"Wether they pay for this program or not doesn't concern him."
Except that IIRC, it is his stated position that you should pay for it (support Free Software.)
My take on that is should, not legally must, as if it were legally must, it would not be Free Software. Does anyone know a practical way to get to legally must while still being Free Software?
"Have you *read* the GPL? It says I can redistribute it all I want. I don't need to modify anything!"
Here is a business plan for you:
Do a survey of all the top notch GPL programs and get rich selling them.
Don't bother writing any software, I mean why spend money developing software to sell when people like me are writing software and releasing it under the GPL? Just take our GPL programs and market them for fun and profit!
Don't forget to send me my cut when you become rich using this idea. That goes for all of you who read this by the way! ~;-)
"Yes, I can choose not to release it under GPL, but RMS and his followers will proclaim me as unethical. This is the problem with RMS and his followers - the "Holier than thou" attitude."
Do you think this supposed attitude on their part makes them less holy than you or simply as holy as you?
Using your thinking, do all people who choose a path based on their ethics have a holier than thou attitude?
Will the tollerant tollerate the intollerant? Do the non-judgemental judge the judgemental? (Or those they percieve that way.) Hmmm...
Why do supposedly free market thinkers think you need government monopolies to make money?
I can build (assemble) my own PCs and I used to do just that. These days I let a few local companie do that for me. I can wash my own car, but I often pay ssomeone to do that for me as well. I grow some of the things I eat and buy some. We cook some of our meals at home and buy some out. And, wonder of wonders, no monopolies.
"Um, the people on Slashdot are not the people we're talking about here -- we're talking about a company choosing to donate money to a given political party, then being punished by a different administration for doing so."
Um, I didn't reat the article, but:
"Time Magazine is reporting that the Bush Administration is removing U.S. delegates from the Inter-American Telephone Commission because they gave money to John Kerry in last year's election."
That seem to indicate that the people gave the contributions not the company. Or is there more in the article to indicate otherwise?
pointed out the big buck incentives for doing so. Do you think these incentives are not powerful? Keep in mind that everyone likes to keep pointing out how the top of a publically traded company is only responsible for improving the share value of the share holders.
"I don't know who's worse: people paying cops to enforce the law, or cops that won't enforce it unless you pay them extra."
Sure, if it were as simple as that. But could it be that you are buying a change in their priorities? For instance, they really should be dealing with the mugger that has been in Central Park recently, but because of your "tips" they ignore the threat of physical harm to citizens and instead help you enforce your copyrights.
Another thought just came to me. Haven't I seen something in the news recently about cities refusing to have local police enfore federal laws? So aren't copyright violations, violations of federal laws? Was this the FBI getting "tips" or city cops? Hmmmm. Anyone care to bat this thought around?
Usually, inventor is talked of in relation to patents and not copyrights, so are we adressing the same issue?
"Observe that I HAVE NO PROBLEM with people downloading my music and spreading it around. It is when people COMMERCIALLY use it that it bothers me."
So, you don't like the GPL and all the good things that have resulted? Mind you, I have similar issues to yours where people who refuse to share their work are still happy to take commercial advantage of mine. Can we actually solve this problem?
Not to be rude, but I will als it again:
Please, how does it really work in practice right now?
Who is actually sueing who? Who is winning convictions? Who is going to jail? Who is going bankrupt?
Please note, I am not agreeing with the parent poster you are having issues with, just with the thought that the current system doesn't favour the really-really greedy big corporations as it operates now.
I am sure there are a lot of better plans. But how many have any chance of passing as laws and thus making a positive difference. I think this may have a chance of passing and of making a positive difference even though it is a bad idea overall.
"Since the goal of IP is to promote useful & beneficial works for the good of society, why not just use normal tax monies & pay for arts/culture/research & development directly?"
Can anyone point to any "pop" art that has been created by current tax funding? I am sure there is quite a bit that has received critical acclaim, but has any gained wide popular acclaim?
"Actually, this is the point to make analogies to copyright. Imagine if you will a town called "western music". Just about all land parcels, called "melodies", are taken [slashdot.org], and there's no public record of which are not taken."
