G2 has a keywords module that sounds a lot like what you want to do. If not, there's the tags module.
If you want Gallery to look more like Flickr, just theme it.
According to your theory, I say that your salary is basically stolen from US taxpayers. Right? Right. Which is about as factual a claim as claiming that people copying drugs is "stealing" from Big Pharma. Or kids trading home tapes is "stealing" from the artists. With that out of the way...
Merck probably spent billions of dollars to get this product through all the clinical trials and FDA-approved. Maybe you are not aware of the figures involved but this is a very costly thing. I am very much aware of the costs involved, but maybe you should take a trip 'round the web and read Big Pharma's yearly reports. They spend, on average, 15% of their revenues on R&D, including clinical trials. Fifteen percent. The remaining 85% are profits, marketing, lobbying and other costs.
Without the pharmaceutical industry, there won't be a lot of new innovative drugs developed anymore. Whether you like it or not. There ARE no new innovative drugs being developed anymore, whether you like it or not. The patent system rewards copycat mee-too drugs with low risks, not innovative new drugs. The industry spends their R&D money on new methods of synthezising old compunds and making up new names for them so they can get a piece of the profitable, well-established pies. The real innovation goes on in university and non-profit labs, most of it paid for by Uncle Sam in one way or another. See the history of AZT for a well-known example of this.
Also, looking at the industry's own figures (EFPIA) you'll see that 85% of their revenue stream is directly funded by the government through various types of Medicare/Medicaid programs.
... but it took capitalism to create the formula for the drug in the first place... Not really. It took a lot of greed and gaming of the system. If that's capitalism, well count me out.
Yes, because it didn't cost anything to do all the tons and tons of research and testing (not to mention the cost of education for all the scientists) to produce the drug. Let's turn that around: Merck did not pay one single dime for the education of those scientists. The US taxpayers did. Merck did not pay one single dime for all the basic research needed to develop the drug. The US taxpayers did. Why should Merck be allowed to steal money from the US taxpayers?
I had a hardware breakpoint debugger in The Final Cartridge II on the Commodore 64. That was, what - 20-25 years ago? This patent was issued last year.
That said, the first 13 claims pertain to software only (curio: the word "software" appears no less than 17 times in the first claim, "hardware" scores a big fat zero). Subsequent claims seem to revolve around a device reading a medium where the debug code is stored, ie RAM, some kind of ROM or even a CD with reader would fit this description. It's so vaguely stated as to be totally useless. Useless, that is, if someone were to actually use this patent to implement something useful. You know, like the patent system was supposed to do. Very useful if it's to be used to threaten competitors and stifle innovation.
"To promote the progress of science and useful arts", my ass.
Actually, any digitized copyrighted work of art can be expressed as a single number. A MP3 file is normally around 3-4 million digits, all copyrighted...
at least question if man and dinosaurs did live at the same time. From your link:
In 1496 the Bishop of Carlisle, Richard Bell, was buried in Carlisle Cathedral in the U.K. The tomb is inlaid with brass, with various animals engraved upon it (see right). Although worn by the countless feet that walked over it since the Middle Ages, a particular depiction is unmistakable in its similarity to a dinosaur. Amongst the birds, dog, eel, etc. this clear representation of two long-necked creatures should be considered evidence that man and dinosaurs co-existed. It does seem like the author entertains the notion that dinosaurs roamed the earth in plain view well into the Middle Ages. Well, at least that WOULD explain the dragon mythos in medieval Europe. Perhaps Arthur Conan Doyle just published an authentic travel diary some time later? Exciting news!
Oh fuck... I think I've just Godwinned myself. If there isn't special dispensation given when discussing the fascist scum-sucking parasite nazi's that are the *IAA, there damned well should be.
Meh. Moral rights don't actually exist, no one actually follows through on the idea, whatever they might say to the contrary, and they're a craptastic idea. Better to reform copyright from a wholly utilitarian approach (in which the object isn't to maintain a private monopoly, but to achieve societal goals through the careful and limited use of monopolies) Moral rights do exist, in European copyright law. And on the whole they work pretty well, much like trademarks. You are 110% correct on the latter part of your post, though. I do however believe that moral rights would play an important part in that equation, particularly the right to be asserted as the author. That alone is probably worth much more as an incentive to create than a 1000-year copyright would be. Lots of people create stuff for recognition and fame alone and we will probably need some kind of moral rights structure to secure that. In effect, a ban on plagiarism via the establishment of trademark-like protection for creators.
If an author creates a work that is read by tens of thousands but only actually sold it to 1 person, who then copied it and profited, that author will not continue to have the time to write other works because he'll need to have another job to pay the bills. Do you not see it that way?
