No, the US Constitution says that slavery is illegal. In it's original form, it didn't explicitly outlaw slavery,
but that doesn't mean that it's inherently legal either. It was legal in some states, and illegal in others.
Let me clarify, I don't care if you make money without doing any work. In fact, if you want to send me money for doing nothing, I would enjoy that. However, if you aren't doing any actual work, you are generally very easy to replace. We've managed to get making copies of songs down to something that can be done for free, doing just as good a job, and often a better job than the record companies, iTunes, etc., so they've lost out competitively.
Yes, but the profit is made by doing actual work. In the given scenario, Carol did not do any work for Bob, so it doesn't make sense for Bob to pay Carol. I have no problem with selling a copy of a song for profit. It doesn't matter to me if Alice, Bob, or Carol does that. It's also fine in Alice, Bob, or Carol gives a copy of the song away.
Who said anything about charity? They are doing actual work. When Alice copies a song for Bob that Carol wrote and recorded, Alice is doing the work, not Carol. If Alice wants to charge Bob and Bob is willing to pay, that's fine.
does this imply that as soon as we have 3d printers in our homes capable of reproducing said hardware, their costs will also plummet to 0?
I don't think they plummet to zero, since it still requires the same material, but yes, the costs would fall precipitously.
Is the expertise in designing a new pair of sennheisers that is better than the old model worth nothing?
No, I'm not sure why you'd think it is. If someone has the expertise, they can be commissioned to design a new pair. They can also teach others. If they have a skill, and they make use of that skill via a service, and that service is in demand, they can make money by doing that service.
Why are we willing to pay for the hardware (sometimes exorbinant prices) to play music on/with, but not willing to pay for the music itself if we don't have to? Spending the kind of money we do on ipods, bose, and beats would imply we value the musical experience (even if we have poor taste)... but why do we not place a value on the music itself and those creating it?
Because the hardware has a fixed per unit cost, meaning each new piece of hardware takes additional labor and resources. The cost of creating an additional copy of music is negligible, and we do pay those costs, through hard drives, internet connections, electricity, etc. The copyright holder doesn't do any additional work, so why should they receive additional funds. If I want to make money as a musician, I'll play a show.
There are no ethics. Copyright is not a system of ethics or morality. If you think there are ethics or morality involved in copyright or violation thereof, you are an idiot.
He doesn't know what's going on. Records have never been a good way to make money. He also tries to keep up the divide between artists and fans by making it a moral issue.
You know, it's quite possible that the collaboration involved works as a catalyst for corruption on both sides. It's consolidation of power, and power corrupts.Thus, it could be true that the US is less corrupt without the UN and the UN is less corrupt without the US.
So, you think an entire field of research shouldn't exist, and you don't care about any arguments? That's pretty much the epitome of anti-intellectualism.
Also, there are hungry people in places other than Africa.
Inventions are cumulative. There are inventions that are hundreds or thousands of years old that are still used as part of modern technology. However, the base invention itself is obsolete.
Except, of course, for the fact that we can build counter measures without building actual cyberweapons. Basically, the counter measures consist of good security practices and quickly plugging exploits.
hey dipshit, maybe you should learn how to read, because the above quote is pretty much the same as "because patents aren't completely effective that we may as well have no protection at all", because if you had some other form of protection in mind you would have no doubt subjected me to it already.
No, I'm saying that patents are ineffective at accomplishing their goal, and are in general a net harm to that goal and to the welfare of inventors. It's like if your doctor still prescribed blood letting for every ailment you come in with. You would be better off letting your body handle it 9 times out of 10.
repeating myself, but you're still comparing the current patent system with the concept of a patent, which is (again) why you're a retard.
No, it applies to all patent systems that have ever existed, and to the theory of patents in general. The evidence available suggests that there is no way that patents could be a net benefit, and even if there were, we don't have a reliable way of getting a policy that would yield such results.
I do agree that we seem to be getting nowhere, although you are the one that is slathering on the insults and has not pointed to any actual evidence (although to be fair, pretty much all of the actual pro-patent evidence would fit into a single paragraph), so the brainwashed fuckface would appear to be you. I'm not quite as generous as you, though, and would probably be amused if you did commit suicide.
predictable much. your saying that because patents aren't completely effective that we may as well have no protection at all.
No, I'm saying that because, on average, both inventors and society as a whole a harmed by patents, the treatment is worse than the disease, meaning that doing nothing is better than 'protection'. Perhaps you should learn to read before calling other people dipshits.
you won't believe me (you're so predictable) but at least i've actually invented something worth considering patenting.
