Bullshit. Artists produce art for many reasons, usually with this appended clause: "...and also to make money so myself and my family can eat."
I call bullshit back.
Major "artists" have their lawyers add the make money clause at the request of the *aa while they vacation on their yacht.
Check with any new/starting artist and I can guarantee you that none are doing it for the money - 'cause they aren't making any. Playing bars pays next to nothing, and that's where they all start. Do they have dreams of making big money? Sure, but then don't we all? Having dreams of making big money, and doing it for the money are two different things.
And boy
Fuck off hick. Address people with some respect, and some might be returned.
here's another wake-up call: you don't get to decide for the rest of us what constitutes art or an artist. You're just another Joe on the street, and your opinion on the matter isn't any more important than anyone else's.
You're right, mine is worth no more than yours. And it is precisely for that reason that I balk at letting a multinatonal conglomorate decide what gets air-time. Because neither you nor I was consulted in that process. Some marketer decided that (s)he could sell a particular artist, and so they get played non-stop on the radio, regardless of what you or I think of them.
And before you say that sales is an indicator of what people like (as opposed to my version, which is sales are based on what was marketed) you need to take a quick primer on the effectiveness of marketing. As a hint/starting point, try looking at demandless products like diamonds and coca-cola.
It is precisely because I don't want others deciding what is art that I oppose the current system.
What you can say is that the DRM prohibits the creation of such a market.
How would you resell it if it *didn't* have DRM?
While I am anti-DRM, in this case I wasn't arguing against DRM (per say). I was pointing out a flaw in the current implementation. (by Apple and others). If we are going to have DRM shoved down our throats I expect that the media companies fulfill their end of the bargain.
While they argue that DRM's necessary to stop pirates, it's important to not forget that we consumers have rights and the steps that the copyright holders are currently taking are just as wrong as the piracy. The *aa can not take the moral high road, claiming that they are hard done by, only to ignore the rules themselves. The rights-owners attitude is plainly visible in actions like the Sony fiasco, and the point is that none of the current DRM schemes are lawful...
In other words, the illigitimate actions of a few does not make it right for rights holders to unilaterally re-write the social copyright contract.
Especially in the absence of any real proof that the current rate of piracy is actually hurting them. Let's recall that this particular group of people has a long history of being very wrong about the effects of new technology and new business models. They fought radio, cassettes, CD burners etc. None of these caused their business to falter - in fact they increased sales. Still they fought. Think filesharing is any different? I don't.
For number 2 the answer will probably be Apple will deal with that when the copyright expiration comes up if ever.
No offence, but I don't trust a corporation to (a) exist in 100-yrs, (b) live up to any promise that it doesn't fulfill *now*.
What a lawsuit would ensure is that Apple makes the necessary provisions in it's software today that ensures that no further action/interaction on their part is required to fulfill it's obligation. And in my opinion, it is an obligation:
The whole point of copyright is to enrich society -- imagine if every copy of a song was sold exclusively in DRM format (and this is not improbable if the *aa have their way). In this scenario, copyright would become infinite, not by copyright law (which limits in the 100+yrs range) but by technical means. This makes the DRM (essentially) in contravention with the spirit (if not the wording) of copyright law.
It is on this grounds (and with this specific result, not money) that a suit could be launched, and would (hopefully!) be succesful. If it were not succesful then the *aa has already won, and all culture belongs to them. end of story.
But you can't say there's a resale market for tracks purchased on iTunes.
Actually you can't say that there is no resale market for tracks purchased on iTunes. What you can say is that the DRM prohibits the creation of such a market. I suspect that there are people who would like to sell their tracks, and I suspect that there are people who would buy them.
Personally I'm still waiting to see who will sue Apple on two grounds:
that their DRM prohibits re-sale, and Apple must include a sale-ability into their DRM
that while the copyright on the works will (one day) expire, the DRM will not, and so Apple must include a time-limit after which the file will become unencumbered.
That's right; one deprives the victim of money or goods, the other deprives the victim of income.
This is still wrong. Or do you believe that when I borrow a DVD from a friend that the 'victim'* is deprived of income?
