't believe they should get such a thing.

So by preventing anyone from reasonably exploiting the knowledge they have created/found, where is the incentive to continue advancing knowledge?

That's no one's problem but the people who are trying to figure out how to make money from the ideas.

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax.

[cheekyjohnson]

I would disagree that the terms are even remotely useful; they're usually just used as flamebait, as propaganda, or to confuse the ignorant about what is actually happening (which probably falls under propaganda in most cases).

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax.

[cheekyjohnson]

Oh look, someone who has never created anything wants everything for free...

You seem to be assuming that everyone who has "created" something must agree with you, and that anyone who doesn't is not a 'creator' and is simply entitled. What about the entitlement of expecting government-enforced monopolies over ideas that infringe upon private property rights and freedom of speech/expression, as well as create artificial scarcity? Find your own business model.

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax.

[cheekyjohnson]

People don't know how to compromise and meet in the middle for the good of humanity.

I do not compromise away rights I believe to be fundamental. I do not compromise on the TSA. I do not compromise on many things if I believe them to violate people's rights. It's called having principles.

Copyright is a good thing

There is no proof of that that I know of. Can you do anything beyond speculate when considering what our society would look like without copyright? I seriously doubt it.

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax.

[Anonymous Coward]

no, i think you misunderstood. intel literally is THAT bleeding edge, no existing fab could copy them, they are the only ones who can, let alone the design expertise, they do literally outperform every company in the sector in terms of research and manufacturing capabilities, and thus have enough money to retain all that talent without relying on patents. all rivals have nowhere near the cash hordes intel does. who would make design and build a competitors plant for free?

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax.

[dryeo]

The pulp paper producers managed to get the competing product made from hemp illegalized along with all other hemp products and now the prisons are overflowing

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax.

[FlyHelicopters]

So you're saying that since I haven't signed your contract, I'm free to copy your software all I like?

I'm free to sell copies as if they were my own for a profit?

Without copyright law to protect you, contract law won't help you there, if I haven't signed your contract.

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax.

[FlyHelicopters]

I do not compromise away rights I believe to be fundamental. I do not compromise on the TSA. I do not compromise on many things if I believe them to violate people's rights. It's called having principles.

Fair enough, which is why all of us are saying, "most of the time" you should be willing to compromise.

There are exceptions, slavery would be a good example where you really can't compromise much, you either have it or you don't.

Just keep in mind that to completely refuse to compromise puts you at risk of war, because generally when two sides won't find middle ground, that is the end result. Look at the USA and Iran, if we can't both find a way to meet in the middle over their nuclear program, it will end in war.

Compromise requires that both sides be interested in a solution, if one side puts their feet down and says, "I get my way or else", then the other side either has to be ok with it, or violence is the result.

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax.

[cheekyjohnson]

Just keep in mind that to completely refuse to compromise puts you at risk of war

Well, sometimes. It really depends on the subject.

Look at the USA and Iran, if we can't both find a way to meet in the middle over their nuclear program, it will end in war.

None of which would be a problem if my government just stopped trying to police the world.

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax.

[FlyHelicopters]

Yes, that is why I said "puts you at risk of war".

As for trying to police the world, I tend to agree with you for the most part, but there are exceptions. The Nazis had to be stopped, no matter the cost. They were an evil that would have kept spreading until they became unstoppable. FDR saw that threat long before most Americans did, it wasn't until the US was attacked that everyone was ok with doing something about it.

On the flip side, we were swindled into the Vietnam War, that was just a local civil war that we should have stayed far away from.

So there are times we need to go overseas and get involved, and times we should let people settle their own issues.

Regarding Iran, I don't really care what they do, so long as they don't keep threatening Israel every 5 minutes.

Had I been in Geneva, I'd have simply made it plain to Iran that they could have everything they wanted, total sanctions lifting, full and open trade, and we'd leave them the hell alone, if only they give up the nuclear facilities and all enrichment. Simple, solved... their entire problems can be solved in 5 minutes if they only give up their nuclear ambitions, in return we'll do what we did with Cuba, guarantee to never invade, never support anyone else invading, and leave them the hell alone.

But the whole thing is that we feel threatened by them, and they threaten our interests. Since we have the bigger junk yard dog, we can, at the end of the day, enforce our way if we want to. So if they wish to continue to have a country, they can take the deal.

Otherwise, war is the only remaining solution, because if they turn that deal down, clearly they are going for a nuclear weapon, there is no other possible option if they turn down a complete removal of all sanctions and a return to open and free trade.

Why do we get to dictate that to them, when they signed the Nuclear NPT and are a sovereign nation? Because we said so and we have the bigger stick. It really is that simple.

Side note: South Africa used to have a nuclear weapons program, they gave it up, no one has bothered them since. North Korea could get the same deal in 5 minutes, give up the nukes, stop threatening South Korea with invasion, and we wouldn't care less about them.

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax.

[cheekyjohnson]

They were an evil that would have kept spreading until they became unstoppable.

I think it was very likely that they would have attacked just about everyone at some point, if they were given the opportunity. I'd call that a war of defense. Actual defense.

Regarding Iran, I don't really care what they do, so long as they don't keep threatening Israel every 5 minutes.

I only care if they attack the US, or try to. Israel can try to defend themselves if they want.

It really is that simple.

Not for me; morals enter into it, and I don't think the government should try to police the world.

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax.

[VortexCortex]

Intellectual property is a useful social construct.

I am a scientist. There is no evidence to back this claim. Provide evidence of copyright and patent's usefulness, there is currently none. Consider the Automotive and Fashion industries which sell heavily on design, and yet are allowed no copyrights or design patents. I have just informed you of two very successful and innovative markets providing evidence that is in direct opposition to your claim. You are operating your mind based on untested and unproven assumptions -- I will deem this merely ignorant; However, I will call it malicious, dangerous and foolishly retarding to progress to allow significant parts of the world economy to operate on such weak and unproven and untested hypotheses. if you have no supporting evidence and only evidence that seems to refute your claim, then it is foolish to continue to put stock in such a belief until you've tested it. If I assume you are not a fool, then you must now agree you are wrong.

Additionally, new information is gained through work. You can market your ability to do work. You have an infinite monopoly over your ability to perform an action. Leverage your ability to do work, like any worker does, not the infinitely reproducible output of the labor. Infinite supply = zero price; Regardless of cost. Ergo, Economics would tend to agree with the premise that the artificial scarcity of copyright and patents is untenable.

Indeed the construct whereby infinitely reproducible information is conflated with finite resources is far more likely to be harmful. The existence of information and working to obtain more and better information are concepts which are beneficial. False premises and incorrect information is not useful -- I put it to you that Intellectual Property is thus not a useful social construct.