You've 'invented' something you think is worth considering patenting. However, since it seems you didn't patent and likely didn't commercialize the invention, you are unaware of the existing patents that a final product would cover, and have no confirmation that there is anything patentable in your 'invention.' You think that because you've done something that in all likelihood is the same as what others in your field have done, that you understand the macroeconomics of patents.
if i invent a widget and want to start up a new company to manufacture and sell it, how can i be sure that a large established company like kmart or walmart wont acquire a widget and mass-produce and sell copies of it (claiming it as their own) and use their much larger market share and resources to drive me out of business?
You can't. But you can't in the patent system either. You have to realize that regardless of what system you have, small innovators are going to get screwed over most of the time. The argument to make is not that they don't get screwed over, it's that they don't get screwed over as often, when the evidence on the subject points to the very opposite. A large company might find a way around the particular wording of the patent (and they have more budget to get around less patents, while the startup has less of a budget to get around more patents), or more likely, they will have a hundred relevant patents to sue you with, and will end up owning your company and your patent, and doing the same thing with YOUR patent to the next startup with an awesome widget that tries to upset their business. You are making erroneous assumptions about the nature of invention. Even the massive 'game-changers' that people associate with invention after patent systems resulted in patent thickets that either resulted in patent pools in which those with money became richer and were more able to dominate the market, or agreements couldn't be made. This happened because inventions are virtually always cumulative, gradual steps forward made by a large amount of ideas cross-pollinating.
You also fail to realize that without patents, the giant scary conglomerates you are afraid of would not be able to exist in their current form (although you for some reason thought that Kmart and wal-mart are manufacturers in a major fashion. You should actually be afraid of the GEs, the IBMs, the DuPonts, all of which have enormous patent portfolios)
You can be angry, but you have no legal recourse other than likeness rights or something very close to it, and no such legal protection exists for Halstatt. However, making someone angry doesn't matter. Your gross ignorance on this topic makes me angry, but I think you have every right to be a dumbass and state your dumbass beliefs.
i'm sure there are lots of examples of patents gone bad, and patents that should never have been issued, which is all the more reason to be a patent reformist rather than a patent abolitionist, because while the patent system has been abused (more often by large companies than the small ones that the system meant to protect), they do still have a purpose, and my previous point still stands regardless of what some moron UCLA student wrote (the professor was more likely to have merely supervised, and may not have even read it nor authorized the use of his name in an attempt to garner credibility for such garbage); without patents, new innovation would ground to a halt. with patents, at least there is a minimal level of protection for small startups against giants like walmart who are quite happy to reverse engineer products and mass-produce and sell their own sub-standard ripoff.
Levine is pretty active in writing papers on this subject, and his stance is that patents do not and never have served a purpose. But it's amusing to see you try and rationalize that intelligent people can be opposed to legal monopolies. He points to cases where certain countries didn't have patents in a certain area, and their industries were much more productive. And no, patents do not help startups. Startups can't afford to engage in lengthy court battles, and any remotely profitable field is going to be chock full of patents that have to be worked around. The effect that patents have is that they protect established interests, and they are the biggest reason that we have those giants in the first place. It's idiotic to think that legal monopolies will help in competition.
i'll bet "that worthless asshole" (you're joking right) was simply being modest, or joking himself, but in any case it doesn't matter because as i've said elsewhere in comments for this article, all current innovation stands on the shoulders of giants. it doesn't than current innovation is in any way inferior to the innovation before it, and innovation still costs huge sums of time and money that few would be willing to give up without recompense of any sort. also, i don't know if newton received any financial compensation for his work, but he certainly gained personal recognition, with is another right that patents are intended to protect (as opposed to some other moron stealing his work and claiming it as his own, which may have happened back then too).
No, Newton was being honest, and had perspective (and yes I was joking about how you moronically create this dichotomy of inventors and non-inventors by pointing out a widely respected contributor to human knowledge who openly admitted to freeloading). You've failed to address my point, however, which is that 'freeloading' is undeniably more important than patents. And patents are a horrible way of granting personal recognition, especially since the world is now using first to patent, not first to invent. Furthermore, work cannot be 'stolen.' Credit could arguably be, but not work or an invention or an authored work. Again, you use the cliches of idiotic supporters of medieval economics.
I recommend that you read this book. It's chock full of examples of how patents and copyright have consistently resulted in worse results than free competition, and the examples include both industries and individuals within them in both the past and modern times, and it goes into great detail on the theory end too.
