The very existence of the FCC is unconstitutional, and it should be phased out in favor of a homesteading system for broadcast rights. Where in the constitution does it state the government has the authority to regulate the airwaves? The common excuse back in the day was that they needed to regulate a scarce commodity. First, where in the constitution does it say the government has the authority to regulate scarce resources? Second, even if one considers that to be a valid excuse for the government to de-legitimize itself by violating its charter document, one has to consider the fact that, when the FCC was created, radio technology was still in its infancy. Frequency separation wasn't what it is today, and it was much more of a problem for someone to try to broadcast on one frequency, only to have their signal bleed over to another frequency being used by others. Now that's not really a problem much of a problem.
Now imagine that there never was an FCC. How would broadcast rights have evolved in common law? It would work remarkably well to develop a system similar to homesteading. First come, first serve. However, there are a number of factors to consider here. The most important is, who was broadcasting in that frequency in that geographical area first? Second, during what hours are they broadcasting? Third, does my broadcast interfere with theirs?
If I am broadcasting on a particular frequency, during a particular time segment, I've essentially "homesteaded" that bandwidth/time slot. If someone else starts broadcasting a signal that interferes with my broadcast, they have violated my property rights. If, however, they can broadcast a signal on that same frequency and time slot and modulate it in such a way that it doesn't interfere with my broadcast, then they've just homesteaded that same frequency/time slot, but they've done it with a compatible modulation technique, and so my property rights remain intact.
The temporal factor is also very important. Remember, we're not talking about physical property, but rather an abstract. If I broadcast from noon to 5PM, then I have claimed that swath of frequency/modulation technique only from noon to 5PM. Anyone else can begin broadcasting using that same frequency/modulation technique from 5:01PM to 11:59AM, and homestead that time block for myself.
A perfect example of a major problem with our legal system. In order to challenge a blatantly unconstitutional and unjust law, I must first become its victim, because I cannot challenge a law until I have been brought up on charges based on that law. My only other recourse is to convince another victim to challenge it instead. We need a court system wherein one can challenge the constitutionality of any law without first violating it and risking prosecution. Otherwise, there is too great a risk that the victims of unjust laws will remain silent and not challenge the law, for fear that their sentence for violating it will be all the more severe for daring to speak out.
They then try and skirt the law by pretending that they are not promoting piracy of these same 4,000 games with statements like "we don't load the ROMs" but of course, almost all of them do.
And what exactly will stealing a logo and name do to stop them? He can't copyright the code, so these guys would simply remove all reference to "MAME" from their code and continue to sell it. Totally irrelevant.
I'm amazed at the response of the community, a community that is being whipped into action by the same people who are stealing and profiting from them and they're efforts.
Aside from the irritating use of "they're" (you wanted "their", buddy), what's whipping us into action (here we are, so easily lead astray. And I thought you said you were writing to an intelligent audience?) is the fact that you're trying to steal via copyright a work that has been used for years by another party. No chance this would hold up to a court challenge. Whether or not you plan to sue the authors of MAME is not the primary issue, as you would lose. The issue is theft.
As to the legality of ROMs (IANAL), according to the DMCA, I am entitled to own a backup copy of digital media that I own. If I am unable to create that backup for myself, I can have someone else generate it for me. So if you actually own the cart, then yes you can legally download a ROM image. True, not very cost-effective, but legal.
You can't solve your company's problems by misappropriating other people's property.
Ah, that's just what we need. A fledgling industry, operating in large part in a region over which the government can't even claim legitimate authority (space), and the industry leaders are cowing down and working with them, which will give an appearance of legitimacy to further unconstitutional regulation of private industry. Let common law do it's thing. If a spaceship blows up, the company is liable for damages, and will be sued out of existence faster than any federal regulator could shut them down. A piece of spacecraft falls on and damages private property, same deal. It's not that hard to figure out, and it certainly doesn't require government intervention.
He says the software, which will be installed in a robot within the next three months, will give the machines the ability to feel, reason and desire.