Abolish patents and copyrights. It is the only sane thing to do, and the only way to test if your weak hypothesis can hold true in the Information Age. What if Intellectual Property is a DAMAGING social construct? What if it's severely holding us back? It's an egregious folly to take such a risk needlessly.

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax.

[FlyHelicopters]

You are welcome to make a moral argument all you like. When you carry the biggest stick. Until then, no one has to listen.

All too often, people preach morals, but they fail to understand that in the history of the world, "might makes right" far more often than does a moral argument. I'm not suggesting that "might makes right" is *better* than a moral argument, I'm just saying that it means you neither have to listen, nor have to care, about the moral argument when your stick is the largest.

The United States exists today largely not because of the moral arguments made in the Declaration of Independence, but because France came to our aid (with money, weapons, and finally their fleet) and nearly went bankrupt helping us fight England.

The irony is that France thought she was using the US as a pawn to fight her enemy without getting her hands dirty, while at the same time we were using her.

Regarding Israel, keep in mind that she has nuclear weapons, you really don't want her solving this problem if at all possible. Israel is powerful, but her conventional forces are not great enough to fight Iran. The only option they really have is to use nuclear weapons.

That is not a box we want to allow anyone to open, if at all possible. (including ourselves, that box needs to stay closed)

Regarding Iran, we aren't even demanding anything crazy, we aren't asking for land, for them to change their government, for them to convert to another religion, for them to do anything... other than give up nuclear facilities. In return, we'll leave them the hell alone. We really aren't asking for much, all things considered. If we were evil, we could just invade, take the place over and make it the 51st state. If we were evil, we would have done that in Iraq, then made Iran the 52nd state.

We are not evil, we simply don't want people who are against our interests to have nuclear weapons.

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax.

[cheekyjohnson]

Until then, no one has to listen.

I didn't say they did.

The only option they really have is to use nuclear weapons.

Their problem, as far as I'm concerned.

We are not evil, we simply don't want people who are against our interests to have nuclear weapons.

And I've determined that it's not in my interests for my government to try to police the world. Unfortunately, the US government either doesn't care what the people think, many imbeciles support this garbage, or both. There is no "we" here.

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax.

[FlyHelicopters]

If you think Israel's use of nuclear weapons is "their problem", then you perhaps you don't understand the situation. That would be a huge change in the world and a disaster for the economy of the world (which is based on oil, like it or not), to say nothing of making it "ok" to use them in a limited theater engagement.

It would lead to an increased likelihood that someone would use them against us some day, for the same reason's that Israel would give.

I'm sorry you think I'm an imbecile. I'm not calling you names, you might consider that thought. You aren't a fool, I just think you're misinformed or perhaps have a view of things that doesn't take into account long term consequences.

The US Government has plenty of fools in it, but they also have plenty of smart people who actually do know what they are doing. We didn't get to where we are by having fools run our country. For that, go look at Venezuela who really does have a fool at the helm.

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax.

[cheekyjohnson]

If you think Israel's use of nuclear weapons is "their problem", then you perhaps you don't understand the situation.

No, I do. It's just that my desire to get rid of the US government's tendency to police the world is more powerful than my desire for safety. It's like how I would oppose the TSA even if it worked; safety (economical or otherwise) rarely comes into the picture for me.

We didn't get to where we are by having fools run our country.

They qualify as power-hungry, immoral fools to me. And it may be that our leaders were slightly less incompetent than the competition, not necessarily that they weren't incompetent at all.

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax.

[cheekyjohnson]

It would lead to an increased likelihood that someone would use them against us some day, for the same reason's that Israel would give.

"Someone may attack us at some unspecified point in the future if we don't police the world" isn't exactly convincing to me, especially if it cannot be proven that it will happen with a notoriously high likelihood.

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax.

[FlyHelicopters]

If you look at the history of the world, going back 2 thousand years...

Someone has policed the world...

At one point it was the British, then it was the Spanish, then before that it was the Romans, way, way long ago it was the Greeks, then the Egyptians...

If we don't police the world, then someone else will step into that role.

Then they'll start telling us what to do.

That is part of what I mean by "long term consequences". You can't just ignore the world and expect to be left alone, someone will step into the power vacuum.

So you say that without proof someone will attack us at some point, you want nothing to do with it. I say the history of the world is proof enough.

It is unlikely anyone could ever meet your standard of proof, you probably want to see their attack plans in writing. But human nature says they will, sooner or later, if we turn a blind eye.

Again, this doesn't mean we should get involved in every little squabble and every little war, that would be stupid.

It does mean that from time to time, we need to step in. Iraq was stupid, Iran is not. North Korea is debateable...

For the record, we need a long term plan to remove nuclear weapons from Pakastain, which probably means getting India to give them up. Everyone else can probably keep them, France and the UK are no threat, China is a concern, but they aren't crazy. Russia is an interesting long term situation, Putin is no peace and freedom lover, but he isn't nuts either. But Russia hasn't seen any real progress towards a long term government since the USSR fell. You had Boris Yelson, now you have Putin, and that's about it.

Too personality based, needs more foundation in the rule of law, but they can still get there.

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax.

[cheekyjohnson]

If you look at the history of the world, going back 2 thousand years...
Someone has policed the world...

That's nice.

Then they'll start telling us what to do.

And then it'll be our problem. Remember when I said that security rarely factors into the equation for me? Well, the fact that someone, at some point, might decide to try to police the world, doesn't mean I think we should police the world. Such arguments won't convince me.

I say the history of the world is proof enough.

"history" isn't good enough for me when you're trying to decide whether or not to attack a specific country.

It is unlikely anyone could ever meet your standard of proof

You already know of one instance where my standard of proof was met.

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax.

[FlyHelicopters]

That's nice.

In other words, I'm right and you just don't want to say so. :)

And then it'll be our problem.

And yet, it will then be too late to do anything about it. Be very careful what you wish you, you might just get it. Sticking your head in the sand is no solution, but it is effectively what you propose.

Such arguments won't convince me.

The problem is, no argument will convince you, your mind is made up and nothing is going to change it.

That's fine, but it doesn't make you right.

You already know of one instance where my standard of proof was met.

Most Americans, prior to Dec 7th, 1941, believed and spoke as you do, that Europe's problems weren't "our problems", let them sort it out...

It was only a matter of time before it spread. I personally don't like FDR as a President when it comes to domestic affairs, but he saw the threat coming from Germany.

