Patents aren't stupid -- the patent office is. It seems to me that they're taking the approach that if the applicant can hold a reasonable argument for a process they don't understand, they issue the patent under the assumption that the courts will sort out the garbage fromt the useful patents.
Well, I renember how in the 80's people would admit that the USSR (the former Soviet Union) had a horrible and inefficient bureauocracy. So it often completely amazed me how many of the same people would deny with insanity that such a system was inherently unjust. For whatever reason, they just couldn't grasp that unjust systems by their very nature lead to screwed up and unaccountable bureauocracies.
Well the same is true of the patent system. The system is an inefficient and horiffic mess specifically because they DO assert the "right" to restrict what inventions other people use. It will always create problems, always create uncertanties, always create powerfull interests that protect and secure a failing system, and always create accountabilities that encourage expansion at the expense of other freedoms.
While there are a lot of such failing systems (insert looser government program here) the patent system is especially evil. Old people die because of the way patents influence the direction of research and cost of medicines. Children in Africa needlessly died of AIDS because of the way patents had locked out generics. And when the African nations got fed up and decided to manufacture generics anyhow, the pharmacutical industries sued.
Patents ARE evil. They are not a free market property right any more than slaves on the plantation were. They are a form of controll and opression. They are a quiet violence that simply must be removed at any cost.
Very perceptive, you are right about me being libertarian.
I agree with you in that in a normal world that forcing people to reveal source (even if it was modifications to code they didn't originally make) would be limiting. Of course, in a normal copyright free world, a service based paradigm would emerge and natural interpersonal and market forces would likely compell people to share source or become irrelavent or outcast.
Since we don't live in that normal copyright free world, I suspect the GPL's probably the best we can do immitate it.
The licenses for most software are designed to take away your
freedom to share and change it. By contrast, the GNU General Public
License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free
software--to make sure the software is free for all its users.....
Now why does it say most licences are designed to take away your freedom? If copyrights are truely free market, that shouldn't be the case!
....When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not
price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you
have the freedom to distribute copies of free software...
Now why does it say it's referring to freedom and not price. What freedoms were the other licenses taking away? If they are true to free market principals, that shouldn't be the case either.
... To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid
anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights.
These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you
distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it....
To me that implies that copyrights can deny rights? Doesn't it to you?
Look, I've even discussed copyrights with RMS personally. Maybe I misunderstood him?, but I doubt it.
# According to my Oxford Desk Dictionary communism n. 1 political theory advocating public ownership of property.
You're right about commnisim being a loaded word. I prefer to call it Marxisim which I take to mean a system of government that can decide your carrer, where you live, what property you hold, what you can do with the capital and resources you have, and even what religion is best for you.
Clearly, open source software is not that way at all. I resent the implication.
At the same time, people say that Open Source, specifically the GPL is not true to free market principals. I disagree, I think copyrights are not true to free market principals and the GPL is a way to fight that. Clearly if the the government so tightly regluated the supply and demand of commodoties in any other sector - people would rightly say they are intefering with the market place. But, thats exactly what they do in reguards to copyrighted information. Information has few natural limits in supply now, but services dont - getting rid of copyrights would shift things back more to the service side.
If we said that the first farmer who grows oranges has a right to lock out everybody else who does, and sell shares of those rights. People would see it as the controll it is. Does the farmer have no incentive to plant those first oranges if someone else can too?
Since you can't spell "communist", it's not surprising that you don't know what it means, either.
Fine, so I rushed it and accidently hit the submit button rather than the preview button. Sue me. Sheesh, I guess it's easier to rant about spelling than the facts.
I cant tel you how many times I've herd this. That's crap. It's more like copyrights are an overbearing government regulation that locks out the little guy than a true free market property right. When you them for what it is, then the facts of why Linux is going to take over the marketplace becomes obvious.
Actually there is a story behind this. It was at a time when i was doing alot of thinking about copyrights, but every time i thought about the problems with copyrights - some of the logic - it sounded like somthing i had herd before. I finally came up with an essay comparing it with slavery and sent it to RMS. Believe it or not, he replied, and said somthing like I should be carefull because the suffering caused by slavery was far more atricious than what is suffered by copytights. Like more often than not, he was right.