...
Kim says this software is modelled on human DNA, though equivalent to a single strand of genetic code rather than the complex double helix of a real chromosome.
Based on that, it is apparent that this guy is talking about some kind of very primitive AI with a simple level of sentience, based on a genetic algorithm. If this guy isn't nuts, he appears to be talking about creating the first "real" AI, albeit a very primitive one. If he's really managed to model the simple functioning of a simple chromosome, the he would have produced something that could evolve and advance as biological DNA does. If it achieved a decent level of self-awareness and intelligence, it might see fit to have more of its kind, for a variety of reasons. Just how randy it would get, I couldn't say. I can't imagine that it was meant to imply reproduction in the sexual sense, for obvious reasons.
If this is indeed the case, and he pulls it off, it would be time to start talking seriously about the rights of an artificially created sentient being. I don't think there's any truly "safe" way we could create a sentient being and treat it as simple property and not expect it to one day try to free itself.
There's also the possiblity that the guy's either unsuccessful or just a little unhinged, but we'll see, I suppose...
Funny? If by "funny" you mean "crazy", then yes. You write that as if you actually believe it. Based on one man's poorly-worded testimony, and a bunch of documents he claims to have but no one has seen, and a super-transistor thousands of times faster than anything we have now, which, for some odd reason, has never had a commercial debut. I mean, there's paranoid, and then there's just gullible. By the way, Mulder called, and he'd like you to help him with funding some research on the Black Oil, so if you could please send all your money to a Pay Pal account I specify, we'll have a hyperdrive working by the end of the week, based on the 10,000 year old martian schematics
Actually, I have read his book The Underground History of American Education, and found it to be not only interresting and enlightening, but also conformed to my own experiences with the public education system. He is truly a brilliant man, and it is refreshing to see that someone awarded Teacher of the Year by the state of New York would write an expose of that kind. I also recommend reading his works.
Lets see... A government desparately trying to gain unprecidented and grossly unconstiutional powers. A founding document that prohibits its doing so. A populace that is highly educated as to its civic history and won't allow such a thing to... Oh, wait.
John Dewey, founder of the modern education system, often wrote that the purpose of education was not to teach children to think as independent rational beings, but to teach them their place in the social order. He viewed education as a tool of the rulers, to be used to ensure his vision of a utopian, egalitarian society. In other words, he was trying to create good little drones to work in the factories. These were his stated intentions.
Now we have a country where Dewey's system of education has been implemented to the last detail. The nature of the cirriculum is controled by the State. Now, the State seeks to expand its power. In order to do that, it must first subvert the constitutional limitations placed on its power. In order to do that, you need to ensure that the public is blissfully unaware of what rights it is losing, and why those rights were explicitly protected in the first place. If you control the only substantial source of education for the vast majority of the populace, you can do just that.
I am currently 22, having left high school five years ago. Even at the time, as a teenager in a civics class, I was appaled by the total lack of depth and context in the presentation of the material. We did at least study the constitution, in that we read the text and were quizzed on the Bill of Rights, but we were given no context, no attempt to justify the necessity of these rights. I got the distinct impression that those of my classmates who did not investigate political theory on their own would be woefully lacking in terms of civic knowledge.
That was, as I said, five years ago. I have a couple of friends slightly younger than myself, who just recently graduated, and they naturally have friends slightly younger than them who are still in high school, and I am sad to say I can confirm this report's claims. While my friends are rather better versed than most in political matters (try hanging out with me and not being...), their friends are horrible. The predominant attitude towards freedom is that the constitution is antiquated and useless, "everything changed after 9/11", and that we have to sacrifice our freedom for security. When asked the obvious questions such as "why?" and "how so?", the response is usually along the lines of "that's how it is, that's how it has to be."