So we can (hopefully) agree that there is no loss to the studio when I borrow a DVD from a friend. Now have you ever either borrowed something from someone who had borrowed it from someone else? (or been anyone in that equation) ? And I think that we can again agree that the original 'producer' of the borrowed-item still suffered no loss?
So obviously the degree of borrowing/lending doesn't cause loss to the 'victim'*? In other words, if the 2nd borrower again lends it to a fourth party, is the original producer harmed? The n-th lender/borrower combination in no way affects your 'victim'.
So now explain how the studio is hurt when I borrow a movie from someone I've never met? This is merely a direct n-th level lender/borrower combination...
The real threat is that the content may stopped being produced because the people paying for the production arent seeing a return on investment.
...actually the only real threat is that the middle-men don't get paid to market their wares to you.
Artists (real artists) make art for art, not for money.
Marketers, on the other hand, convince you that you should spend money on their particular product: In this case, their specific music.
Many people make the mistake of confusing stuff they've heard of with stuff that was made.
Art will be made whether or not it gets sold. Art will be made whether or not someone figures out how to monetize it. Art will be made because creativity is a human trait.
The problem I see is that they take down legal content in the pursuit of pirated DVDs. Why should the BT community that isn't pirating DVDs be paying for the abuse of a few?
Because the *AA's have done such a good job of convincing everyone that copy==pirate that there is no such thing as legal content...
The problem is the created jobs are typically higher level and require more education.
I guess what I've seen so far is when manufacturing jobs get removed from a local economy it leaves behind a large contingent of unskilled workers.
So while it may be true that the company hires more skilled workers with the savings from moving their unskilled jobs, it's not the same people that then benefit. This also assumes that the economy has the more skilled workforce available. This will also only result in an increasing income chasm. i.e. rich get richer, poor get poorer.
Sure, over a sufficiently long time-line the balance is restored as newly skilled people enter the workforce, but that doesn't help the specific people that were displaced (they were put out of work!).
People don't care that the economy is better or worse off due to globalisation: They just want their own paycheck to arrive every two weeks. Everyone else can fsck off. So many people in a blue-collar position (or lately ripped-jeans and a diet cola writing code position) are worried that their specific job is going to vanish.
Ignorance as if we are talking about some third world country!
You are confusing several ideas to make your assertion:
Not caring != Ignorance
Education != Intelligence
Having Job != Caring About Job
Rich != Motivated
3rd World != Stupid
The reality is that some very small percentage of the population drags the rest (of us) forward, while we kick and scream and protest. Further, by the Peter Principle, we are assured that few (or no!) positions will be held by someone capable of performing well in that position.
The government is just a gigantic ball of red tape - basically accountable to no one, and (unlike a private corporation) basically can't go bankrupt.
So I guess what I'm saying is even in this very rich and educated country not everyone is a rocket scientist, and even less are motivated to do a good job, and those numbers drop even further when you work in a thankless job in a seemingly pointless void of a government bureaucracy.
I like that Federation Against Copyright Theft (Fact) is in fact not about theft... how do you steal a copyright? Or do these guys represent the musicians who've had their works stolen by the RIAA?
So it's really Federation Against Copyright Infringment (Faci)...which leads to Federation Employing Copyright Eventually Slumps (Feces) FUD About Laws Stymies Everyone (False)
hmmm, not great; there must be better. anyone? Bueler? anyone?
Also the patent office needs to be held accountable for it's mistakes, like, for instance, paying for anyone who has to fight a bogus patent. Maybe then they'd take due care?
uh... that would be your tax money they would pay out with. No thanks.
And good luck making the patent officers personally liable... that'll grind the whole thing to a stand-still as they refuse to grant any more patents to anyone.
The problem with the patent system is that (like communism) it's a nice idea on paper, but totally unworkable in reality. Necessity is the mother of all invention, and when faced with a problem the majority of people (engineers etc) will arrive at a very similar solution to any given problem independently. This means that all of these solutions should fail the non-obviousness test. So unless you arrive at a solution that others skilled in the field don't arrive at, your solution can't be patented. (of course they often do get patented despite this rule...)