So anyhow I was chewing on that for awhile, and long behold a week later I stumbled upon an article in the berkley daily planet writen by a pharmacutical exec trying to justify some AIDS patent lawsiuts against africans. The arguments that they had no incentive without patents, and that they were generous to Africans sure sounded like there was no incentive to grow cotton, and we are kind to our slaves on the plantation. From my history lessons.
The meaning of the 1850s today, the quiet violence, the nature of rights, the historical perspective, all those have stories too - but i just dont have time to elaborate here.
Well, IMHO, in an idea situation authority would derive from an institutions, systems, or individuals ability to protect and secure liberties.
Now, it seems like there might be a new paradigm, authority derives from the technology - or the ability to implement it and use it effectively.
It seems as history goes on, individuals are comming to have less authority over one another, but more over themselves. Hopefully IMHO, this trend continues.
You know what, in this essay my real focus was on patents and not copyrights. But I'm strongly against copyrights too, and couldn't help mixing it in there alittle. ( type in bitter protest against copyrights into a search engine for one more focused on that ) Perhaps I shoud reweite, for copyrights the analogy is overkill I must admit, but not for patents. Children in Africa dying of AIDS while US pharmacuticals sue them to block generics, old people suffering and dying because of the effects of patents on medical research and cost and use. I don't regret it a bit.
Authority is not an end in itself, BTW, but individual liberty and truth are. That's why I love free markets but hate most 'intellectual property' controlls.
Copyrights are not about intangable works any more then slavery was about cotton. They are both about controlling people's behavior in a way that was economically benecifial to the people doing the controlling. That's why the anaology worked so well even though the nature of the property was so different.
I was trying to find holes in the IP/HP (human property) argument, but I failed...
The reasoning behind that is very simple. It's because it has nothing to do with property - it is about controll and violence. Perhaps they use different terminology, perhaps different labels, perhaps different details and techniques, but the logic and rational is the same as has been pushed for 1000's of years by tyrants, dictators, and the greedy. Once you see it, the facts speak for themselves.
I was about to slam you for plagiarising (from here) when I noticed that you're the same person. Makes a change.
he he he, guilty as charged. Last time when i posted my "bitter protest against copyrights" on slashdot, the owner of the site like it so much that he asked if he could post it there. So This time I posted my bitter protest against patents there first.
ps: if you agree with this protest, you'll probably like that one too.
Bitter Protest against Patents (n copyrights some)
on
When Good Patents Go Bad
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
There seems to be this attitude that the suffering of slaves prior to 1850 was something that only happened back then. That it has nothing to do with now, that we are more civilized, more modern, more mature, and more sophisticated. With it comes the arrogance that what happened then, means nothing now, that what happened there has no value here, that the great torment and suffering back then can safely be ignored now as we blow off history and all the values that go with it in terms of understanding, freedom, markets, property rights, and the information age.
Surely anyone who claimed that there is no incentive go grow cotton without "niggers" on the plantation would be considered a barbaric. But if someone claims that there is no incentive to create intellectual and knowledge works without copyrights and patents, then society calls them enlightened. If someone had said that the great wealth of America rested on slavery as a property right and the plantation system, they were a foolish idiot. But if someone says that the great wealth of societies in the information age rests on "Intellectual Property", then they are called wise. Anyone who says that slavery was about property rights and not control, is a liar. However, if they say that copyrights and patents are not about control, but "Intellectual Property" then they are considered trustworthy. How about - if you don't like slavery - don't own slaves, and if you don't like copyrights no one forces you to buy those creations. How about - if you don't believe in slavery, you must be an anarchist, if you don't believe in copyrights and patents you must be communist. How about - you are a thief if you free slaves from the plantation, you are a thief when you copy someones "Intellectual Property".
So why are we spoon-feed these poor logical explanations over and over again? Because, like the rapist who drugs his victim and gently penetrates her, rather than beat her and tear into her where all the scars, blood, and bruises can be seen. Like the assassin who befriends and mis-places his victims heart medications, rather than pull out a rifle and pop a bullet in the head. Copyrights and patents are the pinnacle of quiet violence. So seemingly innocent, so seemingly civilized and friendly, so hard to see and identify any direct evil, any direct consequence. After all, what could be less harmless then providing an incentive to artists and inventors, right? But do they really promote art - or just promote works that have the most hype rather than the most meaning and educational value? Do they really help inventors, or do they hinder collaboration and sharing in a way that would put a police state to shame?