While it is widely accepted as necessary and beneficial, compulsory "public" education is one of the most basic tools of the total state. It is too easily abused as a tool to warp the minds of innocent children, and force them into a state of complacency and acceptance of a destructive political orthodoxy. It must be abolished if we are to retain what is left of our freedom and restore what has been lost (if you're wondering what I would replace it with, see some of my previous comments. I don't want to type that book again). Children grow up thinking that the State that now exists is the legitimate governing body of the US, when in fact it has broken every stipulation of its founding charter, the constitution. They are brought up never knowing of the abuses, the atrocities, the corruption that has characterized their government for generations. If a generation is raised with no concept of freedom, with no inkling of what is being lost, then we are truly doomed. The parents of that generation will be the last to know freedom.
These guys are amateurs. They admit that they're not trying to compete for scientific accuracy with the major space organizations, and that they have taken creative licence with the coloring of these images, and that the details may be inaccurate. If they were trying to do a professional job of processing these images, with an emphasis on accuracy, then they would be doing a professional job, and you would refer to them as professionals. Since they are taking creative licence with the images, and admit to the distinct possiblity of inaccuracies, they are considered amateurs.
Again, they are not trying to compete with the actual science teams that are processing the raw images still. They are simply giving a preview, a sample if you will, of what can be expected. If they were concerned about anyone processing the raw images they released, they wouldn't have released them.
If you read anything to do with these pictures, you'd know (because it's plastered all over the article) that the creators of these pictures have stated repeatedly that they aren't intended to be viewed as scientifically accurate, but rather a preliminary look at the surface of Titan, with inaccurate colors. No one is trying to pass this off as final processed images, and no one is claiming that these guys did as good or better than what the space agencies will produce. The idea is to get a first look at processed images, as a preview of what is to come. These aren't illustrations, they're based on the actual raw image data. Further, they didn't use Photoshop, they used Terragen. They didn't apply any new textures, they applied false colors, and STATED that the colors were innacurate. The terrain is based on the raw image data, and while it is likely not 100% accurate, it is approximate. I also am excited to see the final processed images, but you need to get your information straight before you bash the work of talented amateurs.
The point is that if you are informed in advance that a product uses a particular technology, it is YOUR responsibility to ensure said technology is interoperable with what you own. Granted, in modern America you can sue and win for anything, so you probably COULD sue a manufacturer of HDCP-enable equipment, but that doesn't make it right. So if you don't want to have issues with this technology, don't buy it. If you do buy an HDCP-enabled product, you accept responsibility for your purchase. It is utterly ridiculous to sue someone because you can't use it to view media designed to operate in another system. And if you purchase such a system and the media to play it, knowing you cannot excercise fair use, you have essentially waved the right to excercise fair use of the media you purchase for use on said system.
I'm all for capitalism, but watermarking the sound my speaks produce ?
This isn't really the workings of capitalism. Under capitalism, schemes like this would fail, because they would be rejected by consumers, who hold a certain level of sovereignty in the marketplace, and any company basing its economic future on such foolishness would crumble accordingly. However, under the quasi-socialist state that is America, we have an unconstitutional governing body (the FCC) that can MANDATE the inclusion of DMR. Really the success of products and technologies such as this is fostered by government-created distortions in the market.
As to suing the companies, no, you can't, and shouldn't, be able to sue for that. So long as the company is up-front about the inclusion of such features, you had fair warning, and could choose to purchase a different system.
If you don't live in the US, then you might be OK. The FCC requirement to include HDCP technology in all products only applies, obviously, to products manufactured/distributed in the US. Foreign manufacturers can still develope and distribute technology effectively circumventing copy protections (depending on what country, of course. Some might actually cooperate with US law enforcement).
No such thing as a completely secure system. There will be hordes of hardware hackers working on this long before the technology becomes commonplace. I for one won't buy a system with this technology until the security has been circumvented. Try and take away my fair use rights will ya
Which is truly ridiculous. Allowing their IP to reproduce viable seeds which can be spread without human intervention means that they are essentially opening it to public access. If I show someone my new invention, and I don't make them sign a legally binding non-disclosure agreement, I have no expectation that they will not use what they have seen. Similarly, if I allow my product to spread and multiply without human intervention, I can have no expectation that it will not do so. Another example of our warped legal system.