I've jokingly said we should have patent-jury duty... maybe it's not such a bad idea after all... a new requirement of keeping the little ring on your little finger is to, on a random basis, provide solutions to a problem (based on a patent request) in a vacuum situation. Any solution you (and the other random contestants) come up with that is similar to the patent request will cause the patent to fail the non-obviousness test.
Combine that with a requirement to actually produce a working prototype, and shorter monopoly times and we might have a patent system that actually benefits society instead of shareholders.
People can't spend 3 minutes with their children these days with their hectic lives, in order not to have to watch the previews etc.? I think this is getting pretty sick.
If you think watching an unskippable FBI warning or other crap is quality time with your children then I think you need to re-evaluate...
For me, the point isn't about 60seconds, or 120 seconds. It's my media. I bought it. I should be able to use it as I see fit, not as they see fit. How about from now on, whenever you start your car, it won't move for 3 minutes. You must be buckled in your seat ('cause after the ~3-minutes are up, it starts to move w/o further warning) and on the windshield a video message is displayed about how you need to change your oil to keep the warranty....tell me you'd tolerate that from a car manufacturer.
I mean, protesting the funeral and saying it is Gods will your son has dies? Saying the IED are a good thing because they are the sword of God? at a funeral? There is some free speech that does not need protecting.
It's only by open debate that false and even inflamatory remarks get debunked.
There's several problems with any censorship. Not the least is that whatever you're censoring will still be discussed, but not in a formal context. This allows those trying to spread negative views free reign to spout crap to everyone they meet (and some will be swayed) while not allowing any kind of rebuttle (leaving those people swayed).
The big problem of course is the slippery-slope. Things offensive have a way of changing over time - and if you let someone decide what you can and cannot say then they are able to impose their views on you... we're back to the police state.
I don't think we gain anything by imposing censorship - society is far stronger by allowing an open and unfettered dialog on any subject....but hey if you don't like this point of view, just get it censored.
How about the estimated half of the prisoners in Guantanamo who don't seem to have actually done anything?
Some of them are probably innocent, and some of them most likely aren't. The question is how to determine that, which is a difficult decision in a time of war. But they certainly weren't put in jail for thinking the wrong thoughts. They were believed, rightly or wrongly, to be involved in terrorism.
4 words: Innocent until proven guilty.
How about the protesters arrested in NYC during the Republican convention - held in jail and mostly released with no charges?
It's called "disturbing the peace". They weren't arrested for having the wrong thoughts, they were arrested for violating the rights of others. You have the right to free speech; you don't have the right to force your speech on others and create a public nuisance.
Peaceful assembly and demonstration is a key and integral part of a democracy. When the guv removes people who oppose their views we have arrived at a police state.
Regardless of what you think of Bush and regardless of what you think of them protestors we must all protect the rights of the protestors to have their say: The famous quote often attributed to Voltaire, that "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" seems as relevant now as it ever did.
I know how the rules are implemented, I'm just saying what I think makes sense. Seriously, how can you call an idea original if multiple people come up with the same thing on their own, with no knowledge of each other?
And that would be the other requirement for a patent to be granted: nonobviousness.
The problem is that this test can not* easily be applied in a proper manner.
If you place a dozen random engineers in a room, and ask them to solve a problem, you are likely to get only a couple of different solutions. Patents on these should be disallowed. Other solutions would be patentable.
Note from the link that An invention is nonobvious if it would be viewed as an unexpected or surprising development by someone skilled in the technology of the particular field. Note that it's not nonobvious to joe-six-pack, but to someone who is knowledgeable in the field. Are we really to believe that the poor people down at the USTPO are experts in every field? Almost by definition, even if you start by hiring 'skilled' people, they lose their 'skilled' status as soon as they leave the field (due to changes in the field) to work the patent desk, and you end up with non-skilled people reviewing for obviousness.
The patent system as designed is set up to fail...it can end nowhere other than where we are today.
*some suggest independant review boards, but that smells like the old-boys club to me... i.e:the system will just be broken for some peope, not everyone. Perhaps patent review would be like jury-duty for engineers....:)
I was under the (obviously) mistakened impression that if you didn't enforce your patent, that that in and of itself made your patent invalid...
Seems to me that this is some kind of uber-troll patent scheme.
Troll patents just patent stuff and hope... these guys actively build, encourage and promote before clobbering you.