I am with you 100 percent on this problem and the need to fix it.
I don't think "intellectual property" tax is a good idea except as a means to induce those wanting to break the system more to want to fix it instead.
However, is the analogy correct. Are those guys living there, or just absentee landlords?
"then the powers that be would need to assess a fair value for tax purposes. (This too could get ugly.)
No more ugly than "unwilling to sell at any price" to me."
I think you may have misunderstood what I meant by ugly. I think that is should be done for "intellectual property" tax but not for real property tax. Or if it is, that there should be an alternate valuation method for real property that people do not want to sell for other reasons can avail themselves of. I meant that these alternate methods could get ugly, but since this is the way I know it to be done now, possibly no more ugly that it already gets.
"say we go back to the basics, set copyright back to the original 14 yrs. doesn't that mean that GPL'd code would be dumped unprotected into the public domain? doesn't that also mean that larger companies that manage to stay around for a while (ie Microsoft) would be able to take those 14 yr old projects and impliment them in closed source packages?"
Sure, and if Microsoft wants to market 14 year old linux against up to date linux, more power to them.
"But if it can be proved that you used the idea knowing that it was patented the fines are increased (tripled I think). So lawyers in many companies will tell you never to look at patents."
Do you know if the patent database is searchable such that you can limit your searches only to patents that have already expired?
"Let's suppose there's a drug company that needs to spend $5 bil on research over the next 20 years (Thats about average) to create a new cancer treatment. Now, if they can't patent the idea and the final product, they are not going to be able to make their money back. Other ambitious companies will take the results of the research, and produce a cheaper product because they don't have 20 years worth of bills to pay back.
Because they can get no gain from this research project, and possibly even go bankrupt, without IP rights, they will opt to not produce the cancer treatment, and then NOBODY gets it."
And using this thinking, if 19 years into the project, they discover a simple plant extract that will cure this cancer, can they afford to let the knowledge out?
"So you'd favor the really-really greedy big corporations who stole the idea over the little tiny inventor guy who just wants to be paid back for what he's given to society?"
Please, how does it really work in practice right now?
In my country we tax developed land but not undeveloped land. And in fact, (I think this is right) in the out islands we dont tax citizens on their land even if it is developed.
"Otherwise, the Free Market will make us it's bitch, and overseas competitors with less draconian IP law will supplant ours (already happening in some areas)."
Once again - there can be no free market in goods protected by copyright or patent. If someone thinks there can be one, please explain the theory.
"Why not apply this ideal to houses then? That way, WalMart could just force people to sell their houses by offering them the tax value."
A couple of reasons:
First, intellecual property is not real property.
Second, you don't asess your own real property.
I did deal elsewhere with the problem of applying such a system to real property when you have one valid value for tax purposes, but for "sentimental" reasons would not be inclined to sell at any price.
Third, you come by your "intellectual property" as a result of a government granted monopoly.
You do have a very valid point in any case. How about they can only buy you out to copyleft the work or to place it in the public domain?
Also, how about you can refuse, but the tax value is adjusted upwards to the amount you turned down?
That's not good engineering, and it's not good law either."
Fine, but I tend to view it as a means to give an incentive to fix the system to those who currently keep striving to break it even more.
Find a way to hurt the pockets of those who keep trying to make matters worse and they may try to make it better.
If we call for an "intellectual property" tax, the least it might do is get people to say, "Oh wait, we were wrong, it really isn't like property after all!" This may at least lead to more honest discusisons.
"Second: who's going to be responsible for doing the valuations, and how much will it cost?"
Let each copyright or patent owner value their own asset.
Oh, but they would value it to low.
Well, we handle that with compulsary licenses and forced buy outs.
Set the value at X and set a useful lifetime. Anyone can license the patent at X/y or the copyright for X/z. What should y or z be?
Plus, if the value is X, anyone or group can give you X adjusted downwards by the percentage of useful years used/left to go and copyleft the "property" or put it in the public domain. Or they can give you twice that amount and buy the remaining useful years from you.
