Always? Never say never and never say always. I highly doubt they will always be needed. Marketing shifts all the time. The internet has caused a shift where you find ad's on web pages all over and spam in almost every email account. Whether record labels exist in the future depends highly on if they themselves shift to the new marketing medium. Even then, it all comes down to who provides the content that dominates the marketing. The more popular a site becomes, the higher it's marketing potential. Google has done very well for example by providing a great search engine and integrating ad's that aren't obtrusive enough to deter. The RIAA/MPAA can't shift fast enough to this new medium, so any threats are taken legally. It is true most of these threats are illegal according to the copyright laws, yet it is hard to break into the business that has its promotion and content tightly woven together. To advertise yourself to an audience interested in music you'll find that the just about the only successful source is the current industry. The RIAA isn't losing to piracy as much as it is losing to their inability to shift fast enough. The entire industry's inability to shift fast enough is hurting it. The worst thing about this all, it hurts the artists the most. As you already know, the artist makes a very small percentage of sales. Technology creates a sort of trickle-up effect where advancements improve the profit potential of those that already have a tight grasp on it. This is all due to legal problems and their constant attack on all threats that pop-up. Anyway, I'm ranting far too long. Next time you make your comment, put at least something insightful in it. Your comment is what they call a "questionable claim". It says "...statement that is so broad it cannot withstand scrutiny". So here I am scrutinizing it.
You have a good point. Better than most of the other posts I see. Thank you. I guess the only solution is to force open standards. If a company doesn't comply, then it can't do business with government.
There are practices which must be prevented for competition to exist. Or else we would not have antitrust laws. Strange how monopolies formed back in U.S. history even with competition. The government had to step in to break it apart. Did you take U.S. history?
Your still missing the point and making a false one. As long as the company complies with standards, then they don't get fined. Saying that only companies like Microsoft can afford to stay in business because of this is wrong. Companies don't pay if they comply. Do you have any knowledge on software? Steering away from standards and closing up formats and such is something that companies use to lock a customer in. It is very anti-competitive.
My beef isn't with any particular company, but anti-competitive practices. Where is the greed behind this idea? It prevents greed by preventing this "lock-in" practice.
and your modded insightful? This is meant to keep open standards within government. If a company doesn't comply, then they get charged and the money goes to support OSS. Now, the money issue aside, fines for not supporting standards is a good thing. Imagine if people decided to make their own rules for the road. It is hard for any good software to compete against software that is using non-compliant standards which lock the entire system into that non-compliant standard. One of the biggest and most important reasons that one piece of software doesn't replace another is the change. If all the data, employees, and other software all works well with the old system and it would take a lot of time and money to switch, then why do it? Closed source, proprietary code, and patents all have an effect of creating a monopoly that stifles competition and progress.
I keep reading posts on this being a bad idea because it goes against a free market. Or that it prevents competition. OPEN STANDARDS help keep competition. Microsoft has been killing competition by closing formats and such. This will simply cause companies like Microsoft to pay for their anti-competitive practices. Thus, it will increase open standards in government and create more competition. It is bad enough many slashdotters don't read the articles, but not reading and understanding the summary post and making an ignorant comment about it, that just pisses me off.
Is that realistic? Then your argument is flawed. I dare you to write 500mb worth of text on any subject within a reasonable length of time. Why post as an AC on such a comment anyway? Is it because you know it is unrealistic?
It really isn't "another thing entirely to require it of any and all online content". Whether it be professional or not, allowing the other side to reply is important when it comes to free speech. I am replying right now to your post. Now imagine if I couldn't. People would not see my side, only yours. Everything they know about the subject would be what they already know and what you posted. I'm surprised your marked as insightful. There is no insight in your comment. You simply state that this is a bad proposal for all online content with absolutely no basis for your argument. Why is it bad? What is so "idiotic" about this "endeavor"? Anyway, this pertains to any person or organization that is criticized, nothing more. What if someone from NY Times criticized you? I think you would find this law just. Without this law, they could criticize you and all you could do is go somewhere else where you would be reaching a different audience. Maybe I'm wrong. If I am, then please let me know why. Don't just claim this is "ideotic". Also, for those marking posts like this insightful, I criticize you for being uninsightful.