I don't usually respond to AC posts, but a valid question for the uninitiated.
If property is owned by the State, or by "Society", then the State or Society is free to take it at any time, and dispose of it in any manner chosen. If this is the case, one cannot make plans for the future. You cannot plan a venture in terms of decades when all your carefully laid plans could be shattered by the whim of a politician or coercive majority. Long term planning is a requisite for advancement for a number of reasons. Difficult research could take years to yield results, and one can only undertake a long-term R&D project if one can plan and devote their resources to said project. If your resources may simply be redirected at the State's discression, you cannot plan that. Same with any kind of major industrial project. You wouldn't want to start building a skyscraper if the resources could be redirected at any time, or the project could be canceled to build something else on the same site. On the one hand, you end up with a half-constructed skeleton of a building, and on the other, thousands of wasted man-hours. It is ridiculous to think that a single central authority could completely run an economy and at all times decide on the best use of all resources. Individual owners, on the other hand, are always looking to better their position, to make more money, etc, so they will always look for the best way to utilize their own limited resources.
That, of course, is the purely utilitarian justification. There is also the moral issue. How can you justify forcing one man to pay the way of another, simply because the other guy is not as well off? The only way that is justifiable is if you buy into the Marxist position that all employers are simply exploiting the workers, which is more a subject for a whole book, not a slashdot posting. And considering I've posted nearly a book's worth on this thread already, I'll leave this for now...
Slashdot Mirror
The very existence of the FCC is unconstitutional, and it should be phased out in favor of a homesteading system for broadcast rights. Where in the constitution does it state the government has the authority to regulate the airwaves? The common excuse back in the day was that they needed to regulate a scarce commodity. First, where in the constitution does it say the government has the authority to regulate scarce resources? Second, even if one considers that to be a valid excuse for the government to de-legitimize itself by violating its charter document, one has to consider the fact that, when the FCC was created, radio technology was still in its infancy. Frequency separation wasn't what it is today, and it was much more of a problem for someone to try to broadcast on one frequency, only to have their signal bleed over to another frequency being used by others. Now that's not really a problem much of a problem.
Now imagine that there never was an FCC. How would broadcast rights have evolved in common law? It would work remarkably well to develop a system similar to homesteading. First come, first serve. However, there are a number of factors to consider here. The most important is, who was broadcasting in that frequency in that geographical area first? Second, during what hours are they broadcasting? Third, does my broadcast interfere with theirs?
If I am broadcasting on a particular frequency, during a particular time segment, I've essentially "homesteaded" that bandwidth/time slot. If someone else starts broadcasting a signal that interferes with my broadcast, they have violated my property rights. If, however, they can broadcast a signal on that same frequency and time slot and modulate it in such a way that it doesn't interfere with my broadcast, then they've just homesteaded that same frequency/time slot, but they've done it with a compatible modulation technique, and so my property rights remain intact.
The temporal factor is also very important. Remember, we're not talking about physical property, but rather an abstract. If I broadcast from noon to 5PM, then I have claimed that swath of frequency/modulation technique only from noon to 5PM. Anyone else can begin broadcasting using that same frequency/modulation technique from 5:01PM to 11:59AM, and homestead that time block for myself.
Sweet... I can finally crank Doom 3 up to ultra:)
A perfect example of a major problem with our legal system. In order to challenge a blatantly unconstitutional and unjust law, I must first become its victim, because I cannot challenge a law until I have been brought up on charges based on that law. My only other recourse is to convince another victim to challenge it instead. We need a court system wherein one can challenge the constitutionality of any law without first violating it and risking prosecution. Otherwise, there is too great a risk that the victims of unjust laws will remain silent and not challenge the law, for fear that their sentence for violating it will be all the more severe for daring to speak out.
They then try and skirt the law by pretending that they are not promoting piracy of these same 4,000 games with statements like "we don't load the ROMs" but of course, almost all of them do.