"And there's one other BIG problem that I can see: every single creative work is automatically copyrighted, under the Berne convention."
We need to change this so the default for non-marked works is a copyleft license. Doing that will probably be very hard. Ideas anyone?
"The point is that most intellectual property has NO value, or at least doesn't have value in the definable sense, for much of its' lifetime. Stephen King sat on the manuscript for "Carrie" for years before finally getting it published, when it turned out to be worth bazillions. How can you possibly value something like that properly?"
Might have to treat copyrights and patents differently, which should not be a problem as they are treated differently now in any case.
Copyrights? No need to value or pay tax until "published."
Patents? No need to value or pay tax until patent is granted, or "product" based on patent goes to market, or until a license to the patent is "sold".
Slashdot Mirror
My take on 'free as in speech" not "free as in beer" - this is not meant as an analogy, but rather as a hint.
As in - the definition of free we are using is not the one that means no money, it is the one that refers to freedoms. Hint. Hint.
I think people get confused when trying to read it deeper than that.
We could just as easily say "free as in market" not "free as in beer" - would that help?
all the best,
drew
"Wether they pay for this program or not doesn't concern him."
Except that IIRC, it is his stated position that you should pay for it (support Free Software.)
My take on that is should, not legally must, as if it were legally must, it would not be Free Software. Does anyone know a practical way to get to legally must while still being Free Software?
all the best,
drew
"Have you *read* the GPL? It says I can redistribute it all I want. I don't need to modify anything!"
Here is a business plan for you:
Do a survey of all the top notch GPL programs and get rich selling them.
Don't bother writing any software, I mean why spend money developing software to sell when people like me are writing software and releasing it under the GPL? Just take our GPL programs and market them for fun and profit!
Don't forget to send me my cut when you become rich using this idea. That goes for all of you who read this by the way! ~;-)
all the best,
drew
"Yes, I can choose not to release it under GPL, but RMS and his followers will proclaim me as unethical. This is the problem with RMS and his followers - the "Holier than thou" attitude."
Do you think this supposed attitude on their part makes them less holy than you or simply as holy as you?
Using your thinking, do all people who choose a path based on their ethics have a holier than thou attitude?
Will the tollerant tollerate the intollerant? Do the non-judgemental judge the judgemental? (Or those they percieve that way.) Hmmm...
all the best,
drew
Why do supposedly free market thinkers think you need government monopolies to make money?
I can build (assemble) my own PCs and I used to do just that. These days I let a few local companie do that for me. I can wash my own car, but I often pay ssomeone to do that for me as well. I grow some of the things I eat and buy some. We cook some of our meals at home and buy some out. And, wonder of wonders, no monopolies.
all the best,
drew
"Um, the people on Slashdot are not the people we're talking about here -- we're talking about a company choosing to donate money to a given political party, then being punished by a different administration for doing so."
Um, I didn't reat the article, but:
"Time Magazine is reporting that the Bush Administration is removing U.S. delegates from the Inter-American Telephone Commission because they gave money to John Kerry in last year's election."
That seem to indicate that the people gave the contributions not the company. Or is there more in the article to indicate otherwise?
all the best,
drew
"Wouldn't they do that anyway?"
Why do that? Give from one hand to one group and from the other hand to the other group and cover all your base(are belong to us)s.
Sorry, couldn't resist.
all the best,
drew
"If their patent is on the $5 billion process, there is nothing stopping some independent discover of the plant extract from using the plant extract."
3 17941
What, like if they keep their discovery secret?
"Now realistically, how often does your agenda-driven scenario happen, versus long time and money-intensive drugs?"
How would we know if they are indeed keeping such things secret?
The parent to my post:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=147003&cid=12
pointed out the big buck incentives for doing so. Do you think these incentives are not powerful? Keep in mind that everyone likes to keep pointing out how the top of a publically traded company is only responsible for improving the share value of the share holders.
all the best,
drew
"The MPAA gave these guys a couple free DVDs, it is not like these gifts were large sums of money."