The whole point of a patent is to provide the patent holder with a monopoly!... The assumption is that the overall public good benefits from the disclosure, while the inventor is permitted to benefit for the duration of the permitted monopoly.
What's your point? I think we've agreed that the current system provides a monopoly, and today that monopoly makes monopoly profits. That wasn't the question.
The question is whether or not it's justified. and whether or not we would have more or less medical innovation without patents, or shorter patent durations.
The point from TFA that I was contesting is the blanket, unsubstatiated assertion that patents in the drug business was 'working'. At least part of the problem is with the definition of 'working'. If you are only looking very specifically at "do we currently get drugs, and are companies taking advantage of monopoly protections" in a boolean fashion, then sure! of course! the system is 'working'.
But we didn't make this deal to enrich companies: we made it to enrich soiety. Personally I'm not at all interested in the monetary profits of others. And a system that provides larger than normal profits indicates that there is the possibility of a need for reform. Factor in that there is no evidence to support that patent protection is the factor that makes more and better drugs.
This leaves us with the question of whether or not we might have more drugs for less money if they had to compete out of the gate without protection, or less protection, and that is called patent reform (or abolishion...)
I agree that artists do need to be compensated but at the same time, users should have the right to share. And even furthermore, perhaps even copy A LITTLE (for instance copying for my personal computer, my IPOD, my TIVO, my wifes computer, etc). But unlimited copying of files is perhaps a bit overboard.
Is it? Or have you just been convinced by those who make money from the current system that it is?
One question is what does the artists really "own"? In the case of a musician, do they own a (very long) number that when parsed by a particular set of rules can be converted to a wave form that sounds very similar (to the human ear; exactly?) to their original performance?
What if we realise that musicians (even today with all copyright protection in place) make almost no money (to the point of actually being no money) from the sales and distribution of the recorded version of their music. Musicians make their money by giving a live show.
Painters make money selling the original painting.
Sculpters make money selling sculptures.
Actors make money selling tickets to a live performance.
What dissapears when you remove copyright from all these equations is not the artist, but the middleman who profits simply by connecting a buyer and seller. The internet can do this today for less money, and more efficiently.
It's not the musicians that argue for copyright protection. I can't count the number of times I've seen interviews where one member makes a comment about how they don't care if they get downloaded... then there's this pause as the other members remember that they made a deal with the devil, and one of them says that of course people should buy the record... oops.
Copyright and patent 'fixed' a problem that didn't exist, and now people make a lot of money off of others and they don't want to have to get a real job...
Great works have been produced for millennia because the economic systems that were in place prior to the early 19th century precluded the need for copyright protection. Things changed with the industrial revolution. C'mon, this is basic history.
Care to expand/continue that thought?
I'm no history major, so I'd be interested in some details...
"to grant artists a limited monopoly on their works in order to increase the body of art and knowledge of humanity"? Because you know, copyright was supposed to aid (monetarily) the artists in exchange for a set time limit after which the work enters public domain, for all to enjoy.
I know some will argue that I'm nitpicking, but it's important to note that there is no mention of monetary compensation indicated or implied in your (very correct) original wording of the copyright deal.
To me, this point is at least as important as the distinction between 'copyright violation' and 'theft', and I'm sure may bring out the same people to argue the same semantics.
The point is, that granting the limited monopoly is not to grant the artist monetary aid specifically, but rather to allow the artist control over their work, while at the same time sharing it with the public, for the purpose of adding and enriching culture in society.
Unfortunately we are in a capitalistic society and corporations have taken over copyright from the artists, and now the monetary rewards are the only end-result of that protection. The next step is what we are witnessing in the RIAA, which is that this monetary reward is an entitlement - sorry guys, but guaranteed money was never the deal. If it was, we would have set up some kind of blanket tax or levy system where all artists get paid...
Whether they can successfully exploit the invention or not is immaterial.
I agree - it's also impossible for any specific inventor to know in advance if their 'exploit' will be successful.
If you take away that motivation by saying that patents revert to the public domain in an extremely short timeframe if they aren't successfully exploited, more inventors will treat their inventions as simple trade secrets which are protected by law and do not revert to the public domain.