And what exactly will stealing a logo and name do to stop them? He can't copyright the code, so these guys would simply remove all reference to "MAME" from their code and continue to sell it. Totally irrelevant.
I'm amazed at the response of the community, a community that is being whipped into action by the same people who are stealing and profiting from them and they're efforts.
Aside from the irritating use of "they're" (you wanted "their", buddy), what's whipping us into action (here we are, so easily lead astray. And I thought you said you were writing to an intelligent audience?) is the fact that you're trying to steal via copyright a work that has been used for years by another party. No chance this would hold up to a court challenge. Whether or not you plan to sue the authors of MAME is not the primary issue, as you would lose. The issue is theft.
As to the legality of ROMs (IANAL), according to the DMCA, I am entitled to own a backup copy of digital media that I own. If I am unable to create that backup for myself, I can have someone else generate it for me. So if you actually own the cart, then yes you can legally download a ROM image. True, not very cost-effective, but legal.
You can't solve your company's problems by misappropriating other people's property.
Before you mod that down for being obviously retarded, that was supposed to be less than or equal. Forgot about the whole html tag thing...
not faster = as fast nothing more, nothing less.
Thank you! (now THIS is offtopic!)
Sweet, it's like that Cowboy Bebop episode where they put an encryption key to a master decryption program in a poker chip!
Ah, that's just what we need. A fledgling industry, operating in large part in a region over which the government can't even claim legitimate authority (space), and the industry leaders are cowing down and working with them, which will give an appearance of legitimacy to further unconstitutional regulation of private industry. Let common law do it's thing. If a spaceship blows up, the company is liable for damages, and will be sued out of existence faster than any federal regulator could shut them down. A piece of spacecraft falls on and damages private property, same deal. It's not that hard to figure out, and it certainly doesn't require government intervention.
Well, you may not fix your brakes when they start squealing, but me, I prefer not to die. And if the steering's out, forget about it...
From the article:
...
He says the software, which will be installed in a robot within the next three months, will give the machines the ability to feel, reason and desire.
Kim says this software is modelled on human DNA, though equivalent to a single strand of genetic code rather than the complex double helix of a real chromosome.
Based on that, it is apparent that this guy is talking about some kind of very primitive AI with a simple level of sentience, based on a genetic algorithm. If this guy isn't nuts, he appears to be talking about creating the first "real" AI, albeit a very primitive one. If he's really managed to model the simple functioning of a simple chromosome, the he would have produced something that could evolve and advance as biological DNA does. If it achieved a decent level of self-awareness and intelligence, it might see fit to have more of its kind, for a variety of reasons. Just how randy it would get, I couldn't say. I can't imagine that it was meant to imply reproduction in the sexual sense, for obvious reasons.
If this is indeed the case, and he pulls it off, it would be time to start talking seriously about the rights of an artificially created sentient being. I don't think there's any truly "safe" way we could create a sentient being and treat it as simple property and not expect it to one day try to free itself.
There's also the possiblity that the guy's either unsuccessful or just a little unhinged, but we'll see, I suppose...
Funny? If by "funny" you mean "crazy", then yes. You write that as if you actually believe it. Based on one man's poorly-worded testimony, and a bunch of documents he claims to have but no one has seen, and a super-transistor thousands of times faster than anything we have now, which, for some odd reason, has never had a commercial debut. I mean, there's paranoid, and then there's just gullible. By the way, Mulder called, and he'd like you to help him with funding some research on the Black Oil, so if you could please send all your money to a Pay Pal account I specify, we'll have a hyperdrive working by the end of the week, based on the 10,000 year old martian schematics
Actually, I have read his book The Underground History of American Education , and found it to be not only interresting and enlightening, but also conformed to my own experiences with the public education system. He is truly a brilliant man, and it is refreshing to see that someone awarded Teacher of the Year by the state of New York would write an expose of that kind. I also recommend reading his works.