However, he missed it completely when it came to Russia and Stalin. Winston Churchall tried in vain to explain the threat from the USSR to FDR but FDR was only interested in Germany.

Frankly, what probably should have happened was once Germany was beaten, rearming them and bringing them over to our side would have been a very smart move, push the Russians out of Europe where they really weren't welcome anyway.

It would have extended the war into 1946, but since we had the atomic bomb at the time, we could have gotten away with it then and saved ourselves 46 years of cold war.

Shortsightedness is a problem among humans, FDR had that problem, I believe you're suffering from it, but I doubt there is anything I can say to convince you otherwise.

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax.

[cheekyjohnson]

In other words, I'm right and you just don't want to say so. :)

Not quite.

Be very careful what you wish you, you might just get it.

Not being the world police? I can live with that.

The problem is, no argument will convince you, your mind is made up and nothing is going to change it.

Probably not, because it's a subjective issue to begin with, since it deals with what 'should' be done, and I'm ideologically opposed to this world police business.

Most Americans, prior to Dec 7th, 1941, believed and spoke as you do

And until they were given actual proof that an attack happened (which it did, obviously) or that they will be attacked (likely, given the actions of the enemy), I'd say they were right in thinking that.

I believe you're suffering from it

Being the world police has its own problems and can lead to demise.

It's not that I'm shortsighted. I don't know how many times I've said this, but I oppose this knowing all of the 'risks' you put forward. I simply care more about freedom and ideals than safety.

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax.

[FlyHelicopters]

I simply care more about freedom and ideals than safety.

That is your right...

The catch of course is that if someone decides to use nuclear weapons against us and we're unprepared and fail as a nation, then there won't be a whole lot of "freedom and ideals" left.

Freedom is good, but it requires that you remain free (and alive) to enjoy it. Rough men (and now women) stand ready to do violence on your behalf so that you may sleep well at night (and post on Slashdot!).

BTW, a different question for you... you say that you're ok with the US not being the world police. Who would you like to become the world police then?

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax.

[cheekyjohnson]

The catch of course is that if someone decides to use nuclear weapons against us and we're unprepared and fail as a nation

I don't suggest that we get rid of all of our defenses, or even our nukes, nor do I suggest that we shouldn't pay attention.

then there won't be a whole lot of "freedom and ideals" left.

But if those freedoms and ideals are discarded for safety, then the government (and perhaps the people) is cowardly and unprincipled. Dying for freedom is fine by me.

Freedom is good, but it requires that you remain free (and alive) to enjoy it.

"Give me liberty or give me death." Sounds like a good idea to me.

Rough men (and now women) stand ready to do violence on your behalf so that you may sleep well at night (and post on Slashdot!).

But whether they actually commit acts of violence on the government's (not necessarily on my behalf) behalf in order to defend the nation also depends on whether or not there's an enemy that actually could take us down.

Who would you like to become the world police then?

Since you asked about my preferences, no one.

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax.

[ultranova]

You forgot to include how terrorists will kill puppies and Cthulhu will rise from the depths if copyright is abolished. If you want to set up an argument from intimidation, at least don't be lazy about it.

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax.

[ooshna]

But if everyone did start wearing the non-conformist hat and you used to be the only kid on the block with one wouldn't that make you a trendsetter and thus the biggest conformist of them all?

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax.

[ooshna]

Ok go back to the 80's or 90's when they weren't needing to build/upgrade their fabs with every new chip design.

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax.

[Anonymous Coward]

It helps with minor things like... keeping a roof over your head and eating on a semi-regular basis.

We are, and have been for quite some time, well into the age where we can provide that to just any of current citizens of first world countries, where arguably most of the intangible goods are produced today. Very little people is employed on providing material life support for all of the rest - that's called "services based economy" but that's BS - people are doing nonessential chores for each other and maintaining social hierarchy, but all of them are just freeloaders not pulling their own weight, and I don't mean that in derogatory sense - it's good, if they did, it would be wasteful.

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax.

[robsku]

Sorry but 'Intellectual Property' is not a 'useful social construct' because it isn't property at all and conflates actual social constructs coded in law with real physical property. I can only assume you have bought in to the idea that copyright, patents, trademarks etc. are like 'real physical property' as opposed to use rights granted to the 'original producer' of the intellectual work in question. Copyright has nothing to do with patents, patents have nothing to do with trademarks, they can not all be labeled under the same rubric of 'intellectual property', none of them are 'property' in any way shape or form. And this is nothing at all like the difference between manslaughter & murder.

+1
The most sensible comment I've read here on concept of 'IP' so far.

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax.

[robsku]

+1 Insightful

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax.

[robsku]

-1 Ignorant
You do know that there are many people developing FOSS software and getting paid for that, and anyone claiming otherwise is lying.

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax.

[FlyHelicopters]

Yes, but if those people could just stay home and make more babies instead, you'd quickly end up with a population problem.

Yes, the world produces enough food and materials to feed everyone, but only if you can control the population.

Are you willing to accept government population controls and the requirement to obtain a licence to have a child, in return for free housing and food for everyone?

Supply isn't infinite, demand usually is.

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax.

[FlyHelicopters]

Someone, somewhere, is making money from it, or the "getting paid" part would stop.

The idea that information should be free is nice, but you'll end up with a very different world if you were to remove copyrights and patents.

You might like that world, or you might not. Hard to tell since you can only guess at what it would look like.

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax.

[david_thornley]

Music: most money is made off performances, at least for the musicians. CDs and MP3s would be worth making and distributing as advertising.

Fiction: There's a lot of not-fun work between what an author writes and what you want to read. The quality of new books drops seriously. Moreover, existing authors can't write full-time, need a day job, and get no financial incentive. I read existing books, and there's a whole lot of superb stuff already written, but I like some of the stuff contemporary authors are writing, and that would make a serious impact on it. Do you want to rely on the golden age of literature of the 1800s and 1900s indefinitely?

Non-fiction: The fun stuff will still be covered well, but not the dull stuff. Authors are likely to skimp on some of the annoying tasks like fact-checking. The older books are going to be, well, old. I've still got a few things on programming on 8-bit microprocessors, and they would not be good guides for programming my current computer.

Movies: no frippin' way. A halfway decent movie is expensive, and takes a lot of people in a variety of roles. You would be chopping off most of the cinematic arts. The same probably happens to TV shows. It used to be possible to make money off them by including commercials, but in a copyright-free world all episodes would be freely available the next day without commercials. I don't go to many movies, or watch much TV, but I'd miss the ones I like.