Since the odds of more than one person independantly arriving at a similar solution when faced with the same problem is near 100%, keeping trade secrets doesn't necessarly help an inventor. While the exact details (a comma here, a comment there) might differ from implementation to implementation the patent covers off a reasonably broad solution explicitly to prevent this.
So I guess what I'm trying to say is that if all you use is trade-secret you will have competitors very soon.
If you use a patent and then discover that no one wants to buy your product, then, well, what do you care if it falls into public domain? There are two possibles here:
You hold the patent for 20yrs and it never gets used. Upside? None. Downside? Society was deprived that someone else could in fact make use of it.
You hold a patent for 2yrs and it never gets used. Upside? It falls into public domain after 2yrs, meaning that troll lawsuits decrease, patent searches are faster/easier (less to parse) and people can more quickly build upon your original idea to create something else (which will be subject to the same conditions). Downside? None.
Let's keep in mind that patents in use would continue to be protected: so we're just talking about cleaning up the garbage...it's estimated that 90% of patents are crap, should never have been granted and/or are not in use. This provision would mean that these garbage patents only exist in the system for 2-yrs - not 20.
Politically, while the idea of general patent reform is laudable, it faces inevitable opposition from industries like the pharmaceutical industry, where the patent system seems to be working. A broad-based Patent Reform Act, now in Congress, has been watered down considerably because of pharmaceutical opposition. Pharma has a point. In their industry, patent does what it should...
Really? It seems to me that all patents do in the pharmaceutical business is guarantee monopoly-type profits.
Drug companies launch ad campaigns where they try to justify their high prices (that lock people out) by stating that today's profits drive tomorrow's innovations. But if the high drug prices are simply to provide for tomorrow's R&D, then why do they show a $Billion in profit: By definition that money should either be a decrease in drug costs, or should have been spent on r&d...else they're lying. They are in fact just like every other corporation that is making a product: No profitable company sets it's selling price based on production cost - it's set by what the market will bear. In the case of patent protected drugs that price is very high in affluent markets like the US.
So there remains a very real question: Do patents really work in the drug business? I'm not sure that they don't promote innovation, but I'm sure that they generate monopoly profits. So, while that might be taken to mean that they're working, it can also be taken to mean that some reform might not be a bad idea there either...
The Corporate Cabal just sits down, refusing to help for two years and ta-da... the patent is annulled, now they will win the big $$$ without rewarding the inventor at all.
There's enough money out there to eliminate this possibility in a very real way. The most you might see is a diminished return to the inventor if those that might pay the most are more willing to sit on the sidelines and let someone else p(l)ay.
The reality though, is that if I come up with some kind of invention that makes another obsolete then the current players will step up and buy in since they don't want to become obsolete along with their product.
I actually like the pp's ideas:
Since the 'deal' is that society grants protection in exchange for publishing for the purpose of promoting progress* it makes sense to me anything not being used gets immediately pushed into the public realm, and will (possibly) be used as a basis for something new that (might) be used much more quickly than if you had to wait 20yrs...
*most people seem to be mistakened as to the purpose of patent protection. It's not to enrich the inventors in a monetary way, but rather to enrich society with more innovation...
Slashdot Mirror
Major "artists" have their lawyers add the make money clause at the request of the *aa while they vacation on their yacht.
Check with any new/starting artist and I can guarantee you that none are doing it for the money - 'cause they aren't making any. Playing bars pays next to nothing, and that's where they all start. Do they have dreams of making big money? Sure, but then don't we all? Having dreams of making big money, and doing it for the money are two different things. Fuck off hick. Address people with some respect, and some might be returned. You're right, mine is worth no more than yours. And it is precisely for that reason that I balk at letting a multinatonal conglomorate decide what gets air-time. Because neither you nor I was consulted in that process. Some marketer decided that (s)he could sell a particular artist, and so they get played non-stop on the radio, regardless of what you or I think of them.
And before you say that sales is an indicator of what people like (as opposed to my version, which is sales are based on what was marketed) you need to take a quick primer on the effectiveness of marketing. As a hint/starting point, try looking at demandless products like diamonds and coca-cola.
It is precisely because I don't want others deciding what is art that I oppose the current system.