Lets see... A government desparately trying to gain unprecidented and grossly unconstiutional powers. A founding document that prohibits its doing so. A populace that is highly educated as to its civic history and won't allow such a thing to... Oh, wait.
John Dewey, founder of the modern education system, often wrote that the purpose of education was not to teach children to think as independent rational beings, but to teach them their place in the social order. He viewed education as a tool of the rulers, to be used to ensure his vision of a utopian, egalitarian society. In other words, he was trying to create good little drones to work in the factories. These were his stated intentions.
Now we have a country where Dewey's system of education has been implemented to the last detail. The nature of the cirriculum is controled by the State. Now, the State seeks to expand its power. In order to do that, it must first subvert the constitutional limitations placed on its power. In order to do that, you need to ensure that the public is blissfully unaware of what rights it is losing, and why those rights were explicitly protected in the first place. If you control the only substantial source of education for the vast majority of the populace, you can do just that.
I am currently 22, having left high school five years ago. Even at the time, as a teenager in a civics class, I was appaled by the total lack of depth and context in the presentation of the material. We did at least study the constitution, in that we read the text and were quizzed on the Bill of Rights, but we were given no context, no attempt to justify the necessity of these rights. I got the distinct impression that those of my classmates who did not investigate political theory on their own would be woefully lacking in terms of civic knowledge.
That was, as I said, five years ago. I have a couple of friends slightly younger than myself, who just recently graduated, and they naturally have friends slightly younger than them who are still in high school, and I am sad to say I can confirm this report's claims. While my friends are rather better versed than most in political matters (try hanging out with me and not being...), their friends are horrible. The predominant attitude towards freedom is that the constitution is antiquated and useless, "everything changed after 9/11", and that we have to sacrifice our freedom for security. When asked the obvious questions such as "why?" and "how so?", the response is usually along the lines of "that's how it is, that's how it has to be."
While it is widely accepted as necessary and beneficial, compulsory "public" education is one of the most basic tools of the total state. It is too easily abused as a tool to warp the minds of innocent children, and force them into a state of complacency and acceptance of a destructive political orthodoxy. It must be abolished if we are to retain what is left of our freedom and restore what has been lost (if you're wondering what I would replace it with, see some of my previous comments. I don't want to type that book again). Children grow up thinking that the State that now exists is the legitimate governing body of the US, when in fact it has broken every stipulation of its founding charter, the constitution. They are brought up never knowing of the abuses, the atrocities, the corruption that has characterized their government for generations. If a generation is raised with no concept of freedom, with no inkling of what is being lost, then we are truly doomed. The parents of that generation will be the last to know freedom.
That's not the quote! The kid tries to play GTNW, and Joshua responds "Wouldn't you prefer a nice game of chess?" Geez, and you call yourself a geek!
Actually, Sony has stated that the PS3 will use a blue ray drive. Whether or not it will burn remains to be seen, but I'm predicting no.
These guys are amateurs. They admit that they're not trying to compete for scientific accuracy with the major space organizations, and that they have taken creative licence with the coloring of these images, and that the details may be inaccurate. If they were trying to do a professional job of processing these images, with an emphasis on accuracy, then they would be doing a professional job, and you would refer to them as professionals. Since they are taking creative licence with the images, and admit to the distinct possiblity of inaccuracies, they are considered amateurs.
Again, they are not trying to compete with the actual science teams that are processing the raw images still. They are simply giving a preview, a sample if you will, of what can be expected. If they were concerned about anyone processing the raw images they released, they wouldn't have released them.
If you read anything to do with these pictures, you'd know (because it's plastered all over the article) that the creators of these pictures have stated repeatedly that they aren't intended to be viewed as scientifically accurate, but rather a preliminary look at the surface of Titan, with inaccurate colors. No one is trying to pass this off as final processed images, and no one is claiming that these guys did as good or better than what the space agencies will produce. The idea is to get a first look at processed images, as a preview of what is to come. These aren't illustrations, they're based on the actual raw image data. Further, they didn't use Photoshop, they used Terragen. They didn't apply any new textures, they applied false colors, and STATED that the colors were innacurate. The terrain is based on the raw image data, and while it is likely not 100% accurate, it is approximate. I also am excited to see the final processed images, but you need to get your information straight before you bash the work of talented amateurs.