Visual arts: These frequently require moderately expensive equipment. A cousin of mine worked in a metal sculpture studio a while back, and it was a reasonably well-equipped machine shop. First-rate cameras are expensive. With no copyright, the quality of the tools is likely to go down, and with it the quality of the work.

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax.

[Anonymous Coward]

Copyright? Nuts, just nuts... move it back to 20 years...

I believe the original term was 14 years.

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax.

[Anonymous Coward]

If it wasn't for patents you couldn't copy them, because without patents they would keep every detail of their manufacturing process secret (instead of just every detail that can't be patented or protected by mask rights).

Also a large part of the cost of semiconductor fabs is IP, an equally large part is ridiculously precise optics and machinery which takes more ridiculously precise machinery to make (and so on).

Intel will gladly tell you trivial details of their process that competitors could figure out easily with TEM, like that they use ArF illumination, and trigate high-metal-K devices. They're not going to tell anyone the parameters of their epitaxy process, as this is shit you can't figure out by looking at, and shit that gives them a competitive advantage and shit that can't be patented.

So no, even if you had a get-out-of-patents free card, you couldn't just copy them. You could make crappy imitation copies that don't work as well, or you could spend the same billions on R&D to come up with similar optimised parameters.

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax.

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no proof of that that I know of. Can you do anything beyond speculate when considering what our society would look like without copyright? I seriously doubt it.

Look at how well Iran's industry does in spite of heavy sanctions. A large part of their success can be chalked up to ignoring western copyright and patent law. In Iranian prison, prisoners learn Autocad. You can bet they are not buying legitimate AutoCAD licenses (for $US50K each), so one can assume that all the design software used in Iranian industry is "pirated".

In spite of their low per-capita income (as measured in USD), they seem to do pretty well at mechanical and architectural design.

Well, thank goodness for WikiLeaks.

[jeffb (2.718)]

Without them, we might never have suspected that large moneyed interests influence international policy in their own favor.

Seriously, though, good on WikiLeaks. It can't hurt to rub people's noses in the facts -- can it?

Re:Well, thank goodness for WikiLeaks.

[FriendlyLurker]

Seriously, though, good on WikiLeaks. It can't hurt to rub people's noses in the facts -- can it?

It is a sad day that we must rely on an donation sponsored organization like Wikileaks to attempt to defend the rights and interests of consumers - our respective national institutions have obviously failed us. Wikileaks and brought some sunlight on the backroom dealing, bribing and power struggle negotiations over the TPP and defiantly hurts the corrupt politicians goverment functionaries and corporations behind it.

If this knowledge now translates into pushback and political action then maybe it will not have been in vain. Given mass media is not interested in informing the masses that their rights and interest are about to be stripped away by this deal then this it is a long shot. We the people get the governance we deserve in the end, I guess.

Re:Well, thank goodness for WikiLeaks.

[ciaran_o_riordan]

This is true.

Wikileaks is necessary because our own governments won't tell us what they're doing.

Re:Well, thank goodness for WikiLeaks.

[Anonymous Coward]

"It is a sad day that we must rely on an donation sponsored organization like Wikileaks to attempt to defend the rights and interests of consumers"

Your under the false ideology that capitalism works for the people. Capitalism works for the capitalists. The whole ideology of business, competition, free enterprise, is just bullshit to cover up how the rich use government to screw the poor. We didn't have two world wars and the cold war for nothing. It's amazing how ignorant the average modern person is about the kind of system in which they exist and has been historically against the common man.

Re:Well, thank goodness for WikiLeaks.

[s.petry]

Stop spewing your anti-Capitalism garbage. Seeing the same anonymous cowards spew the same false message over and over gets tiring. Go read what Adam Smith wrote! Capitalism requires regulation. Lack of regulation is what he attributes to be the failures of the mercantile economic system. It allowed for monopolization, false scarcities, price fixing and gouging. The same shit we have today under Capitalism, but not because of Capitalism. It's due to corruption, lack of regulation, allowed monopolization, allowed false scarcities, etc...

After you read Adam Smith, go read what other Economists said as the Government kept deregulating and passing anti Capitalist laws like "The Business Process Patent reform.

THATS WHY

[Anonymous Coward]

For those that wonder why we should support Wikileaks. THAT's why. Government goons try to do things in secret, and not in our best interest. Wikileaks makes the difference.

Re:THATS WHY

[Anonymous Coward]

It is a small groups selfish egotistical corrupt self interest to push this through out of the public limelight. Guess what - at the end of the day all of us in the affected countries voted for this...

This just in: Fails all around.

[girlintraining]

Here's a brain teaser:

Much of the justification lately for not decriminalizing drugs (such as marijuana, ecstacy, etc.) -- ignoring the fact that the scientific consensus now is that both are less harmful than alcohol, or cigarettes, both of which are legal, is that it would fund terrorism. In other words, their argument is that because a small amount of it is bad, we should keep the whole thing illegal.

Yet, here we have IP law -- of which much of it is bad, and yet they tell us we should keep the whole thing legal... or [insert boogieman story here]. I'm not buying. I'll buy drugs, but I won't buy video games or software. What does that say about me? Maybe that I'm just young and stupid... or maybe I'm just seeing things more clearly. Maybe I just don't think the government has any credibility left to it, and so whatever the government says is right... it's a safe bet marching in the opposite direction will be better for you.

Re:This just in: Fails all around.

[Joce640k]

I'll buy drugs, but I won't buy video games or software. What does that say about me?

You haven't figured out how to get free drugs using the Internet?

Re:This just in: Fails all around.

[DickBreath]

> You haven't figured out how to get free drugs using the Internet?

Not by using bit torrent I haven't. Yet. But once I do, the next challenge will be how to get them from my Downloads folder and into my hand.

Re:This just in: Fails all around.

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe that I'm just young and stupid... or maybe I'm just seeing things more clearly.

I think I will go with the former... I have seen the other end of the burnouts who use drugs. Its not pretty. Ive known about 10 different people who died from their lifestyle. In addition to the many others who just will not go anywhere. Ever meet a 40 year old drug addict? Its pathetic. You seriously feel sorry for them. But they made their choices. I have known people who are stuck (and would by some accounts be successful) but then turn to drugs as a way to ignore the issues at hand.

My wife who used to abuse everything known to man has this to say after she quit 'I wake up and do not feel like crap anymore. I miss it but will *never* go back I enjoy feeling good about everything now'. You end up in a cycle of more and more, where it is never enough.

In life there there are choices. Some are good some are bad. Some seem like a good idea at the time. When in hindsight they are stupid as hell. You do not set out to be a burnout. You get there 1 pill/joint/rail at a time.

-- "this is your life and it is is ending one minute at a time"

What are you going to do about it?