No, simply because this is not what actually happens. It is a theoretical worst case scenario with no grounding whatsoever in reality. First off, how do you propose this person could profit from the author's work? He does not have the author's support in selling copies (no book-signing tour, no live gigs, no nothing), no advantage in production (printing and distribution costs are the same whether or not you are the author) and he still has to out-sell the author by a 10 000-to-1 margin. That's quite impressive.
Now, let's say this person instead makes a digital copy and releases it for free. What happens? Well, we actually know what happens since not only do several authors give away their books for free (Cory Doctorow, Larry Lessig, to name but a few) as does several bands and record companies. They still sell lots of books and records, even though the subject matter is available for free. Most report increased sales after freeing their content, due to the advertising value in doing so. People are willing to pay, even if there is a free option. Sometimes the motive is a perceived increase of value in the "real deal" but often, it is simply the easiest way to confer appreciation to the author. Paypal donor buttons work pretty well for many on-line comic artists, even though it is totally free to read their strips. Heck, Scott Adams is pretty well off, even though I can read Dilbert for free every day. I give away my pictures for free on the web and rake in the Adsense dough (OK, I don't get rich, but it's paid for a brand new camera). Judging by the competition, I could not realistically expect to sell a single copy of any of my images.:-)
Also, there's yet another flaw in your argument: You pre-suppose that it is not the norm today that author's have day jobs. They do. There is a large (and growing) industry of printer/publishers who, instead of giving you an advance on your upcoming book, simply charge you for printing and distributing it. And people flock to them in droves.
There is simply no reason to assume that people create things only because they may sell a copy some day. People create things of their own volition today, on their own time, on their own dime. Very, very few can live off creating and manage without that day job. The rich artist is to a very large extent a myth created by the publishing industries to avoid having to pay reasonable wages. "Don't worry, you'll live in luxury off the royalties later, we'll just deduct this expense from them, no worries". The result? This: http://www.negativland.com/albini.html
There's an anecdote about a similar situation (which apparently copyright does not actually protect against in all cases):
The first edition of The Lord of the Rings to be published in the United States was a pirated edition from Ace Books. For reasons which I now forget, Tolkien could not take legal action against Ace. But when Ballantine came out with its own official author-approved American edition of The Lord of the Rings, Tolkien started a campaign against the Ace edition. The Ballantine edition was released with a notice from Tolkien in a green box on the back cover stating that this was the only authorized edition, and urging any reader with respect for living authors to purchase no other. Moreover, every time he answered a fan letter from an American reader, Tolkien appended a footnote explaining the situation and requesting that the recipient spread the word among Tolkien fans that the Ace edition should be boycotted. Although the Ace edition was cheaper than the Ballantine, it quickly lost readers and went out of print. The boycott was successfu
Do you even understand why the USPTO was created? To regulate congress' and the constitution's goal of promoting the sciences and the useful arts. They have failed miserably, don't you think?
you will find a wealth of economic professor papers on this symbiosis between incentive and creation in _any_ Industry. Ah, but are copyrights (and patents, for that matter) actually incentives, or are they barriers? The answer to THAT question may surprise you.
The Computer Science and Telecommunications Board (CSTB) of the National Academy of Sciences writes in their report The Digital Dilemma: Intellectual Property in the Information Age:
Recommendation: The committee suggests exploring whether or not the notion of copy is an appropriate foundation for copyright law, and whether a new foundation can be constructed for copyright, based on the goal set forth in the Constitution ("promote the progress of science and the useful arts") and a tactic by which it is achieved, namely, providing incentive to authors and publishers. In this framework, the question would not be whether a copy had been made, but whether a use of a work was consistent with the goal and tactic (i.e., did it contribute to the desired "progress" and was it destructive, when taken alone or aggregated with other similar copies, of an author's incentive?). This concept is similar to fair use but broader in scope, as it requires considering the range of factors by which to measure the impact of the activity on authors, publishers, and others.
The Economist writes:
Copyright was originally the grant of a temporary government-supported monopoly on copying a work, not a property right. Its sole purpose was to encourage the circulation of ideas by giving creators and publishers a short-term incentive to disseminate their work. Over the past 50 years, as a result of heavy lobbying by content industries, copyright has grown to such ludicrous proportions that it now often inhibits rather than promotes the circulation of ideas, leaving thousands of old movies, records and books languishing behind a legal barrier.
But I'm sure you know better than them, right?
I'm feeling generous, so I'll give you a metric ass-load of other links for free, just in case you have problems learning Google:
I see a distinct value in affirming author's moral rights; to be recognized as the author/creator and to be able to prevent misuse of their works, such as them being used to promote values clearly not in line with the author's.