While they argue that DRM's necessary to stop pirates, it's important to not forget that we consumers have rights and the steps that the copyright holders are currently taking are just as wrong as the piracy. The *aa can not take the moral high road, claiming that they are hard done by, only to ignore the rules themselves. The rights-owners attitude is plainly visible in actions like the Sony fiasco, and the point is that none of the current DRM schemes are lawful...
In other words, the illigitimate actions of a few does not make it right for rights holders to unilaterally re-write the social copyright contract.
Especially in the absence of any real proof that the current rate of piracy is actually hurting them.
Let's recall that this particular group of people has a long history of being very wrong about the effects of new technology and new business models. They fought radio, cassettes, CD burners etc. None of these caused their business to falter - in fact they increased sales. Still they fought. Think filesharing is any different? I don't.
What a lawsuit would ensure is that Apple makes the necessary provisions in it's software today that ensures that no further action/interaction on their part is required to fulfill it's obligation. And in my opinion, it is an obligation:
The whole point of copyright is to enrich society -- imagine if every copy of a song was sold exclusively in DRM format (and this is not improbable if the *aa have their way). In this scenario, copyright would become infinite, not by copyright law (which limits in the 100+yrs range) but by technical means. This makes the DRM (essentially) in contravention with the spirit (if not the wording) of copyright law.
It is on this grounds (and with this specific result, not money) that a suit could be launched, and would (hopefully!) be succesful. If it were not succesful then the *aa has already won, and all culture belongs to them. end of story.
Personally I'm still waiting to see who will sue Apple on two grounds:
- that their DRM prohibits re-sale, and Apple must include a sale-ability into their DRM
- that while the copyright on the works will (one day) expire, the DRM will not, and so Apple must include a time-limit after which the file will become unencumbered.
Any takers? EFF? Bueler? Anyone?So we can (hopefully) agree that there is no loss to the studio when I borrow a DVD from a friend. Now have you ever either borrowed something from someone who had borrowed it from someone else? (or been anyone in that equation) ? And I think that we can again agree that the original 'producer' of the borrowed-item still suffered no loss?
So obviously the degree of borrowing/lending doesn't cause loss to the 'victim'*? In other words, if the 2nd borrower again lends it to a fourth party, is the original producer harmed? The n-th lender/borrower combination in no way affects your 'victim'.
So now explain how the studio is hurt when I borrow a movie from someone I've never met? This is merely a direct n-th level lender/borrower combination...
*no, the studio is the 'victim', not my friend.
Artists (real artists) make art for art, not for money.
Marketers, on the other hand, convince you that you should spend money on their particular product: In this case, their specific music.
Many people make the mistake of confusing stuff they've heard of with stuff that was made.
Art will be made whether or not it gets sold. Art will be made whether or not someone figures out how to monetize it. Art will be made because creativity is a human trait.
So while it may be true that the company hires more skilled workers with the savings from moving their unskilled jobs, it's not the same people that then benefit. This also assumes that the economy has the more skilled workforce available. This will also only result in an increasing income chasm. i.e. rich get richer, poor get poorer.
Sure, over a sufficiently long time-line the balance is restored as newly skilled people enter the workforce, but that doesn't help the specific people that were displaced (they were put out of work!).
People don't care that the economy is better or worse off due to globalisation: They just want their own paycheck to arrive every two weeks. Everyone else can fsck off. So many people in a blue-collar position (or lately ripped-jeans and a diet cola writing code position) are worried that their specific job is going to vanish.
- Not caring != Ignorance
- Education != Intelligence
- Having Job != Caring About Job
- Rich != Motivated
- 3rd World != Stupid
The reality is that some very small percentage of the population drags the rest (of us) forward, while we kick and scream and protest.Further, by the Peter Principle, we are assured that few (or no!) positions will be held by someone capable of performing well in that position.
The government is just a gigantic ball of red tape - basically accountable to no one, and (unlike a private corporation) basically can't go bankrupt.
So I guess what I'm saying is even in this very rich and educated country not everyone is a rocket scientist, and even less are motivated to do a good job, and those numbers drop even further when you work in a thankless job in a seemingly pointless void of a government bureaucracy.