Re:This just in: Fails all around.

[Anonymous Coward]

Much of the justification lately for not decriminalizing drugs [...] is that it would fund terrorism.

Of course if the stuff were legalized, it could be taxed -- thus de-funding terrorism and funding government. Colorado voters just massively approved new taxes on marijuana sales, which are now (at that state level) legal.

Now, there's an argument to be made in favor of intellectual "property" rights, but that ain't it.

Re:This just in: Fails all around.

[compro01]

. I'll buy drugs, but I won't buy video games or software. What does that say about me?

That you only buy tangible property and that we haven't invented mindcandy yet?

Re:This just in: Fails all around.

[girlintraining]

That you only buy tangible property and that we haven't invented mindcandy yet?

Basically, yeah. I'll pay for a good, or a service. For example, I'm okay paying for netflix. Videos are a service. Putting a lot of them together on a website is a convenience. I like convenience. That's a tangible thing -- even though it's just electrical impulses, someone sat down and made it for me, and at a reasonable price. Cheaper than what it replaced: Video stores.

But software? No. Not because it isn't also a good, or because it's not valuable -- but because it's grossly overvalued. And yet, participating in our society, which pretty much demands internet access, demands we all pay through the nose for this. I will not. Same with a video game; Most are not worth $40 or more and then fuck you on DLC or monthly subscriptions on top of that. Netflix gives me nearly unlimited entertainment for $10 a month... while a game might provide, at most, 50-100 hours of entertainment, and yet costs four times more. The reason for the cost difference is intellectual property.

Netflix would have been sunk too if the MPAA had its way -- and they're still trying with the ISPs. But it got too big, too fast, and they had only a narrow window to try and kill it. They missed it. So now we have cheap access to videos. It was an accident... but one I'm happy to pay for.

Re:This just in: Fails all around.

[Anonymous Coward]

I won't buy video games or software. What does that say about me?

Hopefully it says you only use free software? Or am I being naive?

The government says vaccinate your children. Are you going to refuse to do that merely because the government says you should? I'd say follow your theory to the logical conclusion but ... does it have a logical basis in the first place? Or does it merely provide a false sense of empowerment that politics has so far denied you? Realize that if you always do the opposite of what someone says, you're still giving them the power to decide your actions for you ...

Re:This just in: Fails all around.

[Hatta]

Much of the justification lately for not decriminalizing drugs

They don't bother to justify drug policy these days. They just refuse to talk about it. Petition Obama to ask why Cannabis can't be treated like alcohol, and you get a response that says "drugs are bad, mmmkay" and doesn't mention alcohol at all. They know they can't win, so they simply stonewall.

Re:This just in: Fails all around.

[swb]

I think you've just described the argument for *legalizing* drugs -- by legalizing their production, you're not buying a substance grown or produced in a conflict area where the local insurgent militia takes a cut and provides protection.

Instead, it's grown/produced as part of the above-ground economy at non-risk inflated prices, eliminating the flow of cash to militias and terrorist groups.

CF, the end of alcohol prohibition.

Re:This just in: Fails all around.

[Mathinker]

Er, even though your post is interesting and insightful, as a reply to someone saying "I buy drugs" it's either a strawman or a false dichotomy...

Re:This just in: Fails all around.

[LocalH]

IDoser doesn't count.

Re:This just in: Fails all around.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll buy drugs, but I won't buy video games or software. What does that say about me?

Posting online claims of buying drugs with your regular pseudonym in these days of mass surveillance...

Maybe that I'm just young and stupid...

I wouldn't rule it out.
</understatement>

Re:This just in: Fails all around.

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, most games are like that. Most of the ones I have bought in the past 20 years have had replay value far greater than just "50-100hrs". Some examples: Elder Scrolls 3-5 (I don't have Skyrim yet), many of Valve's titles, Doom 1-3, Quake 1-3, Temple of Elemental Evil, D&D 3.5, Pathfinder...

Notice a common theme among all those games? The ability for them to be modded. Thanks to mods, I've played Morrowind for probably 15, 20K hours.

Re:This just in: Fails all around.

[SleazyRidr]

You might be able to construe it as a strawman, but there aren't really a lot of things to do with drugs after you're bought them... I can't see how the false dichotomy comes in...

Re:This just in: Fails all around.

[Anonymous Coward]

Much of the justification lately for not decriminalizing drugs ... is that it would fund terrorism.

Thats actually one of the larger Pro points for drug legalization. Eliminating the black market drug trade would eliminate a large revenue stream for terrorists and drug cartels, dealing them a massive blow.

Re:This just in: Fails all around.

[Mathinker]

Last time I checked: taking drugs != being addicted to drugs, especially since our everything-is-a-crime-happy society has made drugs a lot less addictive than nicotine illegal... As for a false dichotomy, the way I read it, the post implies that there are only two alternatives: not taking drugs, or having them totally mess up your life.

Re:This just in: Fails all around.

[SleazyRidr]

A lot of people try it a few times and then move on. A lot of people get addicted and spiral out of control. Do you feel lucky?

Re:This just in: Fails all around.

[ReAn1985]

15K-20K Hours of playing Morrowind? You've dedicated 1.71-2.28 WAKING YEARS to playing morrowind? Not Impossible but I'm calling bullshit....

Re:This just in: Fails all around.

[Mathinker]

So you are also implying that there do not exist any people who use drugs over the course of their whole lifetime without getting addicted? I rather doubt that, especially considering that alcohol is a (legal) drug.

As for lucky or not lucky, it has no relevance to the topic, which is whether my comment on that post made sense. I stated no claim that taking drugs is totally safe.

The real news is these "agreements" are secret

[Anonymous Coward]

WHY are these agreements secret in the first place??

I don't think it's a huge surprise to anyone that the actual content of the treaty is anti-american and anti-consumer and just
has the interests in mind of __scum__ .. but why keep it secret, (scum)? It's not like drugged out TV watching fast food gobbling Americans
are going to read it, so why all this fuss over keeping it secret when you could send copies of it to every mailbox in America
and that wouldn't change a thing?

Re:The real news is these "agreements" are secret

[lister king of smeg]

WHY are these agreements secret in the first place??

I don't think it's a huge surprise to anyone that the actual content of the treaty is anti-american and anti-consumer and just
has the interests in mind of __scum__ .. but why keep it secret, (scum)? It's not like drugged out TV watching fast food gobbling Americans
are going to read it, so why all this fuss over keeping it secret when you could send copies of it to every mailbox in America
and that wouldn't change a thing?

Because while most of the country may be drugged out coach potatoes, there are those that would make issues and cause them problems, such as the EFF.