Perhaps the old lady has none to blame when her patented diabetes medication is too expensive to afford anymore. Who can the workers blame when the proprietary technology they bet their career on becomes obsolete and it becomes ever harder to relearn from scratch as they get older. Who can a child in Africa blame when they are dying of AIDS, and there are no generics to treat it! Who do we blame when researchers seeking a cure for cancer encounter massive obstacles to sharing there individual research for fear that their peers will get one up on them, get a key patent, and lock them out! Who do our nations students blame when tabloids are pennies on the dollar, but textbooks dollars on the page! Who do we blame for Hollywood culture being such a failure, and so strongly influencing society in their own failed image.
As people die because patented medicines are too costly and alternatives too sparse, and the needy go without, not because of genuine shortage, but because artificial human made restrictions. Our government who is the enemy of overt violence, has become the friend of quiet violence. Our government who has organized world wars to protect our freedoms, now promotes a world order that will take them away. The democracy that has allowed us to fight for our rights with votes and politics rather than violence and bloodshed has now become
Wrong. Free market ensures that you are unable to market and sell your work if it's freely copyable, simply because marketing costs something. And if you do not profit from doing it, in free market you can't keep doing it, since you run out of money, can't buy food or shelter, and die.
Well well well, free markets force you to attach creations to services and things that have ancilltory value. No more alleymcbiel. It seems to make my original point that copyrights are anti free market. Funny how information little natural limits in supply, but services do? supply/demand?
So if you go to an empty hair saloon to get your hair cut, the barber never mentions that he expects to get paid,....
youre talking about an implied contract like when I go to a restruant. But the way you want to use information is not like that, it is more like sending me a $100 in a letter that says that by opening it I owe you $200. You already made the work, even if I objected, you already put it out there even if i disaproved, now that it's out there you want to controll how that I use it - tough, there was no agreement implied or otherwise.
.... You could write your own book with the same information and sell it, and nobody would say you're doing something wrong!
It would be somthing wrong, but the wrong part wouldn't be copying the book, it would be decieving that I wrote somthing I didn't. Mayby there's a way to use coppied info to murder sombody too, but the murder is wrong not the copying. Speaking of logic fallacy.
IMHO, the issue isn't that this is a bonehead patent it is that all patents are inherently burdensome to society, and this patent sillyness is just a symptom of a poor belief system taken to it's logical conclusion.
Yeah, I've heard it all before.... "the system just needs a little tweaking",... Please tell that to a child in Africa dying of AIDS who isn't allowed to buy generics because of patents..... and Yeah I know, the theory goes that these drugs would never have been invented anyhow without patnets... . It's sorta like saying, slavery was justified because those barbaric Africans were far more brutal to each other than the plantation masters were to them.
Bullshit, nobody forces you to create somthing, nobody forces you to expose it to the 5 billion people arround the planet. You have the right to do whatever you want to do with your work, nobodys stoping you from doing that, marketing it, singing it, sticking it on your head and tapdancing with it.
What you want to do is the right to release a work to the rest of the world, and then microregulate how everybody makes use of it after the cat's out of the bag. Its nolonger about controlling your work, if you wanted that you never had to release it, it's about controlling peoples behavior after the fact. I have an implicit right to copy whatever information freely comes my way. It's not like I got a gun and forced you to give it to me, it's not like I've signed some type of contract. It's bullshit morality, or legality. Thankfully, now copyrights are becomming unenforcable. Good luck dealing with that, you'll need it.
That was the whole point? So was slavery then ok in 1850 when it was legal? No, nor was it that everybody (including some very smart business men) called it a property right when it was not, nor that the cotton farmers had no incentive, not that they paid for them, nor that anybody with enough resources could purchase a slave, nor that the plantation system brought great wealth and prosperity to the american south. Does it matter that hard work and growing cotton is inherently good and beneficial?
Slavery was still wrong, and it was still not a property right. Incentive does not a right make - which is basically what youre trying to tell me.
Property is about property, controll is about controll. Property is about real limits in supply and demand, controll is about fake ones for the sake of certain interests.