Still, it seems to be the best system so far...
So it's really Federation Against Copyright Infringment (Faci)
FUD About Laws Stymies Everyone (False)
hmmm, not great; there must be better. anyone? Bueler? anyone?
And good luck making the patent officers personally liable... that'll grind the whole thing to a stand-still as they refuse to grant any more patents to anyone.
The problem with the patent system is that (like communism) it's a nice idea on paper, but totally unworkable in reality. Necessity is the mother of all invention, and when faced with a problem the majority of people (engineers etc) will arrive at a very similar solution to any given problem independently. This means that all of these solutions should fail the non-obviousness test. So unless you arrive at a solution that others skilled in the field don't arrive at, your solution can't be patented. (of course they often do get patented despite this rule...)
I've jokingly said we should have patent-jury duty ... maybe it's not such a bad idea after all... a new requirement of keeping the little ring on your little finger is to, on a random basis, provide solutions to a problem (based on a patent request) in a vacuum situation. Any solution you (and the other random contestants) come up with that is similar to the patent request will cause the patent to fail the non-obviousness test.
Combine that with a requirement to actually produce a working prototype, and shorter monopoly times and we might have a patent system that actually benefits society instead of shareholders.
That is the picture of Paris Hilton of Geekdom? ...damn.
For me, the point isn't about 60seconds, or 120 seconds. It's my media. I bought it. I should be able to use it as I see fit, not as they see fit. ...tell me you'd tolerate that from a car manufacturer.
How about from now on, whenever you start your car, it won't move for 3 minutes. You must be buckled in your seat ('cause after the ~3-minutes are up, it starts to move w/o further warning) and on the windshield a video message is displayed about how you need to change your oil to keep the warranty.
I mean, when you spend 9 to 5 posting on /. ... Who has time to go protest?
There's several problems with any censorship. Not the least is that whatever you're censoring will still be discussed, but not in a formal context. This allows those trying to spread negative views free reign to spout crap to everyone they meet (and some will be swayed) while not allowing any kind of rebuttle (leaving those people swayed).
The big problem of course is the slippery-slope. Things offensive have a way of changing over time - and if you let someone decide what you can and cannot say then they are able to impose their views on you
I don't think we gain anything by imposing censorship - society is far stronger by allowing an open and unfettered dialog on any subject. ...but hey if you don't like this point of view, just get it censored.
4 words: Innocent until proven guilty.
Peaceful assembly and demonstration is a key and integral part of a democracy. When the guv removes people who oppose their views we have arrived at a police state.
Regardless of what you think of Bush and regardless of what you think of them protestors we must all protect the rights of the protestors to have their say: The famous quote often attributed to Voltaire, that "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" seems as relevant now as it ever did.
The problem is that this test can not* easily be applied in a proper manner.
If you place a dozen random engineers in a room, and ask them to solve a problem, you are likely to get only a couple of different solutions. Patents on these should be disallowed. Other solutions would be patentable.
Note from the link that An invention is nonobvious if it would be viewed as an unexpected or surprising development by someone skilled in the technology of the particular field. Note that it's not nonobvious to joe-six-pack, but to someone who is knowledgeable in the field. Are we really to believe that the poor people down at the USTPO are experts in every field? Almost by definition, even if you start by hiring 'skilled' people, they lose their 'skilled' status as soon as they leave the field (due to changes in the field) to work the patent desk, and you end up with non-skilled people reviewing for obviousness.
The patent system as designed is set up to fail...it can end nowhere other than where we are today.
*some suggest independant review boards, but that smells like the old-boys club to me... i.e:the system will just be broken for some peope, not everyone. Perhaps patent review would be like jury-duty for engineers.... :)
Seems to me that this is some kind of uber-troll patent scheme. ... these guys actively build, encourage and promote before clobbering you.
Troll patents just patent stuff and hope
The question is whether or not it's justified. and whether or not we would have more or less medical innovation without patents, or shorter patent durations.
The point from TFA that I was contesting is the blanket, unsubstatiated assertion that patents in the drug business was 'working'. At least part of the problem is with the definition of 'working'. If you are only looking very specifically at "do we currently get drugs, and are companies taking advantage of monopoly protections" in a boolean fashion, then sure! of course! the system is 'working'.