If the reason is to create artificial scarcity in an effort to maintain a certain type of private monopoly, I see no societal use for copyrights whatsoever.
US copyright has good fair use, European copyrights have good moral rights. I'd like to see those two combined and the rest stripped away as much as possible.
What we need is a war on copyright. That's your REAL piracy, right there. The only legitimate issue is plagiarism. Everything else is no different from the old railroad monopolies maintaining their turf. It is pure robbery. That's only too true. Fortunately, there are some freedom fighters left: http://pirate-party.us/ , http://www2.piratpartiet.se/international/english
What you are forgetting is that the lack of copyright will reduce the incentive for people to create new material. Here's an offer you can't refuse: Show me one single independent academic paper that conclusively proves this thesis and I will Paypal you $50 USD.
While you Google your life away, ponder this: When the US had a copyright protection spanning a mere 14+14 years, Hollywood created Casablanca. With a life+70 copyright, they brought us Crossover. Besides, Leonardo Da Vinci, Beethoven, and Van Gogh didn't need no copyright at all to create. Real creators don't need incentives, they need restraining.
It might work in pansy liberal love fests like the netherlands but with the various fringe groups that inhabit the USA such a system involving fees on blank media would never work. USC TITLE 17, CHAPTER 10, SUBCHAPTER C, 1003:
(a) Prohibition on Importation and Manufacture.-- No person shall import into and distribute, or manufacture and distribute, any digital audio recording device or digital audio recording medium unless such person records the notice specified by this section and subsequently deposits the statements of account and applicable royalty payments for such device or medium specified in section 1004.
"Pansy liberal love fests like the USA". Heh, I think I'm going to start using that quote.
aye, you make sense -- but what about other companies that produce Bio-engineered corn? I'm sure there are others. Do all of them forbid seed-saving? AFAIK, yes. They have this notion that the GMO crops they produce are their property (even if they have sold the seeds to a farmer) and as such they feel a need to protect what's theirs. http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_1 030.cfm
I believe the only feasible way to stop this behaviour is to stop the patenting of life-forms.
Aye, they make me kind of squeamish too, however they do have the possibility of helping eliminate hunger around the world. Who's to say? Monsanto says: Play by our rules or be crushed.
"The "Roundup Ready" canola seed that grew in Mr. Schmeiser's fields is resistant to glyphosate, an herbicide marketed by Monsanto as "Roundup." The seed is sold only to farmers willing to sign a contract preventing them from engaging in seed-saving practices for planting in later years. Once a farmer agrees, they spray their fields with "Roundup," which kills everything but the "Roundup Ready" canola."
Seed-saving is a pretty important factor in trying to increase crop yields in third-world countries as most farmers can't afford to buy new seeds every year. Monsanto are in it for the money, not to combat starvation.
Is anyone else surprised how repressive Australia and the UK can be? Not really. But remember that the US (specifically then chairman of pharmaceutical drugs company Pfizer, Edmund Pratt) has worked very hard for many years to export tougher IP laws to other countries. I recommend the book 'Information Feudalism' by professors Peter Drahos and John Braithwaite: http://www.grain.org/seedling/?id=265
A bit more on Pfizer's work in this area can be found here: http://www.oxfam.org.uk/what_we_do/issues/health/c b_pfizer.htm
Slashdot Mirror
G2 has a keywords module that sounds a lot like what you want to do. If not, there's the tags module. If you want Gallery to look more like Flickr, just theme it.
Also, looking at the industry's own figures (EFPIA) you'll see that 85% of their revenue stream is directly funded by the government through various types of Medicare/Medicaid programs.
... but it took capitalism to create the formula for the drug in the first placeHere's some basic reading for you on how Big Pharma is gaming the patent system for their own short-sighted gain:
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2007/04/21/opinio
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17244
http://archive.salon.com/tech/htww/2006/01/13/dru
http://www.cepr.net/index.php?option=com_content&
Here's some basic reading for you:
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2007/04/21/opinio
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17244
http://archive.salon.com/tech/htww/2006/01/13/dru
http://www.cepr.net/index.php?option=com_content&
I had a hardware breakpoint debugger in The Final Cartridge II on the Commodore 64. That was, what - 20-25 years ago? This patent was issued last year.
That said, the first 13 claims pertain to software only (curio: the word "software" appears no less than 17 times in the first claim, "hardware" scores a big fat zero). Subsequent claims seem to revolve around a device reading a medium where the debug code is stored, ie RAM, some kind of ROM or even a CD with reader would fit this description.