I didn't create the real world, I didn't give information one set of untangable characteristics and property another. The moral and historical foundation of property derives from the fact that property has physical limits, while the foundation of copyrights derives from kings who rewarded publishers that didn't say bad things about the monarchy.
Next thing I know, you;dd be saying that people should be owning slaves on the plantation because they paid for those slaves.
What's ammater, don't you care about capitalisim? Dont you care about the cotton farmer? They paid for those slaves dammit! If you steel them, you're a thief! Funny thing is it wasn't about property but controll.
Free markets are not about markets or compensation, those have existed even in the most restrictive societies of kings, emperor's, and pharows.
Free markets are about freedom. When you have freedom, then the markets tend to take care of themselves as people use those freedoms to be productive. Restricting what people copy deprives freedom.
Correction, a doctor who posts your medical records on the internet is violating your privacy rights, not a right to restrict what other people copy. Once it's out there, and in the papers, and what not it's too late. They are not the same. If someone copys a madonna CD, I'm sure they are not violating her privacy rights either.
Copyrights destroy privacy rights, because they are completely unenforceable unless institutions have the authority to invade your privacy.
Yes, this is important because authors never made any money before copyright. Amazing how with one act of law, whole fields of human endeavour, writing, music, art, finally become worthwhile. Thank you Government, I don't know what we'd do without you.
The simple truth is that for every token artist millionare (who rarely write their own songs BTW) that they parade up there - there are literally thoushnds who copyrights havent helped a bit, or squished like a bug.
Also, it is no longer even the slightest about artistic talent. It is more about how hard you can suck up to industry executives.
The end in itself is not the copyleft, it is freedom. The copyleft is meerely a tool to fight fire with fire. In a society where people can not restrict what others copy, there would be plenty of market incentive to share the code beacuse income would half to be based off of a service approach and not off an approach that controlls wht other people can copy.
I love money, I love business, and I love free enterprise - which is why I hate copyrights. Copyrights are not about money and business, they are about controll.
In fact it is an insult to suggest otherwise. It would be like saying that I don't believe in free enterprise and business because I don't want to own slaves on the plantation. What a crock!!!
Besides I seem to renember that when IBM couldn't hold intellectual property rights over the PC interface, then a economic explosion happened in the PC industry.
And when the internet went commercial, and no business could own the TCP/IP protocool, another economic explosion happened.
Now you see growth rates across the board with linux of 20% plus, and some of the most successfull IPO's in history. What the Hell - I still get grief about being anti free market!
Slashdot Mirror
Patents aren't stupid -- the patent office is. It seems to me that they're taking the approach that if the applicant can hold a reasonable argument for a process they don't understand, they issue the patent under the assumption that the courts will sort out the garbage fromt the useful patents.
Well, I renember how in the 80's people would admit that the USSR (the former Soviet Union) had a horrible and inefficient bureauocracy. So it often completely amazed me how many of the same people would deny with insanity that such a system was inherently unjust. For whatever reason, they just couldn't grasp that unjust systems by their very nature lead to screwed up and unaccountable bureauocracies.
Well the same is true of the patent system. The system is an inefficient and horiffic mess specifically because they DO assert the "right" to restrict what inventions other people use. It will always create problems, always create uncertanties, always create powerfull interests that protect and secure a failing system, and always create accountabilities that encourage expansion at the expense of other freedoms.
While there are a lot of such failing systems (insert looser government program here) the patent system is especially evil. Old people die because of the way patents influence the direction of research and cost of medicines. Children in Africa needlessly died of AIDS because of the way patents had locked out generics. And when the African nations got fed up and decided to manufacture generics anyhow, the pharmacutical industries sued.
Patents ARE evil. They are not a free market property right any more than slaves on the plantation were. They are a form of controll and opression. They are a quiet violence that simply must be removed at any cost.
Very perceptive, you are right about me being libertarian.
I agree with you in that in a normal world that forcing people to reveal source (even if it was modifications to code they didn't originally make) would be limiting. Of course, in a normal copyright free world, a service based paradigm would emerge and natural interpersonal and market forces would likely compell people to share source or become irrelavent or outcast.
Since we don't live in that normal copyright free world, I suspect the GPL's probably the best we can do immitate it.
The licenses for most software are designed to take away your freedom to share and change it. By contrast, the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free software--to make sure the software is free for all its users.....