But we didn't make this deal to enrich companies: we made it to enrich soiety. Personally I'm not at all interested in the monetary profits of others. And a system that provides larger than normal profits indicates that there is the possibility of a need for reform. Factor in that there is no evidence to support that patent protection is the factor that makes more and better drugs.
This leaves us with the question of whether or not we might have more drugs for less money if they had to compete out of the gate without protection, or less protection, and that is called patent reform (or abolishion...)
One question is what does the artists really "own"? In the case of a musician, do they own a (very long) number that when parsed by a particular set of rules can be converted to a wave form that sounds very similar (to the human ear; exactly?) to their original performance?
What if we realise that musicians (even today with all copyright protection in place) make almost no money (to the point of actually being no money) from the sales and distribution of the recorded version of their music. Musicians make their money by giving a live show.
Painters make money selling the original painting.
Sculpters make money selling sculptures.
Actors make money selling tickets to a live performance.
What dissapears when you remove copyright from all these equations is not the artist, but the middleman who profits simply by connecting a buyer and seller. The internet can do this today for less money, and more efficiently.
It's not the musicians that argue for copyright protection. I can't count the number of times I've seen interviews where one member makes a comment about how they don't care if they get downloaded ... then there's this pause as the other members remember that they made a deal with the devil, and one of them says that of course people should buy the record... oops.
Copyright and patent 'fixed' a problem that didn't exist, and now people make a lot of money off of others and they don't want to have to get a real job...
I'm no history major, so I'd be interested in some details...
To me, this point is at least as important as the distinction between 'copyright violation' and 'theft', and I'm sure may bring out the same people to argue the same semantics.
The point is, that granting the limited monopoly is not to grant the artist monetary aid specifically, but rather to allow the artist control over their work, while at the same time sharing it with the public, for the purpose of adding and enriching culture in society.
Unfortunately we are in a capitalistic society and corporations have taken over copyright from the artists, and now the monetary rewards are the only end-result of that protection. The next step is what we are witnessing in the RIAA, which is that this monetary reward is an entitlement - sorry guys, but guaranteed money was never the deal. If it was, we would have set up some kind of blanket tax or levy system where all artists get paid...
So I guess what I'm trying to say is that if all you use is trade-secret you will have competitors very soon.
If you use a patent and then discover that no one wants to buy your product, then, well, what do you care if it falls into public domain? There are two possibles here:
- You hold the patent for 20yrs and it never gets used. Upside? None. Downside? Society was deprived that someone else could in fact make use of it.
- You hold a patent for 2yrs and it never gets used. Upside? It falls into public domain after 2yrs, meaning that troll lawsuits decrease, patent searches are faster/easier (less to parse) and people can more quickly build upon your original idea to create something else (which will be subject to the same conditions). Downside? None.
Let's keep in mind that patents in use would continue to be protected: so we're just talking about cleaning up the garbage...it's estimated that 90% of patents are crap, should never have been granted and/or are not in use. This provision would mean that these garbage patents only exist in the system for 2-yrs - not 20.Drug companies launch ad campaigns where they try to justify their high prices (that lock people out) by stating that today's profits drive tomorrow's innovations. But if the high drug prices are simply to provide for tomorrow's R&D, then why do they show a $Billion in profit: By definition that money should either be a decrease in drug costs, or should have been spent on r&d
So there remains a very real question: Do patents really work in the drug business? I'm not sure that they don't promote innovation, but I'm sure that they generate monopoly profits. So, while that might be taken to mean that they're working, it can also be taken to mean that some reform might not be a bad idea there either...
The reality though, is that if I come up with some kind of invention that makes another obsolete then the current players will step up and buy in since they don't want to become obsolete along with their product.
I actually like the pp's ideas:
Since the 'deal' is that society grants protection in exchange for publishing for the purpose of promoting progress* it makes sense to me anything not being used gets immediately pushed into the public realm, and will (possibly) be used as a basis for something new that (might) be used much more quickly than if you had to wait 20yrs...
*most people seem to be mistakened as to the purpose of patent protection. It's not to enrich the inventors in a monetary way, but rather to enrich society with more innovation...