Re:The real news is these "agreements" are secret

[DickBreath]

You beat me to posting the question. So I'll post the answer, which is right in the summary:

"An expert in intellectual property law, Matthew Rimmer, said the draft was 'very prescriptive' and strongly reflected U.S. trade objectives and multinational corporate interests 'with little focus on the rights and interests of consumers, let alone broader community interests.'"

No surprise there. No wonder why it must be done in secret.

Protip: if you must conduct international negotiations in secret, then you're probably not representing the people of the nation you are negotiating on behalf of.

Re:The real news is these "agreements" are secret

[bob_super]

But we are going to have public mutual no-spying agreements.
because the system knows what matters and what doesn't.

what about patent abuse / junk patents

[Joe_Dragon]

we need to make so people can just get BS patents and troll useing them.

Re:what about patent abuse / junk patents

[DickBreath]

> we need to make so people can just get BS patents and troll useing them.

Newsflash: it's already that way right now.

I'm filing for a patent on a method and system for making binary decisions based on the launching of a flat round decision support device into the air and making a determination of the outcome based on which side the decision support device lands on. I will also sell these decision support devices. A basic model for $10 is made of copper and is decorated with a picture of Lincoln on one side. A more expensive $25 model has a picture of George Washington and is constructed using superior metals. This is a valuable patent from which I anticipate making a mint (no pun intended). This is NOT a lame software patent. This is a patent on genuine hardware contributing a genuine advance in the important field of executive management decision making which has major applications in the areas of business, commerce and sporting events.

I wonder...

[mitzampt]

I actually wonder why it was secret to begin with. And I wonder why is there a need to start these treaties like that. It's has become a democratic tradition to empower the citizens you represent with the ability to deal with the results of your negotiations, as public opinion wouldn't react correctly to a well intended and morally sound proposal.

Re:I wonder...

[Antipater]

Devil's advocate: the reason the negotiations are kept secret is because that a lot of things get put on the table that won't appear in the final draft. The US, say, might put forward a proposal that throws its dairy industry under the bus in exchange for all of New Zealand's gold mines or something. In a public negotiation the dairy industry would read about this proposal and raise an uproar. Then the proposals change, as proposals are wont to do, and the dairy farmer part is cut out. But the average dairy farmer still thinks he's getting screwed.

(still devil's advocate) So they keep the negotiations secret, because they don't want people getting in a fuss over things that won't be in the final draft, but are just part of the wheeling and dealing. The final result, of course, will not be secret, and will be revealed to the public before the Senate votes to approve the treaty or not. Any objections can be voiced at that time.

Re:I wonder...

[Somebody Is Using My]

They keep these treaties secret as long as they can because they know that the people they represent would otherwise not countenance the agreements. They know this because every time they have tried to push forward these sorts of acts and people HAVE gotten wind of it, their constituents have raised a fuss and forced their representatives to back down. So now the politicians try to keep these laws hidden as long as they can, in order to provide the shortest opportunity during which people can voice their dissent.

There is no other reason for economic treaties and agreements to be kept secret. It is a purposeful attempt to circumvent the power of the people.

Anyone know the names of the people involved in writing this treaty (the negotiators and politicians)? These need to be publicly posted so people know who is responsible. It is as important - if not more so - than knowing the names of the senators and representatives who will vote in favor of it when it finally comes to Congress.

Re:I wonder...

[RocketChild]

Really, it is business as usual. Shoot for the moon and see what sticks and you can get away with. Then work on another amendment later to add in more of what you didn't get the first go around.

Re:I wonder...

[Anonymous Coward]

Because if they're not doing anything wrong, they've got nothing to hide, right?

Re:I wonder...

[Anonymous Coward]

Devil's advocate: the reason the negotiations are kept secret is because that a lot of things get put on the table that won't appear in the final draft. The US, say, might put forward a proposal that throws its dairy industry under the bus in exchange for all of New Zealand's gold mines or something. In a public negotiation the dairy industry would read about this proposal and raise an uproar.

And that's desirable. If the US government is working for the US country, then it should want that result to occur.

Then the proposals change, as proposals are wont to do, and the dairy farmer part is cut out. But the average dairy farmer still thinks he's getting screwed.

And that's desirable too, since it's a correct that he's getting screwed (even though that part is now out). He (and everyone else) has learned that the dairy industry is getting screwed, because "throwing them under the bus" had been an option at one point.

So they keep the negotiations secret, because they don't want people getting in a fuss over things that won't be in the final draft..

..but people getting in a fuss is good, in a democracy. There's no downside to it, and shitloads of upside.

Re:I wonder...

[FriendlyLurker]

You would have a point if the time from "Final Draft" to final law included time for consumers and community groups to review and contribute to the draft before it is passed into law. As we have seen from past abusive treaties like ACTA THIS DOES NOT HAPPEN in most of the countries that finally signed it. No it is all kept secret and undemocratic so as to keep consumers and community groups off the negotiating table and leave them no time to react once the final draft is released and it is quickly passed into law.

Also now that we know that "the wheeling and dealing" involves spying on the negotiators or anyone else in key positions that stands in the way of the worst case clauses of the agreement - basically blackmailing them into agreement wherever possible. This is another important reason why no self respecting democracy (are there any left) should allow such negotiations to be held for so long in secret, nor run by a small select few of power brokers operating in the dark.

Re:I wonder...

[ImOuttaHere]

Negotiations of any kind are seldom held in a public forum.

What people should be outraged over is the US Government negotiating on behalf of trans-national corporate interests, none of whom have any vested concern in supporting the goals or purposes of nation-states, including the government that is negotiating on their behalf. Which leads to the only and obvious conclusion that not only is the US Government not willing to act in the public interest, it's only concern is in furthering trans-national corporate greed. Period.

I actually wonder why it was secret to begin with. And I wonder why is there a need to start these treaties like that...

Re:I wonder...

[BringsApples]

I actually wonder why it was secret to begin with

Governmental secrecy only proves that they know the power that The People wield.

Re:I wonder...

[PRMan]

The whole point is to slow the government down until they come up with solutions that benefit everyone, not only the rich.

Re:I wonder...

[Anonymous Coward]

The United States is not and never was a democracy. The senators and congressmen are meant to be better than you. That's why you vote for a representative and why you don't vote on "HR-1234." Because you're a stupid sheeple who's great at picking representatives and bad at governing.

Power is the missing discussion in economics

[Exoman]

Capitalism is a great system for allocating capital, when well regulated. Otherwise, it becomes a winner-take-all game, as economic power, begets more economic and political power, in a reinforcing feedback loop.