Now why does it say most licences are designed to take away your freedom? If copyrights are truely free market, that shouldn't be the case!
Now why does it say it's referring to freedom and not price. What freedoms were the other licenses taking away? If they are true to free market principals, that shouldn't be the case either.
To me that implies that copyrights can deny rights? Doesn't it to you?
Look, I've even discussed copyrights with RMS personally. Maybe I misunderstood him?, but I doubt it.
# According to my Oxford Desk Dictionary communism n. 1 political theory advocating public ownership of property.
You're right about commnisim being a loaded word. I prefer to call it Marxisim which I take to mean a system of government that can decide your carrer, where you live, what property you hold, what you can do with the capital and resources you have, and even what religion is best for you.
Clearly, open source software is not that way at all. I resent the implication.
At the same time, people say that Open Source, specifically the GPL is not true to free market principals. I disagree, I think copyrights are not true to free market principals and the GPL is a way to fight that. Clearly if the the government so tightly regluated the supply and demand of commodoties in any other sector - people would rightly say they are intefering with the market place. But, thats exactly what they do in reguards to copyrighted information. Information has few natural limits in supply now, but services dont - getting rid of copyrights would shift things back more to the service side.
If we said that the first farmer who grows oranges has a right to lock out everybody else who does, and sell shares of those rights. People would see it as the controll it is. Does the farmer have no incentive to plant those first oranges if someone else can too?
Since you can't spell "communist", it's not surprising that you don't know what it means, either.
Fine, so I rushed it and accidently hit the submit button rather than the preview button. Sue me. Sheesh, I guess it's easier to rant about spelling than the facts.
I cant tel you how many times I've herd this. That's crap. It's more like copyrights are an overbearing government regulation that locks out the little guy than a true free market property right. When you them for what it is, then the facts of why Linux is going to take over the marketplace becomes obvious.
Actually there is a story behind this. It was at a time when i was doing alot of thinking about copyrights, but every time i thought about the problems with copyrights - some of the logic - it sounded like somthing i had herd before. I finally came up with an essay comparing it with slavery and sent it to RMS. Believe it or not, he replied, and said somthing like I should be carefull because the suffering caused by slavery was far more atricious than what is suffered by copytights. Like more often than not, he was right.
So anyhow I was chewing on that for awhile, and long behold a week later I stumbled upon an article in the berkley daily planet writen by a pharmacutical exec trying to justify some AIDS patent lawsiuts against africans. The arguments that they had no incentive without patents, and that they were generous to Africans sure sounded like there was no incentive to grow cotton, and we are kind to our slaves on the plantation. From my history lessons.
The meaning of the 1850s today, the quiet violence, the nature of rights, the historical perspective, all those have stories too - but i just dont have time to elaborate here.
yes. please do.
thanks.
Well, IMHO, in an idea situation authority would derive from an institutions, systems, or individuals ability to protect and secure liberties.
Now, it seems like there might be a new paradigm, authority derives from the technology - or the ability to implement it and use it effectively.
It seems as history goes on, individuals are comming to have less authority over one another, but more over themselves. Hopefully IMHO, this trend continues.
You know what, in this essay my real focus was on patents and not copyrights. But I'm strongly against copyrights too, and couldn't help mixing it in there alittle. ( type in bitter protest against copyrights into a search engine for one more focused on that ) Perhaps I shoud reweite, for copyrights the analogy is overkill I must admit, but not for patents. Children in Africa dying of AIDS while US pharmacuticals sue them to block generics, old people suffering and dying because of the effects of patents on medical research and cost and use. I don't regret it a bit.
Authority is not an end in itself, BTW, but individual liberty and truth are. That's why I love free markets but hate most 'intellectual property' controlls.
Copyrights are not about intangable works any more then slavery was about cotton. They are both about controlling people's behavior in a way that was economically benecifial to the people doing the controlling. That's why the anaology worked so well even though the nature of the property was so different.
I was trying to find holes in the IP/HP (human property) argument, but I failed...
The reasoning behind that is very simple. It's because it has nothing to do with property - it is about controll and violence. Perhaps they use different terminology, perhaps different labels, perhaps different details and techniques, but the logic and rational is the same as has been pushed for 1000's of years by tyrants, dictators, and the greedy. Once you see it, the facts speak for themselves.
