In Defense Of Patents and Copyright 283
Romer!can writes "C|Net Editor Michael Kanellos offers a potentially contentious opinion piece about patents and copyright on the CNet site. Highlights of the fairly biased piece include: a cheap shot dismissing open source projects as existing only to act as a foil for Microsoft, blatantly equating copyright infringement with stealing, and an embarrassing failure to even casually mention the current term lengths of patents and copyrights as a driving factor behind popular dissatisfaction. Instead, he wades through obscure humor and emotional appeals characterizing patent trolls as the guy next door. 'Nearly every so-called [patent] troll turned out to have a somewhat persuasive story. Intellectual Ventures, a patent firm started by former Microsoft chief scientist Nathan Myhrvold, was staffed with fairly renowned scientists who didn't fit the profile of people trying to make a quick buck in court. Another man, criticized as one of the most litigious people in the U.S., had a great explanation for his behavior. He had only sued people who had signed--and then violated--nondisclosure agreements.'"
So if it is a biased piece... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, ok, maybe not really, but it sure does seem to keep people busily coming back for more...
Re:So if it is a biased piece... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:So if it is a biased piece... (Score:5, Insightful)
The place has always had drawbacks: spamming; crapflooding; Shoeboy; ACSII art; goatse links; Jon Katz; Michael Sims.
Most of the 'debate' is the same record being played over and over. This article so far is, and certianly will continue to be, no exception. No new ground will be broken and the comments will be nearly identical to what went up during the Napster debate. Despite the lameness filters and low karma post restrictions, Slashdot has far more actual trolling than it ever did when Adequacy crowd was here.
I am here now, subscribing, because there are a small minority of users who actually not only know their stuff but actively participate in fields that are relevant to many of the submissions that go up. There aren't many places one can go on the internet and have a discussion with an actual attorney who actually defends RIAA cases. Bruce Perens doesn't show up just anywhere and comment on FOSS issues. There was some article on here a few days ago about carbon nanotubes, and I don't know carbon nanotubes from cans of paint so I may have been getting hoodwinked, but there seemed to be people posting who actually had more than just cursory knowledge about the things.
Anyway, enough emo about Slashdot. I don't think it has or ever had much credibility as a serious news site but it certianly offers something unique. If you can sift through the massive amount of drivel it makes visiting worth the time.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Slashdot is not a news site. Slashdot doesn't report the news, it reports that someone else has reported the news. Slashdot is a discussion site. It provides a place for the nerd elite and nerd wannabes to come together and discuss the stories which interest them most (firehose++, even if it does have many shortcomings and annoyances.)
In addition, you must ALWAYS check ALL news from ALL sources to see if it is a bunch
Re:So if it is a biased piece... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
To be honest, it's an opinion piece, and the purpose of an opinion piece is to be biased
I don't mind the peace is biased, however if someone writes an opinion peace they should include data that supports their conclusion. And unfortunately this "writer" doesn't.
FalconRe: (Score:2, Insightful)
Here is the mantra I have been hearing for a while. Free Speach for all who beleave in the same values as me. To the moderation dungion if you disagree. We only want stories telling how Patents and Copyrights are bad and evil. Explaining how they can be good makes the story bad.
Re:So if it is a biased piece... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is not trolling:
This is:
Mod parent up please (Score:2)
Re:So if it is a biased piece... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So if it is a biased piece... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So if it is a biased piece... (Score:5, Insightful)
- Make them available now at a reasonable price.
- Allow certain fair-use rights to everyone.
- Let them fall into the public domain eventually.
The 'pro-copyright' lobby has not been playing fair recently, by blocking fair use with DRM and blocking the public domain with copyright term extensions. Similarly, the 'anti-copyright' lobby hasn't been playing fair either, by simply refusing to respect copyright at all.Re:So if it is a biased piece... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly, the perception that perception is reality may indeed be widespread. Alas, the reality is that perception is frequently other than reality. If anyone ever tries to sell you on the notion that perception is in fact reality, I advise you to check your wallet and to refuse to sign anything.