There is no way they would go after all these blogs. Can you imagine an entire department within a company dedicated to searching the net for commants and sending out replies? I can, except I also can't imagine most companies doing any such thing. This would be Orwellian and it would more than likely hurt the company. If the ideas it presents are bad ones and so many people disagree that they post blogs about it and the company counters, then it brings that idea more attention. Focus is something companies do not want when it comes to ideas that the public wouldn't be to happy about. Ideas constantly being challenged is a good thing. People will think twice about posting incorrect statements. Flame wars are just that. Intellectuals don't argue like most do online. There is a more scientific approach to evaluating ideas. Anyway, my point is, this will not cause blogs to go underground or collapse. For companies to go out of their way to post responses to all those blogs out there is impractical.
Still, which would you trust with your "gut", a stripped OS to operate on you or an OS built from ground up to never fail?
Sure, you can take a huge luxury SUV and strip it into a go cart(sp?) (somehow), but it makes more sense to build a go cart from the ground up to be a go cart.
"He fails to realize that just as certain physical goods are worth more than others (Gold vs. crap), certain ideas are worth more than others, and that while we may have oversupply of ideas in general, we also have oversupply of dirt in general. It is not an "idea" that is valuable, but "good ideas" that are valuable. We have a scarcity of good ideas, as they are hidden by all the junk that is out there." Actually, that is the beauty of ideas. In a free market place in which patents do not exist, then the better ideas win. Like capitalism, but without the physical aspect. Patents are like monopolies in such a market place of ideas.
"He fails to realize that those that come up with good ideas have done WORK, just as someone that digs up a gold nugget out of a mountain of dirt." He never fails to realize this. Seems like your using straw man here. He states though, that ideas are not created in a social vacuum. "It would not have been possible without lots of earlier work--both intellectual and nonintellectual--by many other people."
"Capitalism has soundly defeated Communism and thereby show tnat competitiveness can be VERY effective, quite capable of beating cooperation." This statement is very wrong. First I would like to ask you to read about communism before using it in a sentence. That which is practiced by "communistic" countries is not theoretically communism. It can be argued though that it is an attempt at communism. Competition is effective. Yet again, when it comes to ideas, the rules change. A soccer/football/tennis/baseball/etc. game does not involve unequal sides. One side doesn't hold a monopoly on a better bat or shoes.
"NEITHER of these problems with cooperation are sufficently dealt with by him, which is dissapointing, because they are SEVERE problems when it comes to inventions." It isn't a severe problem. People will always have an incentive to create, whether it be physical or intangible. Progress does not end with the elimination of patents.
"...overheard an office worker complaining about how hard it was to keep paper in a folder." Glad you mentioned something like this. This is the reason we come up with ideas. We think of new ways to do something or to solve a problem. Efficiency can improve a company's profit. Research and development go along with everything we do. "If he could not have patented the idea, he would never have tried to figure out a solution..." Prove it. The patent system was not created to force people to come up with ideas. It was at the time thought that the system would help promote progress. This is something we need to argue, not whether people will create without patents. The patent system does not FORCE progress. The patent system was created to PROMOTE progress. Which is what many argue today. There have been many economists of lately that have argued that it may very well stifle progress.
"...you almost always list artificially weak arguments as "your opponent's" ideas." Funny thing is there are no strong arguments on the side of patents. Give me one you think is strong and I'll show you. Also, ones arguments appear weaker beside the many arguments of the opponent.
"...quoting someone who believes as he does (Hettinger) This is almost ALWAYS a bad idea." If I was to write a book on Shakespeare, then I would obviously use a lot of his material. The reason I believe Brian Martin has taken so much from Hettinger is because Hettinger was one of the first to put forth so much on the subject in one good book or maybe it was the only book B. Martin came across at the time. It has taken some time, but there is more and more information available on the arguments against IP. Ten years from now you may find a book arguing against IP that is quoting from many sources.
Give me some examples of bad logic in his paper. I think I'll read it again soon, but I don't remember any bad logic. Btw, a lot of what he says in the paper is based on studies, research, and various other information he has gathered from sources. Check out the sources list on the bottom of the paper.