No, no, you are using the wrong equation. You need to use tyhe one where each work is worth $150,000.00:
http://www.bitlaw.com/source/17usc/504.html
all the best,
drew
"To put it in perspective I would rather write someone for J-walking..."
"You're a cop and you can't spell jaywalking ?"
Dud3, y0u 3v3r 7h1nk h3 m4y b3 4 |337 c0p?
"I don't know who's worse: people paying cops to enforce the law, or cops that won't enforce it unless you pay them extra."
Sure, if it were as simple as that. But could it be that you are buying a change in their priorities? For instance, they really should be dealing with the mugger that has been in Central Park recently, but because of your "tips" they ignore the threat of physical harm to citizens and instead help you enforce your copyrights.
Another thought just came to me. Haven't I seen something in the news recently about cities refusing to have local police enfore federal laws? So aren't copyright violations, violations of federal laws? Was this the FBI getting "tips" or city cops? Hmmmm. Anyone care to bat this thought around?
all the best,
drew
"little tiny inventor guy"
Usually, inventor is talked of in relation to patents and not copyrights, so are we adressing the same issue?
"Observe that I HAVE NO PROBLEM with people downloading my music and spreading it around. It is when people COMMERCIALLY use it that it bothers me."
So, you don't like the GPL and all the good things that have resulted? Mind you, I have similar issues to yours where people who refuse to share their work are still happy to take commercial advantage of mine. Can we actually solve this problem?
Not to be rude, but I will als it again:
Please, how does it really work in practice right now?
Who is actually sueing who? Who is winning convictions? Who is going to jail? Who is going bankrupt?
Please note, I am not agreeing with the parent poster you are having issues with, just with the thought that the current system doesn't favour the really-really greedy big corporations as it operates now.
all the best,
drew
"Why bother with IP?"
I am sure there are a lot of better plans. But how many have any chance of passing as laws and thus making a positive difference. I think this may have a chance of passing and of making a positive difference even though it is a bad idea overall.
"Since the goal of IP is to promote useful & beneficial works for the good of society, why not just use normal tax monies & pay for arts/culture/research & development directly?"
Can anyone point to any "pop" art that has been created by current tax funding? I am sure there is quite a bit that has received critical acclaim, but has any gained wide popular acclaim?
all the best,
drew
"Actually, this is the point to make analogies to copyright. Imagine if you will a town called "western music". Just about all land parcels, called "melodies", are taken [slashdot.org], and there's no public record of which are not taken."
I am with you 100 percent on this problem and the need to fix it.
I don't think "intellectual property" tax is a good idea except as a means to induce those wanting to break the system more to want to fix it instead.
However, is the analogy correct. Are those guys living there, or just absentee landlords?
"then the powers that be would need to assess a fair value for tax purposes. (This too could get ugly.)
No more ugly than "unwilling to sell at any price" to me."
I think you may have misunderstood what I meant by ugly. I think that is should be done for "intellectual property" tax but not for real property tax. Or if it is, that there should be an alternate valuation method for real property that people do not want to sell for other reasons can avail themselves of. I meant that these alternate methods could get ugly, but since this is the way I know it to be done now, possibly no more ugly that it already gets.
all the best,
drew
"say we go back to the basics, set copyright back to the original 14 yrs. doesn't that mean that GPL'd code would be dumped unprotected into the public domain? doesn't that also mean that larger companies that manage to stay around for a while (ie Microsoft) would be able to take those 14 yr old projects and impliment them in closed source packages?"
Sure, and if Microsoft wants to market 14 year old linux against up to date linux, more power to them.
all the best,
drew
"But if it can be proved that you used the idea knowing that it was patented the fines are increased (tripled I think). So lawyers in many companies will tell you never to look at patents."
Do you know if the patent database is searchable such that you can limit your searches only to patents that have already expired?
all the best,
drew
"Let's suppose there's a drug company that needs to spend $5 bil on research over the next 20 years (Thats about average) to create a new cancer treatment. Now, if they can't patent the idea and the final product, they are not going to be able to make their money back. Other ambitious companies will take the results of the research, and produce a cheaper product because they don't have 20 years worth of bills to pay back.