Interestingly enough, if perception were reality
Re: (Score:2)
I heard a great quote not so long ago, that the story poster (and many other Slashdot readers) would do well to read:
"Every man should periodically be compelled to listen to opinions which are infuriating to him. To hear nothing but what is pleasing to one is to make a pillow of the mind" -- St John Ervine
Re: (Score:2)
...why post it?
Why post it? Because it begets, starts, a discussion or debate on the merits of patents. This is one area that really needs to be debated, especially as regards software patents.
FalconRe: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So, which are you?
Re: (Score:2)
Why post it? So that Slashdot can take yet another anti-copyright position
Now I haven't seen many anti-copyright positions taken though I have seen anti-patent or more specifically anti-patent positions on drugs and software. And as far as that goes I'd say it's pretty much even in the number who are pro and anti patents.
Pirates only scapegoat the RIAA so they can feel guilt-free while they rip off artists.
Is it "pirates" who rip off artists or is it the RIAA? I bet if you look at the actual data
Treat it as a troll (Score:5, Insightful)
If that's his goal, don't give him the satisfaction. Don't read it, don't comment, don't reply.
Which is not about "winning" some argument, it's just about not letting media people get paid for the almost mindlessly easy job of drumming up fake controversy. Same as ignoring all the cable TV and radio "shock jocks". Let them all work for a living, do some investigative reporting, find out some new facts (you know, "news"?) to fill up their sites with.
Not just, as Jon Stewart said about 'Crossfire', "theatre".
Re:Treat it as a troll (Score:5, Insightful)
Think about it. If you come across a guy on a soapbox on the street corner, raving about how he communicates with purple unicorns in the 4th dimension, do you spend a lot of time refuting his arguments in a public forum?
No. Just let it go. Don't legitimize nuttiness by addressing it.
The old saying: "Never get in a fight with a pig. You'll get dirty, and the pig will enjoy it."
Why isn't it persuasive? (Score:4, Interesting)
Why isn't that a persuasive argument? Isn't that kind of argument used all the time around here? Don't believe me? Have you ever heard:
"Drug companies don't deserve patents/as-lengthy-patents because they spend more on advertising than research."
They're both rank appeals to one's sympathy (or lack thereof) with the patent holder.
Re: (Score:2)
Technically? Because it's not an argument, it's an unsubstantiated claim. He says that the staff were "fairly renowned scientists who [don't] fit the profile of people trying to make a quick buck in court." But he doesn't gi
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I know. My point was, *assuming* his basic facts are right, why does that count as an argument? Even if they were reknowned scientists, why does it matter? Even if they weren't trying to make a quick buck, why does it matter? Both that argument *and* the one against drug companies all share the same tenuous premise: that sympathy with litigants should serve as a primary basis for laws or law enforcement. It should
Re:Why isn't it persuasive? (Score:4, Insightful)
The argument "used all the time around here" is not:
In other news (Score:2)
Re:In other news (Score:4, Informative)
Patents are a more complicated issue. For one thing, most people don't really have an opportunity to casually infringe patents. Current patent terms are not that far out of step with what might be considered a reasonable time frame. We see patented inventions pass into the public domain on a regular basis, whereas no copyrighted works have fallen into the public domain in my lifetime. The big problem with patents is that it is generally not obvious what is currently patented and what is not. Even after reading the abstract of a patent, I have no idea what it really covers. I have any number of suggestions for reforming patents, but they're really outside the scope of this post.
Re: (Score:2)
How is one related to the other? What is the relationship between copyright term and piracy? People may thing 95 years is "far too long," but what's the right length? Even if the length were the original 14 years,
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, I see we have another wanker on here.</sarcasm>
Seriously, even though the guy has a biased summary, most of his points are fairly valid. Not that I'm saying this deserves to even be on slashdot of course. Frankly I have to agree with what most of the others have said, the guy is just trying to drive up traffic by posting a story espousing some very controversial opinions but without much meat to it.
Comparing 95 year Copyright with Open Source (Score:5, Interesting)
Would the binaries be useful at all?
If not, the the copyright duration is effectively infinite.
Now compare the Public domain Windows 2000 of 2095 with ReactOS or Linux in 2095. which is more useful?
But you don't need to wait 95 years to see this result.