"Given the increased cost to produce and distribute copyrighted works..." This is obviously b#lls##t! Technology (internet, P2P, computers, software, electronics) have made it easier and less costly to produce and distribute ideas/music/etc. There are other things that I have found wrong in the arguments, but I don't want to spend all night typing them all out. Read carefully and question everything they say.
True. I suggest no patents whatsoever. Instead, ideas are simply that, ideas. The one thing I do have to say that does need to be done is more protection against plaigarism. If someone comes up with a new idea or product, another should not be allowed to claim glory. Credit belongs where it should, to those responsible with the creation. This would give individuals more power. Companies would then seek to higher the most talented individuals. Unlike what most people think, progress will not halt without the patent system. The current system has far too many drawbacks and I really don't have time to write them all. Google up "Brian Martin Intellectual Property" and read his paper. There is more information out there if you look for it. If you have any other questions I'll be glad to answer. Right now I need some sleep.
Yea, I'm sure whatever patent Netscape could have had would go well against all the ones Microsoft has (Sarcastic, sorry, had too). Patents become a huge legal battle. It drains money from everyone and puts it into the pockets of lawyers so they can spend a lot of time fighting each other over the issues. Who do you think ultimately pays those legal fees that companies gather? We do. Product prices reflect not just the cost of production. A great deal is spent on legal fees, marketing, and many many other areas. Whether or not you believe in patents, you can't argue that patents have not costed us all billions of dollars. Distribution of ideas would be far easier without patents. Try looking up "Brian Martin Intellectual Property" with google and read his paper. I highly recommend it.
"As if the patent system weren't screwed up enough already"
The patent system was screwed up since inception. It is a flawed idea that can never be perfected. There will always be ways to abuse the system. As if the idea of patents wasn't screwed up enough, we have people that still have a strong belief in the system. Some of the wisest people were against the system, yet the masses go along with it. Thomas Jefferson did not like the idea, he only agreed to the system at the time because it helped distribute ideas which is something we have no problem doing today.
One should use an ITX motherboard then. mini-itx.com for more info. They supply a 55 watt DC power supply for the motherboards, although the cost (about $60) is a bit high.
I wouldn't know. I have no Bluetooth devices. I just bought a Linksys Wireless Access Point Router (802.11b 2.4ghz) and also a laptop (which I should be getting tomorrow I believe). So sometime this week I'll know if the headphones interfere with 802.11b. If you want to know, E-mail me. I'll respond as soon as I find out.
Try the Amphony 2.4 ghz digital wireless headphones. Very good quality. Only disadvantage is range depends on various factors I'm not sure of. I've had it go up to 50 feet and sometimes it is only 15 feet. I think where you live makes the biggest difference. When I was living in an apartment while in college before I moved I got 50 feet through one wall and I was outside, transmitter inside. Here at home I can get as low as 15 feet to the bathroom. It is great on batteries btw.
"...more time studying ways to actually contribute to society" I could grow food and then that food can be taken away by a dictator and never get to those who need it. I am contributing to society by trying to find ways to bring these new ideas to everyone while maintaining a fluid process. From what I've learned (and I'm not the only one) is that "IP" is more of a monopoly tool that does more harm than good. There are some economists and others that are now coming out and saying this. The end product is important, but the entire process that product takes to get to its final destination is more important. Without this process, there is no end product. The process defines who, what, when, where, why, and how. My contribution is understanding the process and doing my part to improve upon it.
I have yet to receive any questions. I could start defending my position, but I would end up writing all day. If you ask me a specific question then I would be glad to answer it in as short an answer as possible. I could go on disassembling your remarks, but I'm trying to stick to the issue which is something your avoiding by talking about me. Have you ever had a debate in class? If so, do you remember the part when the teacher said that you must stick to the topic and avoid attacking the person. Give me a question, any question on the topic. As long as it isn't too broad I'll answer it.
I only ask that you read the paper by Brian Martin. Google "Brian Martin Intellectual Property". After your done reading that, I will be glad to discuss further.
"The fact that you think frequently on the subject of IP adds absolutely zero credibility to your opinions. The fact that you seem to think that it does adds negative credibility to your opinions." So I should just stop thinking?