Markets are a great economic system, but a really crappy religion. Will it be power of economic and political winners that takes us down, or will it be computers and robots who forget the three laws?

If we're going to continue on with some semblance of democratic citizen rule we need to understand and embrace the discussion about power .

Re:Power is the missing discussion in economics

[hendrikboom]

Which is exactly why the economist John Kenneth Galbraith wrote the book The Anatomy Of Power

-- hendrik

do something about abandonware / stuff not sold

[Joe_Dragon]

do something about abandonware / stuff not sold any more.

Lot's of people with old versions, beta versions, rare games, tv shows and movies have saved them for all. But other people with them have used the they are under the 75+ year copyrights even when they are no longer made and are sitting on old platforms that can fail and take the last few copy's with them.

Hitler did it the wrong way.

[Anonymous Coward]

He used armies to conquer. What he should have done is negotiate secret treaties with countries to get them to slowly give up their sovereign rights voluntarily. For example, in exchange for continued access to German beer and sausage, each country would have to agree to kill their own jews.

The Germans have learned to do it the right way this time along with their take over of the economies of Greece and Cyprus, and the WTO has successfully convinced many small countries to give up their water supply to multinational corporations and put their own farmers out of business in favor of grain imports.

Fascism is best done at the point of a pen, not a gun.

Re:Hitler did it the wrong way.

[Nidi62]

He used armies to conquer. What he should have done is negotiate secret treaties with countries to get them to slowly give up their sovereign rights voluntarily.

Look up Anschluss. Pretty much forced the Austrian government to fold without ever firing a shot.

The collusion is second only to the confusion.

[deathcloset]

Reading this document is like reading the mind of the collective consciousness of the economy. This is perhaps the closest thing to a genuine "conspiracy" we are going to see and it's riddled with disagreement and apparent contradictions (or at best logical knots). For example, FTA:

goods or services may not be considered as being similar to each other on the ground that, in any registration or publication, they are classfied in the same class of the Nice Classification. Conversely, each Party shall provide that goods or services may not be considered as being dissimilar from each other on the ground that, in any registration or publication, they are classified in different classes of the Nice Classification.

So if they are of the same class that doesn't mean they are the same and also if they are of a different class that doesn't mean they are different. OK then...
Now I must admit that I haven't read T whole FA yet and if you have then you are amazing, so the confusion is probably mine, but the fact that there is no consensus on, I think, any of the sections says something in and of itself.

Re:The collusion is second only to the confusion.

[Anonymous Coward]

Legalese for "You may eat your cake and have it too."

Re:The collusion is second only to the confusion.

[nytes]

I would say that a paraphrasing of that bit of legalese would be "The Nice Classification of goods shall not be used to determine the similarity, or lack thereof, of the goods in question."

Re:Back to basics

[Anonymous Coward]

I fail to see how Wikileaks was a vehicle for mere self-centred traitors.

Unless you think Slashdot is a vehicle for mere self-centred traitors by the fact that you personally were allowed to post a comment.

Well ask the hypocrits

[SmallFurryCreature]

Ask the artists who openly break drug laws because they claim unpopular laws not supported by the majority of people (so they claim) are immoral.

Ask the artists who support copyright laws because they claim laws that hurt a small minority but have no popular support are moral and those who break said laws are immoral.

The reality of course is that pretty everyone is FOR laws that benefit themselves and against laws that don't.

Companies want to produce in cheap labor markets but preclude consumers from consuming from cheap labor markets (see import restrictions), you CD is made in Vietnam but you can't buy it from Vietnam.

Workers want companies to keep factories local so they can get a salary which they then wish to spend on cheap goods made abroad.

We are all selfish pieces of shit out to screw everyone and ending up screwing ourselves.

Re:Well ask the hypocrits

[Anonymous Coward]

Good summary of being a human. If I had mod points I would give you +1, Insightful.

Medical Clause

[schneidafunk]

At least they make a special exception for medicine:

"The obligations of this Chapter do not and should not prevent a Party from taking measures to protect public health by promoting access to medicines for all..."

Purpose of government

[Anonymous Coward]

The only possible reason for a government to exist is that is works for the common good. Secret laws and secret negotiations for laws indicates that those laws are not working for the common good. Secrecy protects political corruption (graft). All laws should be developed using a public version tracking system, similar to git, with every revision tagged with the author and the entire history including discussions available to the public.

The conflations inherent in intellectual property

[tepples]

I wrote an article about the exact conflations implied by "intellectual property", if that clarifies anything.

Here's a thought

[Anonymous Coward]

If politicians lost their right to a pension if they didn't keep getting elected up to age 65, then maybe they would represent the people.

that's when I long for Groklaw's PJ

[JigJag]

she would have parsed, pieced, and posted all that we, techies, needed to know about such a document

Someone remind me...

[Roger Wilcox]

Why the fuck is it that we the people allow our government to participate in this kind of secret talk at all? We might as well be bending over and asking for it!

Re:Someone remind me...

[Anonymous Coward]

Because everyone's too interested in how raunchy a grown adult woman who happened to be a popular teen idol dances on the MTV awards rather than important shit like preventing stupid fuck shit like this. tldr: Because the populace as a whole is hopelessly pacified, and rather ingeniously at that.

Ditch the smarm

[Rujiel]

Wikileaks doesn't simply tell us that entities are corrupt and expect us to believe it at face value. There are always specific examples.

Mr. Kafka to the White Courtesy Phone

[ThatsNotPudding]

At the current rate of insanity, it would not surprise me if individuals with photographic memories will soon be rounded up and imprisoned for IP theft.

KHAAAN

[tepples]

people with the knowledge to create new intellectual property are scarce because of artificially imposed scarcity of knowledge, created by intellectual property laws?

Free (or otherwise without charge) educational resources like Codecademy, Khan Academy, Wikibooks, Shmoop, and TV Tropes have been helping to solve the problem of scarcity of underlying knowledge on which to build new knowledge. So has the growing "open access" movement away from Elsevier and Wiley's paywalled scholarly journals, which includes storing preprints in arXiv or Academia.edu. But you're right about the artificial scarcity imposed on, say, contemporary fictional universes.

No surprises

[idontgno]

Pigopolists feel that the consumer's only rights are to give them money, consume the shite (once only, you unindicted pirate), and go the fuck away.

Perfectly rational in an utterly amoral "maximize profits by any method we can get away with" sense.

Show your love for Wikileaks

[Anonymous Coward]

Buy a nice cyan-colored hoodie or a stylish aluminum water bottle, and support the good guys!