Because they can get no gain from this research project, and possibly even go bankrupt, without IP rights, they will opt to not produce the cancer treatment, and then NOBODY gets it."
And using this thinking, if 19 years into the project, they discover a simple plant extract that will cure this cancer, can they afford to let the knowledge out?
all the best,
drew
"Each type of patent confers the right to exclude others from a precisely defined scope of technology, industrial design"
From what I have read, if that were only true, people would not have so many complaints.
all the best,
drew
"So you'd favor the really-really greedy big corporations who stole the idea over the little tiny inventor guy who just wants to be paid back for what he's given to society?"
Please, how does it really work in practice right now?
all the best,
drew
In my country we tax developed land but not undeveloped land. And in fact, (I think this is right) in the out islands we dont tax citizens on their land even if it is developed.
all the best,
drew
"Otherwise, the Free Market will make us it's bitch, and overseas competitors with less draconian IP law will supplant ours (already happening in some areas)."
Once again - there can be no free market in goods protected by copyright or patent. If someone thinks there can be one, please explain the theory.
all the best,
drew
"I could support an IP tax, but only if it accompanied significantly citizen-positive IP reform as well."
As a first crack, how about if any "IP" tax collected was used like this:
1/3 to government
1/3 to fund creation of new copyleft works
1/3 to purchase current "normally protected" works and copyleft them?
all the best,
drew
"Why not apply this ideal to houses then? That way, WalMart could just force people to sell their houses by offering them the tax value."
A couple of reasons:
First, intellecual property is not real property.
Second, you don't asess your own real property.
I did deal elsewhere with the problem of applying such a system to real property when you have one valid value for tax purposes, but for "sentimental" reasons would not be inclined to sell at any price.
Third, you come by your "intellectual property" as a result of a government granted monopoly.
You do have a very valid point in any case. How about they can only buy you out to copyleft the work or to place it in the public domain?
Also, how about you can refuse, but the tax value is adjusted upwards to the amount you turned down?
We can refine these ideas.
all the best,
drew
"That is, you're proposing a kludge.
That's not good engineering, and it's not good law either."
Fine, but I tend to view it as a means to give an incentive to fix the system to those who currently keep striving to break it even more.
Find a way to hurt the pockets of those who keep trying to make matters worse and they may try to make it better.
If we call for an "intellectual property" tax, the least it might do is get people to say, "Oh wait, we were wrong, it really isn't like property after all!" This may at least lead to more honest discusisons.
all the best,
drew
"Second: who's going to be responsible for doing the valuations, and how much will it cost?"
h t_Term_Reform/Default
Let each copyright or patent owner value their own asset.
Oh, but they would value it to low.
Well, we handle that with compulsary licenses and forced buy outs.
Set the value at X and set a useful lifetime. Anyone can license the patent at X/y or the copyright for X/z. What should y or z be?
Plus, if the value is X, anyone or group can give you X adjusted downwards by the percentage of useful years used/left to go and copyleft the "property" or put it in the public domain. Or they can give you twice that amount and buy the remaining useful years from you.
"And there's one other BIG problem that I can see: every single creative work is automatically copyrighted, under the Berne convention."
We need to change this so the default for non-marked works is a copyleft license. Doing that will probably be very hard. Ideas anyone?
http://www.infoanarchy.org/wiki/index.php/Copyrig
"The point is that most intellectual property has NO value, or at least doesn't have value in the definable sense, for much of its' lifetime. Stephen King sat on the manuscript for "Carrie" for years before finally getting it published, when it turned out to be worth bazillions. How can you possibly value something like that properly?"
Might have to treat copyrights and patents differently, which should not be a problem as they are treated differently now in any case.
Copyrights? No need to value or pay tax until "published."
Patents? No need to value or pay tax until patent is granted, or "product" based on patent goes to market, or until a license to the patent is "sold".
Somethink like that might work. Right?
all the best,
drew