"I'm inclined to agree with the AC that until you've had the opportunity to live beyond the shelter of your parents and the academic lifestyle that you probably lack the perspective you need to have a well-formed opinion on the subject regardless of how much reading and thinking you may have done on the issue." You know very little about who I am and what I do. "Shelter of your parents and academic lifestyle..." define that? Again, you don't know me, stick to the issue. I'm simply giving background as to the amount of personal studying I do on this subject compared to that of most people you hear giving their views on the topic. Whether or not you like it, when you have a background in a field, your seen as more credible. I think the amount of studying I've done is very important and can't be disregarded. I care about the issue and surely have no profit motive here. I would love to see change for the better, thus I educate myself. I understand the reasons behind the views of those defendin "IP" and I simply want to teach them what I have learned. I do not attack peeople like you and these AC's are doing. I often do get frustrated with the comments I see and this tends to make my wording sound harsh and I am sorry for that. Attack my ideas, I have no problem with that. Yet, when you make comments about me, it makes you look worse.
Your partly right, I didn't do a good job putting out my thoughts. I did do one thing though, and that was attempt to make the person think about the subject a little more in a different perspective.
"The fact that you're a sophmore in college hardly earmarks you as an authority on IP law..." No, it doesn't. I was again simply giving background information to help others in understanding I'm not just another poster with an opinion off the top of my head. An authoriity won't help you much anyway. It is the ones on the outside that have a perspective that is generally more unbiased compared to those within the system. I plan to do my part to keep those in authority from making mistakes. It is up to the educated to educate others and help make a change. If you have any questions you wish to ask me on the subject, please feel free. I love learning more and educating others on what I've learned. Also, don't make assumptions. I'm sure if you met me in person we would have had a much more friendlier conversation. I don't mind listening to others no matter how opinionated they are about a subject.
Re:They help, and they hurt.
on
Steal This Idea
·
· Score: 1
"IP" is not capitalistic, it is monopolistic (is that a word). People abuse any form of government to the point that they are able to, just as everyone is abusing "IP". The solution is to prevent abuse in the first place or punish it to the point that it deters. A system that does more to promote good than punish bad btw, is far better. This isn't an opinion, but a fact.
Slashdot Mirror
Always? Never say never and never say always. I highly doubt they will always be needed. Marketing shifts all the time. The internet has caused a shift where you find ad's on web pages all over and spam in almost every email account. Whether record labels exist in the future depends highly on if they themselves shift to the new marketing medium. Even then, it all comes down to who provides the content that dominates the marketing. The more popular a site becomes, the higher it's marketing potential. Google has done very well for example by providing a great search engine and integrating ad's that aren't obtrusive enough to deter. The RIAA/MPAA can't shift fast enough to this new medium, so any threats are taken legally. It is true most of these threats are illegal according to the copyright laws, yet it is hard to break into the business that has its promotion and content tightly woven together. To advertise yourself to an audience interested in music you'll find that the just about the only successful source is the current industry. The RIAA isn't losing to piracy as much as it is losing to their inability to shift fast enough. The entire industry's inability to shift fast enough is hurting it. The worst thing about this all, it hurts the artists the most. As you already know, the artist makes a very small percentage of sales. Technology creates a sort of trickle-up effect where advancements improve the profit potential of those that already have a tight grasp on it. This is all due to legal problems and their constant attack on all threats that pop-up. Anyway, I'm ranting far too long. Next time you make your comment, put at least something insightful in it. Your comment is what they call a "questionable claim". It says "...statement that is so broad it cannot withstand scrutiny". So here I am scrutinizing it.
"Questioning everything is part of my nature, i guess."
Mine too.
See below for details.
You have a good point. Better than most of the other posts I see. Thank you.
I guess the only solution is to force open standards. If a company doesn't comply, then it can't do business with government.
There are practices which must be prevented for competition to exist. Or else we would not have antitrust laws. Strange how monopolies formed back in U.S. history even with competition. The government had to step in to break it apart. Did you take U.S. history?
Your still missing the point and making a false one. As long as the company complies with standards, then they don't get fined. Saying that only companies like Microsoft can afford to stay in business because of this is wrong. Companies don't pay if they comply.
Do you have any knowledge on software? Steering away from standards and closing up formats and such is something that companies use to lock a customer in. It is very anti-competitive.