I was about to slam you for plagiarising (from here) when I noticed that you're the same person. Makes a change.
he he he, guilty as charged. Last time when i posted my "bitter protest against copyrights" on slashdot, the owner of the site like it so much that he asked if he could post it there. So This time I posted my bitter protest against patents there first.
ps: if you agree with this protest, you'll probably like that one too.
There seems to be this attitude that the suffering of slaves prior to 1850 was something that only happened back then. That it has nothing to do with now, that we are more civilized, more modern, more mature, and more sophisticated. With it comes the arrogance that what happened then, means nothing now, that what happened there has no value here, that the great torment and suffering back then can safely be ignored now as we blow off history and all the values that go with it in terms of understanding, freedom, markets, property rights, and the information age.
Surely anyone who claimed that there is no incentive go grow cotton without "niggers" on the plantation would be considered a barbaric. But if someone claims that there is no incentive to create intellectual and knowledge works without copyrights and patents, then society calls them enlightened. If someone had said that the great wealth of America rested on slavery as a property right and the plantation system, they were a foolish idiot. But if someone says that the great wealth of societies in the information age rests on "Intellectual Property", then they are called wise. Anyone who says that slavery was about property rights and not control, is a liar. However, if they say that copyrights and patents are not about control, but "Intellectual Property" then they are considered trustworthy. How about - if you don't like slavery - don't own slaves, and if you don't like copyrights no one forces you to buy those creations. How about - if you don't believe in slavery, you must be an anarchist, if you don't believe in copyrights and patents you must be communist. How about - you are a thief if you free slaves from the plantation, you are a thief when you copy someones "Intellectual Property".
So why are we spoon-feed these poor logical explanations over and over again? Because, like the rapist who drugs his victim and gently penetrates her, rather than beat her and tear into her where all the scars, blood, and bruises can be seen. Like the assassin who befriends and mis-places his victims heart medications, rather than pull out a rifle and pop a bullet in the head. Copyrights and patents are the pinnacle of quiet violence. So seemingly innocent, so seemingly civilized and friendly, so hard to see and identify any direct evil, any direct consequence. After all, what could be less harmless then providing an incentive to artists and inventors, right? But do they really promote art - or just promote works that have the most hype rather than the most meaning and educational value? Do they really help inventors, or do they hinder collaboration and sharing in a way that would put a police state to shame?
Perhaps the old lady has none to blame when her patented diabetes medication is too expensive to afford anymore. Who can the workers blame when the proprietary technology they bet their career on becomes obsolete and it becomes ever harder to relearn from scratch as they get older. Who can a child in Africa blame when they are dying of AIDS, and there are no generics to treat it! Who do we blame when researchers seeking a cure for cancer encounter massive obstacles to sharing there individual research for fear that their peers will get one up on them, get a key patent, and lock them out! Who do our nations students blame when tabloids are pennies on the dollar, but textbooks dollars on the page! Who do we blame for Hollywood culture being such a failure, and so strongly influencing society in their own failed image.
As people die because patented medicines are too costly and alternatives too sparse, and the needy go without, not because of genuine shortage, but because artificial human made restrictions. Our government who is the enemy of overt violence, has become the friend of quiet violence. Our government who has organized world wars to protect our freedoms, now promotes a world order that will take them away. The democracy that has allowed us to fight for our rights with votes and politics rather than violence and bloodshed has now become
Wrong. Free market ensures that you are unable to market and sell your work if it's freely copyable, simply because marketing costs something. And if you do not profit from doing it, in free market you can't keep doing it, since you run out of money, can't buy food or shelter, and die.
Well well well, free markets force you to attach creations to services and things that have ancilltory value. No more alleymcbiel. It seems to make my original point that copyrights are anti free market. Funny how information little natural limits in supply, but services do? supply/demand?
So if you go to an empty hair saloon to get your hair cut, the barber never mentions that he expects to get paid, ....
youre talking about an implied contract like when I go to a restruant. But the way you want to use information is not like that, it is more like sending me a $100 in a letter that says that by opening it I owe you $200. You already made the work, even if I objected, you already put it out there even if i disaproved, now that it's out there you want to controll how that I use it - tough, there was no agreement implied or otherwise.