And again, you and I and every human on the planet 'blatantly rip off people who can actually invent things' all the time. Even that worthless asshole Isaac Newton blatantly admitted to such horrendous behavior, claiming that he was 'standing on the shoulders of giants.'
is there some reason why you think making such an argument is "baseless",
Because there isn't a problem with this 'free riding.' In fact, the ability to 'free ride' is undeniably far more important than the patent system.
written by a retard who has never invented anything worth patenting?
Why would inventing something worth patenting necessarily give you a better understanding of macroeconomics? The answer is that it doesn't, but assholes like yourself pretend that it does. The reality is that the people making those arguments want a handout from the government because they can't or don't want to compete in a free, competitive market. Cry me a river.
The Chinese village doesn't give you access to Halstatt. For them to be miffed about access, they would have to be creating some kind of portal that let's you go to an alternate universe Halstatt.
Also, your example is one of likeness rights, which would generally fall under the blanket of 'intellectual property.'
Slashdot Mirror
No, the US Constitution says that slavery is illegal. In it's original form, it didn't explicitly outlaw slavery, but that doesn't mean that it's inherently legal either. It was legal in some states, and illegal in others.
Let me clarify, I don't care if you make money without doing any work. In fact, if you want to send me money for doing nothing, I would enjoy that. However, if you aren't doing any actual work, you are generally very easy to replace. We've managed to get making copies of songs down to something that can be done for free, doing just as good a job, and often a better job than the record companies, iTunes, etc., so they've lost out competitively.
Yes, but the profit is made by doing actual work. In the given scenario, Carol did not do any work for Bob, so it doesn't make sense for Bob to pay Carol. I have no problem with selling a copy of a song for profit. It doesn't matter to me if Alice, Bob, or Carol does that. It's also fine in Alice, Bob, or Carol gives a copy of the song away.
Who said anything about charity? They are doing actual work. When Alice copies a song for Bob that Carol wrote and recorded, Alice is doing the work, not Carol. If Alice wants to charge Bob and Bob is willing to pay, that's fine.
I don't think they plummet to zero, since it still requires the same material, but yes, the costs would fall precipitously.
No, I'm not sure why you'd think it is. If someone has the expertise, they can be commissioned to design a new pair. They can also teach others. If they have a skill, and they make use of that skill via a service, and that service is in demand, they can make money by doing that service.
Because the hardware has a fixed per unit cost, meaning each new piece of hardware takes additional labor and resources. The cost of creating an additional copy of music is negligible, and we do pay those costs, through hard drives, internet connections, electricity, etc. The copyright holder doesn't do any additional work, so why should they receive additional funds. If I want to make money as a musician, I'll play a show.
There are no ethics. Copyright is not a system of ethics or morality. If you think there are ethics or morality involved in copyright or violation thereof, you are an idiot.
He doesn't know what's going on. Records have never been a good way to make money. He also tries to keep up the divide between artists and fans by making it a moral issue.
or, the pot wasn't metabolised fast enough to show up in urine yet.
You know, it's quite possible that the collaboration involved works as a catalyst for corruption on both sides. It's consolidation of power, and power corrupts.Thus, it could be true that the US is less corrupt without the UN and the UN is less corrupt without the US.
Congress did not set a price. They set a minimum and maximum for statutory damages. The judge reduced the award to 3 times the minimum,
No, but a 1:1 ratio is by definition average. Absent further, reliable data, that is what the safest assumption is.
Clones aren't a big deal. Identical twins are, strictly speaking, clones.
So, you think an entire field of research shouldn't exist, and you don't care about any arguments? That's pretty much the epitome of anti-intellectualism. Also, there are hungry people in places other than Africa.
Inventions are cumulative. There are inventions that are hundreds or thousands of years old that are still used as part of modern technology. However, the base invention itself is obsolete.
Except, of course, for the fact that we can build counter measures without building actual cyberweapons. Basically, the counter measures consist of good security practices and quickly plugging exploits.
No, I'm saying that patents are ineffective at accomplishing their goal, and are in general a net harm to that goal and to the welfare of inventors. It's like if your doctor still prescribed blood letting for every ailment you come in with. You would be better off letting your body handle it 9 times out of 10.
No, it applies to all patent systems that have ever existed, and to the theory of patents in general. The evidence available suggests that there is no way that patents could be a net benefit, and even if there were, we don't have a reliable way of getting a policy that would yield such results.