My beef isn't with any particular company, but anti-competitive practices.
Where is the greed behind this idea? It prevents greed by preventing this "lock-in" practice.
and your modded insightful?
This is meant to keep open standards within government. If a company doesn't comply, then they get charged and the money goes to support OSS. Now, the money issue aside, fines for not supporting standards is a good thing. Imagine if people decided to make their own rules for the road. It is hard for any good software to compete against software that is using non-compliant standards which lock the entire system into that non-compliant standard. One of the biggest and most important reasons that one piece of software doesn't replace another is the change. If all the data, employees, and other software all works well with the old system and it would take a lot of time and money to switch, then why do it? Closed source, proprietary code, and patents all have an effect of creating a monopoly that stifles competition and progress.
I keep reading posts on this being a bad idea because it goes against a free market. Or that it prevents competition. OPEN STANDARDS help keep competition. Microsoft has been killing competition by closing formats and such. This will simply cause companies like Microsoft to pay for their anti-competitive practices. Thus, it will increase open standards in government and create more competition. It is bad enough many slashdotters don't read the articles, but not reading and understanding the summary post and making an ignorant comment about it, that just pisses me off.
Is that realistic? Then your argument is flawed. I dare you to write 500mb worth of text on any subject within a reasonable length of time.
Why post as an AC on such a comment anyway? Is it because you know it is unrealistic?
It really isn't "another thing entirely to require it of any and all online content". Whether it be professional or not, allowing the other side to reply is important when it comes to free speech. I am replying right now to your post. Now imagine if I couldn't. People would not see my side, only yours. Everything they know about the subject would be what they already know and what you posted. I'm surprised your marked as insightful. There is no insight in your comment. You simply state that this is a bad proposal for all online content with absolutely no basis for your argument. Why is it bad? What is so "idiotic" about this "endeavor"?
Anyway, this pertains to any person or organization that is criticized, nothing more. What if someone from NY Times criticized you? I think you would find this law just. Without this law, they could criticize you and all you could do is go somewhere else where you would be reaching a different audience. Maybe I'm wrong. If I am, then please let me know why. Don't just claim this is "ideotic". Also, for those marking posts like this insightful, I criticize you for being uninsightful.
There is no way they would go after all these blogs. Can you imagine an entire department within a company dedicated to searching the net for commants and sending out replies? I can, except I also can't imagine most companies doing any such thing. This would be Orwellian and it would more than likely hurt the company. If the ideas it presents are bad ones and so many people disagree that they post blogs about it and the company counters, then it brings that idea more attention. Focus is something companies do not want when it comes to ideas that the public wouldn't be to happy about. Ideas constantly being challenged is a good thing. People will think twice about posting incorrect statements. Flame wars are just that. Intellectuals don't argue like most do online. There is a more scientific approach to evaluating ideas. Anyway, my point is, this will not cause blogs to go underground or collapse. For companies to go out of their way to post responses to all those blogs out there is impractical.
Still, which would you trust with your "gut", a stripped OS to operate on you or an OS built from ground up to never fail?
Sure, you can take a huge luxury SUV and strip it into a go cart(sp?) (somehow), but it makes more sense to build a go cart from the ground up to be a go cart.
"He fails to realize that just as certain physical goods are worth more than others (Gold vs. crap), certain ideas are worth more than others, and that while we may have oversupply of ideas in general, we also have oversupply of dirt in general. It is not an "idea" that is valuable, but "good ideas" that are valuable. We have a scarcity of good ideas, as they are hidden by all the junk that is out there."
Actually, that is the beauty of ideas. In a free market place in which patents do not exist, then the better ideas win. Like capitalism, but without the physical aspect. Patents are like monopolies in such a market place of ideas.
"He fails to realize that those that come up with good ideas have done WORK, just as someone that digs up a gold nugget out of a mountain of dirt."
He never fails to realize this. Seems like your using straw man here. He states though, that ideas are not created in a social vacuum. "It would not have been possible without lots of earlier work--both intellectual and nonintellectual--by many other people."
"Capitalism has soundly defeated Communism and thereby show tnat competitiveness can be VERY effective, quite capable of beating cooperation."