It would be somthing wrong, but the wrong part wouldn't be copying the book, it would be decieving that I wrote somthing I didn't. Mayby there's a way to use coppied info to murder sombody too, but the murder is wrong not the copying. Speaking of logic fallacy.
IMHO, the issue isn't that this is a bonehead patent it is that all patents are inherently burdensome to society, and this patent sillyness is just a symptom of a poor belief system taken to it's logical conclusion.
Yeah, I've heard it all before
Bullshit, nobody forces you to create somthing, nobody forces you to expose it to the 5 billion people arround the planet. You have the right to do whatever you want to do with your work, nobodys stoping you from doing that, marketing it, singing it, sticking it on your head and tapdancing with it.
What you want to do is the right to release a work to the rest of the world, and then microregulate how everybody makes use of it after the cat's out of the bag. Its nolonger about controlling your work, if you wanted that you never had to release it, it's about controlling peoples behavior after the fact. I have an implicit right to copy whatever information freely comes my way. It's not like I got a gun and forced you to give it to me, it's not like I've signed some type of contract. It's bullshit morality, or legality. Thankfully, now copyrights are becomming unenforcable. Good luck dealing with that, you'll need it.
That was the whole point? So was slavery then ok in 1850 when it was legal? No, nor was it that everybody (including some very smart business men) called it a property right when it was not, nor that the cotton farmers had no incentive, not that they paid for them, nor that anybody with enough resources could purchase a slave, nor that the plantation system brought great wealth and prosperity to the american south. Does it matter that hard work and growing cotton is inherently good and beneficial?
Slavery was still wrong, and it was still not a property right. Incentive does not a right make - which is basically what youre trying to tell me.
Property is about property, controll is about controll. Property is about real limits in supply and demand, controll is about fake ones for the sake of certain interests.
Hey hold off Mr.
I didn't create the real world, I didn't give information one set of untangable characteristics and property another. The moral and historical foundation of property derives from the fact that property has physical limits, while the foundation of copyrights derives from kings who rewarded publishers that didn't say bad things about the monarchy.
Next thing I know, you;dd be saying that people should be owning slaves on the plantation because they paid for those slaves.
What's ammater, don't you care about capitalisim?
Dont you care about the cotton farmer?
They paid for those slaves dammit! If you steel them, you're a thief! Funny thing is it wasn't about property but controll.
Free markets are not about markets or compensation, those have existed even in the most restrictive societies of kings, emperor's, and pharows.
Free markets are about freedom. When you have freedom, then the markets tend to take care of themselves as people use those freedoms to be productive. Restricting what people copy deprives freedom.
Correction, a doctor who posts your medical records on the internet is violating your privacy rights, not a right to restrict what other people copy. Once it's out there, and in the papers, and what not it's too late. They are not the same. If someone copys a madonna CD, I'm sure they are not violating her privacy rights either.
Copyrights destroy privacy rights, because they are completely unenforceable unless institutions have the authority to invade your privacy.
Thank you. I thought you put that very nicely.
Yes, this is important because authors never made any money before copyright. Amazing how with one act of law, whole fields of human endeavour, writing, music, art, finally become worthwhile. Thank you Government, I don't know what we'd do without you.
The simple truth is that for every token artist millionare (who rarely write their own songs BTW) that they parade up there - there are literally thoushnds who copyrights havent helped a bit, or squished like a bug.
Also, it is no longer even the slightest about artistic talent. It is more about how hard you can suck up to industry executives.
The end in itself is not the copyleft, it is freedom. The copyleft is meerely a tool to fight fire with fire. In a society where people can not restrict what others copy, there would be plenty of market incentive to share the code beacuse income would half to be based off of a service approach and not off an approach that controlls wht other people can copy.
I love money, I love business, and I love free enterprise - which is why I hate copyrights. Copyrights are not about money and business, they are about controll.
In fact it is an insult to suggest otherwise. It would be like saying that I don't believe in free enterprise and business because I don't want to own slaves on the plantation. What a crock!!!
Besides I seem to renember that when IBM couldn't hold intellectual property rights over the PC interface, then a economic explosion happened in the PC industry.
And when the internet went commercial, and no business could own the TCP/IP protocool, another economic explosion happened.
Now you see growth rates across the board with linux of 20% plus, and some of the most successfull IPO's in history. What the Hell - I still get grief about being anti free market!
Sheesh!