I do agree that we seem to be getting nowhere, although you are the one that is slathering on the insults and has not pointed to any actual evidence (although to be fair, pretty much all of the actual pro-patent evidence would fit into a single paragraph), so the brainwashed fuckface would appear to be you. I'm not quite as generous as you, though, and would probably be amused if you did commit suicide.
No, I'm saying that because, on average, both inventors and society as a whole a harmed by patents, the treatment is worse than the disease, meaning that doing nothing is better than 'protection'. Perhaps you should learn to read before calling other people dipshits.
You've 'invented' something you think is worth considering patenting. However, since it seems you didn't patent and likely didn't commercialize the invention, you are unaware of the existing patents that a final product would cover, and have no confirmation that there is anything patentable in your 'invention.' You think that because you've done something that in all likelihood is the same as what others in your field have done, that you understand the macroeconomics of patents.
You can't. But you can't in the patent system either. You have to realize that regardless of what system you have, small innovators are going to get screwed over most of the time. The argument to make is not that they don't get screwed over, it's that they don't get screwed over as often, when the evidence on the subject points to the very opposite. A large company might find a way around the particular wording of the patent (and they have more budget to get around less patents, while the startup has less of a budget to get around more patents), or more likely, they will have a hundred relevant patents to sue you with, and will end up owning your company and your patent, and doing the same thing with YOUR patent to the next startup with an awesome widget that tries to upset their business. You are making erroneous assumptions about the nature of invention. Even the massive 'game-changers' that people associate with invention after patent systems resulted in patent thickets that either resulted in patent pools in which those with money became richer and were more able to dominate the market, or agreements couldn't be made. This happened because inventions are virtually always cumulative, gradual steps forward made by a large amount of ideas cross-pollinating.
You also fail to realize that without patents, the giant scary conglomerates you are afraid of would not be able to exist in their current form (although you for some reason thought that Kmart and wal-mart are manufacturers in a major fashion. You should actually be afraid of the GEs, the IBMs, the DuPonts, all of which have enormous patent portfolios)
You can be angry, but you have no legal recourse other than likeness rights or something very close to it, and no such legal protection exists for Halstatt. However, making someone angry doesn't matter. Your gross ignorance on this topic makes me angry, but I think you have every right to be a dumbass and state your dumbass beliefs.
Levine is pretty active in writing papers on this subject, and his stance is that patents do not and never have served a purpose. But it's amusing to see you try and rationalize that intelligent people can be opposed to legal monopolies. He points to cases where certain countries didn't have patents in a certain area, and their industries were much more productive. And no, patents do not help startups. Startups can't afford to engage in lengthy court battles, and any remotely profitable field is going to be chock full of patents that have to be worked around. The effect that patents have is that they protect established interests, and they are the biggest reason that we have those giants in the first place. It's idiotic to think that legal monopolies will help in competition.
No, Newton was being honest, and had perspective (and yes I was joking about how you moronically create this dichotomy of inventors and non-inventors by pointing out a widely respected contributor to human knowledge who openly admitted to freeloading). You've failed to address my point, however, which is that 'freeloading' is undeniably more important than patents. And patents are a horrible way of granting personal recognition, especially since the world is now using first to patent, not first to invent. Furthermore, work cannot be 'stolen.' Credit could arguably be, but not work or an invention or an authored work. Again, you use the cliches of idiotic supporters of medieval economics.
I recommend that you read this book. It's chock full of examples of how patents and copyright have consistently resulted in worse results than free competition, and the examples include both industries and individuals within them in both the past and modern times, and it goes into great detail on the theory end too.
And again, you and I and every human on the planet 'blatantly rip off people who can actually invent things' all the time. Even that worthless asshole Isaac Newton blatantly admitted to such horrendous behavior, claiming that he was 'standing on the shoulders of giants.'
Because there isn't a problem with this 'free riding.' In fact, the ability to 'free ride' is undeniably far more important than the patent system.
Why would inventing something worth patenting necessarily give you a better understanding of macroeconomics? The answer is that it doesn't, but assholes like yourself pretend that it does. The reality is that the people making those arguments want a handout from the government because they can't or don't want to compete in a free, competitive market. Cry me a river.
The Chinese village doesn't give you access to Halstatt. For them to be miffed about access, they would have to be creating some kind of portal that let's you go to an alternate universe Halstatt.
Also, your example is one of likeness rights, which would generally fall under the blanket of 'intellectual property.'
I think we just need to go back to latinum based currency