This statement is very wrong. First I would like to ask you to read about communism before using it in a sentence. That which is practiced by "communistic" countries is not theoretically communism. It can be argued though that it is an attempt at communism. Competition is effective. Yet again, when it comes to ideas, the rules change. A soccer/football/tennis/baseball/etc. game does not involve unequal sides. One side doesn't hold a monopoly on a better bat or shoes.
"NEITHER of these problems with cooperation are sufficently dealt with by him, which is dissapointing, because they are SEVERE problems when it comes to inventions."
It isn't a severe problem. People will always have an incentive to create, whether it be physical or intangible. Progress does not end with the elimination of patents.
"...overheard an office worker complaining about how hard it was to keep paper in a folder."
Glad you mentioned something like this. This is the reason we come up with ideas. We think of new ways to do something or to solve a problem. Efficiency can improve a company's profit. Research and development go along with everything we do.
"If he could not have patented the idea, he would never have tried to figure out a solution..."
Prove it. The patent system was not created to force people to come up with ideas. It was at the time thought that the system would help promote progress. This is something we need to argue, not whether people will create without patents. The patent system does not FORCE progress. The patent system was created to PROMOTE progress. Which is what many argue today. There have been many economists of lately that have argued that it may very well stifle progress.
"...you almost always list artificially weak arguments as "your opponent's" ideas."
Funny thing is there are no strong arguments on the side of patents. Give me one you think is strong and I'll show you. Also, ones arguments appear weaker beside the many arguments of the opponent.
"...quoting someone who believes as he does (Hettinger) This is almost ALWAYS a bad idea."
If I was to write a book on Shakespeare, then I would obviously use a lot of his material. The reason I believe Brian Martin has taken so much from Hettinger is because Hettinger was one of the first to put forth so much on the subject in one good book or maybe it was the only book B. Martin came across at the time. It has taken some time, but there is more and more information available on the arguments against IP. Ten years from now you may find a book arguing against IP that is quoting from many sources.
Give me some examples of bad logic in his paper. I think I'll read it again soon, but I don't remember any bad logic. Btw, a lot of what he says in the paper is based on studies, research, and various other information he has gathered from sources. Check out the sources list on the bottom of the paper.
"Given the increased cost to produce and distribute copyrighted works..."
This is obviously b#lls##t! Technology (internet, P2P, computers, software, electronics) have made it easier and less costly to produce and distribute ideas/music/etc. There are other things that I have found wrong in the arguments, but I don't want to spend all night typing them all out. Read carefully and question everything they say.
True. I suggest no patents whatsoever. Instead, ideas are simply that, ideas. The one thing I do have to say that does need to be done is more protection against plaigarism. If someone comes up with a new idea or product, another should not be allowed to claim glory. Credit belongs where it should, to those responsible with the creation. This would give individuals more power. Companies would then seek to higher the most talented individuals. Unlike what most people think, progress will not halt without the patent system.
The current system has far too many drawbacks and I really don't have time to write them all. Google up "Brian Martin Intellectual Property" and read his paper. There is more information out there if you look for it. If you have any other questions I'll be glad to answer. Right now I need some sleep.
Yea, I'm sure whatever patent Netscape could have had would go well against all the ones Microsoft has (Sarcastic, sorry, had too). Patents become a huge legal battle. It drains money from everyone and puts it into the pockets of lawyers so they can spend a lot of time fighting each other over the issues. Who do you think ultimately pays those legal fees that companies gather? We do. Product prices reflect not just the cost of production. A great deal is spent on legal fees, marketing, and many many other areas. Whether or not you believe in patents, you can't argue that patents have not costed us all billions of dollars.
Distribution of ideas would be far easier without patents. Try looking up "Brian Martin Intellectual Property" with google and read his paper. I highly recommend it.
"As if the patent system weren't screwed up enough already"
The patent system was screwed up since inception. It is a flawed idea that can never be perfected. There will always be ways to abuse the system. As if the idea of patents wasn't screwed up enough, we have people that still have a strong belief in the system. Some of the wisest people were against the system, yet the masses go along with it. Thomas Jefferson did not like the idea, he only agreed to the system at the time because it helped distribute ideas which is something we have no problem doing today.
One should use an ITX motherboard then. mini-itx.com for more info. They supply a 55 watt DC power supply for the motherboards, although the cost (about $60) is a bit high.