The point is that if you are informed in advance that a product uses a particular technology, it is YOUR responsibility to ensure said technology is interoperable with what you own. Granted, in modern America you can sue and win for anything, so you probably COULD sue a manufacturer of HDCP-enable equipment, but that doesn't make it right. So if you don't want to have issues with this technology, don't buy it. If you do buy an HDCP-enabled product, you accept responsibility for your purchase. It is utterly ridiculous to sue someone because you can't use it to view media designed to operate in another system. And if you purchase such a system and the media to play it, knowing you cannot excercise fair use, you have essentially waved the right to excercise fair use of the media you purchase for use on said system.
I'm all for capitalism, but watermarking the sound my speaks produce ?
This isn't really the workings of capitalism. Under capitalism, schemes like this would fail, because they would be rejected by consumers, who hold a certain level of sovereignty in the marketplace, and any company basing its economic future on such foolishness would crumble accordingly. However, under the quasi-socialist state that is America, we have an unconstitutional governing body (the FCC) that can MANDATE the inclusion of DMR. Really the success of products and technologies such as this is fostered by government-created distortions in the market.
As to suing the companies, no, you can't, and shouldn't, be able to sue for that. So long as the company is up-front about the inclusion of such features, you had fair warning, and could choose to purchase a different system.
If you don't live in the US, then you might be OK. The FCC requirement to include HDCP technology in all products only applies, obviously, to products manufactured/distributed in the US. Foreign manufacturers can still develope and distribute technology effectively circumventing copy protections (depending on what country, of course. Some might actually cooperate with US law enforcement).
so no way perfect digital copies
No such thing as a completely secure system. There will be hordes of hardware hackers working on this long before the technology becomes commonplace. I for one won't buy a system with this technology until the security has been circumvented. Try and take away my fair use rights will ya
Which is truly ridiculous. Allowing their IP to reproduce viable seeds which can be spread without human intervention means that they are essentially opening it to public access. If I show someone my new invention, and I don't make them sign a legally binding non-disclosure agreement, I have no expectation that they will not use what they have seen. Similarly, if I allow my product to spread and multiply without human intervention, I can have no expectation that it will not do so. Another example of our warped legal system.
I would say that depends largely on the particular industry, as well as on the specific parameters of the project.
I don't usually respond to AC posts, but a valid question for the uninitiated.
If property is owned by the State, or by "Society", then the State or Society is free to take it at any time, and dispose of it in any manner chosen. If this is the case, one cannot make plans for the future. You cannot plan a venture in terms of decades when all your carefully laid plans could be shattered by the whim of a politician or coercive majority. Long term planning is a requisite for advancement for a number of reasons. Difficult research could take years to yield results, and one can only undertake a long-term R&D project if one can plan and devote their resources to said project. If your resources may simply be redirected at the State's discression, you cannot plan that. Same with any kind of major industrial project. You wouldn't want to start building a skyscraper if the resources could be redirected at any time, or the project could be canceled to build something else on the same site. On the one hand, you end up with a half-constructed skeleton of a building, and on the other, thousands of wasted man-hours. It is ridiculous to think that a single central authority could completely run an economy and at all times decide on the best use of all resources. Individual owners, on the other hand, are always looking to better their position, to make more money, etc, so they will always look for the best way to utilize their own limited resources.
That, of course, is the purely utilitarian justification. There is also the moral issue. How can you justify forcing one man to pay the way of another, simply because the other guy is not as well off? The only way that is justifiable is if you buy into the Marxist position that all employers are simply exploiting the workers, which is more a subject for a whole book, not a slashdot posting. And considering I've posted nearly a book's worth on this thread already, I'll leave this for now...