It's so vaguely stated as to be totally useless. Useless, that is, if someone were to actually use this patent to implement something useful. You know, like the patent system was supposed to do. Very useful if it's to be used to threaten competitors and stifle innovation.
"To promote the progress of science and useful arts", my ass.
Actually, any digitized copyrighted work of art can be expressed as a single number. A MP3 file is normally around 3-4 million digits, all copyrighted...
Here be dragons.
If an author creates a work that is read by tens of thousands but only actually sold it to 1 person, who then copied it and profited, that author will not continue to have the time to write other works because he'll need to have another job to pay the bills. Do you not see it that way?
No, simply because this is not what actually happens. It is a theoretical worst case scenario with no grounding whatsoever in reality. First off, how do you propose this person could profit from the author's work? He does not have the author's support in selling copies (no book-signing tour, no live gigs, no nothing), no advantage in production (printing and distribution costs are the same whether or not you are the author) and he still has to out-sell the author by a 10 000-to-1 margin. That's quite impressive.
:-)
Now, let's say this person instead makes a digital copy and releases it for free. What happens? Well, we actually know what happens since not only do several authors give away their books for free (Cory Doctorow, Larry Lessig, to name but a few) as does several bands and record companies. They still sell lots of books and records, even though the subject matter is available for free. Most report increased sales after freeing their content, due to the advertising value in doing so.
People are willing to pay, even if there is a free option. Sometimes the motive is a perceived increase of value in the "real deal" but often, it is simply the easiest way to confer appreciation to the author. Paypal donor buttons work pretty well for many on-line comic artists, even though it is totally free to read their strips. Heck, Scott Adams is pretty well off, even though I can read Dilbert for free every day. I give away my pictures for free on the web and rake in the Adsense dough (OK, I don't get rich, but it's paid for a brand new camera). Judging by the competition, I could not realistically expect to sell a single copy of any of my images.
Also, there's yet another flaw in your argument: You pre-suppose that it is not the norm today that author's have day jobs. They do. There is a large (and growing) industry of printer/publishers who, instead of giving you an advance on your upcoming book, simply charge you for printing and distributing it. And people flock to them in droves.
There is simply no reason to assume that people create things only because they may sell a copy some day. People create things of their own volition today, on their own time, on their own dime. Very, very few can live off creating and manage without that day job. The rich artist is to a very large extent a myth created by the publishing industries to avoid having to pay reasonable wages. "Don't worry, you'll live in luxury off the royalties later, we'll just deduct this expense from them, no worries". The result? This: http://www.negativland.com/albini.html
There's an anecdote about a similar situation (which apparently copyright does not actually protect against in all cases):
The Computer Science and Telecommunications Board (CSTB) of the National Academy of Sciences writes in their report The Digital Dilemma: Intellectual Property in the Information Age:
The Economist writes:
But I'm sure you know better than them, right?
I'm feeling generous, so I'll give you a metric ass-load of other links for free, just in case you have problems learning Google:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/10/07/opinion/ed
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/motivation.html
http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/15_2/15_2_1.pdf
http://libertariannation.org/a/f31l1.html
http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/agai
http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/~howard/Papers/pw-publi
http://www.dontpanicmedia.com/xarpages/article?id
http://www.cepr.net/publications/textbook_2005_09
http://www.cepr.net/publications/ip_2003_11.htm
Maybe I get to keep my $50, but for other reasons than you thought.
I've created this: http://www.p-i-x.net/ What have you created?
I see a distinct value in affirming author's moral rights; to be recognized as the author/creator and to be able to prevent misuse of their works, such as them being used to promote values clearly not in line with the author's.
s miers.php
If the reason is to create artificial scarcity in an effort to maintain a certain type of private monopoly, I see no societal use for copyrights whatsoever.
US copyright has good fair use, European copyrights have good moral rights. I'd like to see those two combined and the rest stripped away as much as possible.
Here's a piece to think about: http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/10/07/opinion/ed
(The reason I can offer you this wager with impunity is because I can link to close to a dozen academic papers, in various languages, proving the opposite. Here's my favourite, in Swedish: http://www.ulfpettersson.se/2006/06/27/upphovsrat
While you Google your life away, ponder this: When the US had a copyright protection spanning a mere 14+14 years, Hollywood created Casablanca. With a life+70 copyright, they brought us Crossover. Besides, Leonardo Da Vinci, Beethoven, and Van Gogh didn't need no copyright at all to create. Real creators don't need incentives, they need restraining.
http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dltr/articles/20
Seed-saving is a pretty important factor in trying to increase crop yields in third-world countries as most farmers can't afford to buy new seeds every year. Monsanto are in it for the money, not to combat starvation.