I wouldn't know. I have no Bluetooth devices. I just bought a Linksys Wireless Access Point Router (802.11b 2.4ghz) and also a laptop (which I should be getting tomorrow I believe). So sometime this week I'll know if the headphones interfere with 802.11b. If you want to know, E-mail me. I'll respond as soon as I find out.
Try the Amphony 2.4 ghz digital wireless headphones. Very good quality. Only disadvantage is range depends on various factors I'm not sure of. I've had it go up to 50 feet and sometimes it is only 15 feet. I think where you live makes the biggest difference. When I was living in an apartment while in college before I moved I got 50 feet through one wall and I was outside, transmitter inside. Here at home I can get as low as 15 feet to the bathroom. It is great on batteries btw.
"...more time studying ways to actually contribute to society"
I could grow food and then that food can be taken away by a dictator and never get to those who need it. I am contributing to society by trying to find ways to bring these new ideas to everyone while maintaining a fluid process. From what I've learned (and I'm not the only one) is that "IP" is more of a monopoly tool that does more harm than good. There are some economists and others that are now coming out and saying this.
The end product is important, but the entire process that product takes to get to its final destination is more important. Without this process, there is no end product. The process defines who, what, when, where, why, and how. My contribution is understanding the process and doing my part to improve upon it.
I have yet to receive any questions. I could start defending my position, but I would end up writing all day. If you ask me a specific question then I would be glad to answer it in as short an answer as possible. I could go on disassembling your remarks, but I'm trying to stick to the issue which is something your avoiding by talking about me. Have you ever had a debate in class? If so, do you remember the part when the teacher said that you must stick to the topic and avoid attacking the person. Give me a question, any question on the topic. As long as it isn't too broad I'll answer it.
I only ask that you read the paper by Brian Martin. Google "Brian Martin Intellectual Property". After your done reading that, I will be glad to discuss further.
"The fact that you think frequently on the subject of IP adds absolutely zero credibility to your opinions. The fact that you seem to think that it does adds negative credibility to your opinions."
So I should just stop thinking?
"I'm inclined to agree with the AC that until you've had the opportunity to live beyond the shelter of your parents and the academic lifestyle that you probably lack the perspective you need to have a well-formed opinion on the subject regardless of how much reading and thinking you may have done on the issue."
You know very little about who I am and what I do. "Shelter of your parents and academic lifestyle..." define that? Again, you don't know me, stick to the issue. I'm simply giving background as to the amount of personal studying I do on this subject compared to that of most people you hear giving their views on the topic. Whether or not you like it, when you have a background in a field, your seen as more credible. I think the amount of studying I've done is very important and can't be disregarded. I care about the issue and surely have no profit motive here. I would love to see change for the better, thus I educate myself. I understand the reasons behind the views of those defendin "IP" and I simply want to teach them what I have learned. I do not attack peeople like you and these AC's are doing. I often do get frustrated with the comments I see and this tends to make my wording sound harsh and I am sorry for that. Attack my ideas, I have no problem with that. Yet, when you make comments about me, it makes you look worse.
Your partly right, I didn't do a good job putting out my thoughts. I did do one thing though, and that was attempt to make the person think about the subject a little more in a different perspective.
"The fact that you're a sophmore in college hardly earmarks you as an authority on IP law..."
No, it doesn't. I was again simply giving background information to help others in understanding I'm not just another poster with an opinion off the top of my head. An authoriity won't help you much anyway. It is the ones on the outside that have a perspective that is generally more unbiased compared to those within the system.
I plan to do my part to keep those in authority from making mistakes. It is up to the educated to educate others and help make a change. If you have any questions you wish to ask me on the subject, please feel free. I love learning more and educating others on what I've learned.
Also, don't make assumptions. I'm sure if you met me in person we would have had a much more friendlier conversation. I don't mind listening to others no matter how opinionated they are about a subject.
"IP" is not capitalistic, it is monopolistic (is that a word). People abuse any form of government to the point that they are able to, just as everyone is abusing "IP". The solution is to prevent abuse in the first place or punish it to the point that it deters. A system that does more to promote good than punish bad btw, is far better. This isn't an opinion, but a fact.