Re:Back to basics

[Anonymous Coward]

Wikileaks redeems itself with this. No longer a vehicle for mere self-centred traitors, but once again a way for the rest of us to see what we need to know (and, maybe, to resist).

The Wikileaks folks may be self-centered, but never traitors. You're just saying that because you prefer to only have certain secrets revealed. You can't have it both ways, friend. Either these guys are going to release all the secrets they can, or they're not going to release anything at all. Calling them traitors because they released secrets which you'd prefer to stay secret doesn't make them traitors, it makes you biased. Deal with it.

idiotic anynomous coward

[bussdriver]

You can't be a traitor if it is not your country.
Wikileaks wasn't American. Manning who did the big document dump was arguably a traitor (but only arguably, the motive of treason is clearly missing.)

Even in the case of treason, people die for nothing all the time; like for every war since since WW2. Self sacrifice for a noble cause is a trait we want in our military; as well as being mindless psychopathic drones. Great effort is put into fostering both, but you can't have everything you want; at least not until robots take over, they are well suited to our needs.

Business as usual

[fyngyrz]

...with little focus on the rights and interests of consumers, let alone broader community interests.'"

No! Really?

You idiots keep electing rich fucks, and then everyone acts amazed when they continue to create and enhance systems designed to benefit rich fucks and leave the rest of your mucking about in the gutters. Since you've proved you're just exactly that stupid, I guess it'll never change.

Cheers. :)

A Christmas wish-list for major corporations ..

[codeusirae]

"One could see the TPP as a Christmas wish-list for major corporations, and the copyright parts of the text support such a view," Dr Rimmer said."

"Hollywood, the music industry, big IT companies such as Microsoft and the pharmaceutical sector would all be very happy with this."

'Proposals with the potential to impact significantly on Australiaâ(TM)s Pharmaceuticals Benefits Scheme include a requirement that patents be available for new uses of existing drugs, effectively allowing for the "ever-greening" of existing patents.'

'WikiLeaks has condemned the TPP negotiations as a "corporatist trade deal".'

Syndney??

[z0idberg]

where is that exactly?

In Bhutan the pigs really do fly

[TapeCutter]

Many years ago I saw the then foreign minister for Bhutan being interviewed on TV, a calm, quietly spoken guy dressed in monk robes. The interviewer ask him about the wild marijuana that grows everywhere in his country. He replied, "We feed it to pigs, in Bhutan the pigs really do fly".

Typos, people!

[Anonymous Coward]

SYDNEY.
S-Y-D-N-E-Y.

Spelling it as Syndney is as much a slap in the fact as spelling Washingtun or Noo Yawk. Eds and contributors - please get it right!

Copyright and patent value delusion in the treaty.

[beachdog]

One reason the treaty has been kept secret is the copyright and patent privileges do not have socially redeeming intrinsic value matching the legal measures proposed.

My point of view as a citizen bystander is it appears that copyright and patent privileges are becoming too inflated in their value. The organizations that hold or depend on copyright and patent privileges are aggressively and systematically are trying to use law and trade treaties to close all the ways in which others might evade paying for the use of their privileges.

The point I wish to propose to Slashdot readers is: The intrinisic worth or value of the fact or accomplishment underlying a copyright or patent privilege is a modest dollar amount. What is happening in our society is the percieved value has undergone an enormous inflation. The companies are effectively policy prisoners.

In previous centuries, novel and plausible arguments about the intrinsic worth of things has set off revolutions. Adam Smith instantiated time, money and energy beginning with his Theory of Sentiments. Karl Marx redefined another similar set of relationships and launched a political restructuring.

Consider the level of corporate belief in the value of their copyright and patent privileges. Some corporation decided to invest in tipping the trade treaty towards their business benefit. Lets estimate, each well qualified lawyer dispatched to edit and ammend the international trade treaty costs $2m dollars per year. Suppose one company sent one lawyer and they budget 3 years of lawyering and 1 year of waiting. For their 6 to 10 million dollar expenditure, how much gross sales do they require to recover their expenditure?

On the other side, suppose we look at taming the financial stupidity of "charge all the market will bear" patent and copyright licensing. What model to use? Well the Uniform Commercial Code is a body of business law that is a model of fairness. I would start with that.

To estimate the "intrinsic value" of a patent, we could first figure the labor and material cost for the first embodiment. How about one engineer year plus some electronic equipment; $250k. For the next 12 patents, lets cost those at $250k for all 12. Suppose we say a fair profit is 100%. That makes $1m/13 = $77k each for a bundle of 13 patents. Suppose we license the entire industry of 10 companies, each company paying $7,700 each for a lifetime of the patents license.

TPP Summary: What we know so far

[Anonymous Coward]

Wikileaks has leaked the secret text TPP (Trans Pacific Partnership). It reveals the TPP creates patents on surgery, limits access to medine, makes patents broader and tougher, extends copyright even longer, restricts fair use, makes damages even larger makes circumventing DRM illegal (but with exemptions for government spying) and creates a parallel judicial system for prosecuting IP infringement.

The new NAFTA cometh!

[Anonymous Coward]

If the people of the world (mostly Americans) do not band together to stop the TPP ... I will have lost all faith in humanity.

The reign of falsified terror started with the lying Bush 2.0 and continually got worse with the even more deceptive Obama Hussein. After the attack & subsequent 'oil wars' I thought it was over for us. We the Sheeple was in full effect. However, I can admit to being wrong. Things have definitely gotten much worse. The false promises, which were always present in US politicos, have increase to an exponential that most of us could not have predicted. Using our own hope against us as a tool of divisive control (an oxymoron to be sure - the psychology of society sure is complex!).

I surely do not know the solution. I'll leave such pursuits to better men & women. However, the TPP will assuredly compound the problem, namely by: literally eliminating national sovereignty, purposely harming the environment, forcing dangerous foods & products into the mainstream (i.e. harming your health), shipping loads of jobs to cheap overseas locales thus creating more opportunity for human rights violations in the process and further unbalancing the scales of fairness in international business.

Is that not enough? No. It is not, in fact, because those are only a few of the many horrible things the TPP will do. The TPP is designed to do these things. They are not an unintended consequences, legal loopholes or unforeseen side-effects but results by design.

If you are American - or anyone living in a Pacific rim country - make no mistake. Your democracy, your freedom - your basic human rights - are in danger. Direct threats to your well being are being processed in secret by multinational corporations who have fully hijacked your and my governments.

This is real. It is not paranoia - and you will be sorry if we all do nothing.

That is all.

Revenue problems?

[hicksw]

Does your state have a revenue problem?

Try intellectual property taxes for quick relief!
--
In order to protect freedom it became necessary to destroy it.