How many years of development do you think it takes for ReactOS to surpass Windows2000?
How many years of development does it take for Linux to Surpass an abandoned UNIX, like IRIX?
If for some reason, you wanted to create a DOS system, would you use MSDOS 6, or FreeDOS?
Amusing progression... (Score:5, Insightful)
Then the author immediately describes current "intellectual property." However the current state of "intellectual property" is more of the same: one uses some means (money, lobbying, market domination, bribes, etc.) to persuade the government to create laws that protect your monopoly. Of course instead of concluding that this current incarnation of monopoly-power is just as bad as the previous ones, he goes on to defend it. The analogy with the previous examples is so close that it almost makes me think the entire article is a gigantic joke.
Does the author honestly not see the parallel? At one time, wars and railroad monopolies were certainly considered legitimate business. In 100 years, will our era be looked upon as a similarly barbaric time, where, ridiculously, the citizens were oppressed in the name of profits for a select few elite?
It's easy to win an argument (Score:3, Informative)
Honestly, how many people think there should be no copyrights? Very, very few. I don't dismiss the opinions of those people just because they are a tiny minority, of course, but it is really dishonest to imply that everybody who has a problem with the current copyright system is against all copyrights.
Very few people are entirely against patents either, although quite a few people are against certain categories of patents, which implies at least some more nuanced thought than the emotional rejectionism painted by the author.
The broad consensus among people who create intellectual property for their daily bread is that the system is badly managed and is being extended beyond its reasonable and proper boundaries. The net result is that it is not a "sure path to wealth", but a threat that undermines their ability to earn a living.
That would make anybody "emotional".
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Why should someone own the exclusive right to make copies?
The only sensible reason you could possibly have for such an extreme position like that is that it is somehow to the benefit of every person in society to willingly refrain from copying these works. That's a pretty hard argument to make.
Of course, you don't have to make the argument.. cause the status quo is one of restriction.. which the majority of people just ignore anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't speak for the parent, but I like copyrights because I like getting paid for the work I do.
Why should someone own the exclusive right to make copies?
Why not? If you create something, why shouldn't you have the right to control what you create?
Are you against private property ownership in general? If so, I can see where your copyright arguments come from. If not, they why should I be able to keep people off of my property, but not keep people from copying something
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sure a lot of surfers would like there to be a tax which enables them to surf all day and have us flip the bill, but just them expressing their desire is not a reason for us to pay for it.
Patent benefits (Score:5, Interesting)
The reason for the prior (retention) is often equated to their lack of proprietary interest in intellectual property, and the reason for the latter (publicity) is adjoined by the consequences of divulging your technological advantages. While the incentive exists to invent gunpowder (for its usefulness), the incentive and mechanism to publicly retain a collective body of knowledge for such inventions in Chinese society did not exist. Thus, I believe the secret to gunpowder was lost to the Chinese on more than one occasion, only to be re-invented later. (Or perhaps that wasn't gunpowder, but some other set of inventions).
Patents help alleviate this loss of intellectual achievements to both antiquity and secrecy. However, in our society they have gone to an extreme, whereby we can rightly complain that they stifle innovation, undermine competition, and they may even be unnecessary in light of modern mechanisms for keeping tabs on new IP, notably the internet, and public collaborative projects like open source.
Nonetheless, patents are predictable, and having arisen out of hundreds of years of jurisprudence over the need to retain and publicize useful inventions. They appear to be econommically over-bearing nowadays, and may even be superfluous in light of modern technology for retention and dissemination of intellectual property (i.e. the internet), but they are integrated into our economy in ways that make it superbly difficult (not to mention prohibitively expensive, as in the USA the government may have to compensate patent holders by weakening their rights) to completely do away with the system. They also still serve the purpose for which they were intended, publishing and retaining useful innovations, but they have side effects which now make us question their value.
While we can and should criticize the patent system for its failures, we should also bear in mind the consequences of going too far in the opposite direction. Too few discussions of patent reform have an intelligent, informed and balanced basis in the purpose and benefits of the current patent system, with suggestions for either balanced reform across all arenas where patent law is applied (drugs, software, hardware, automobiles, etc.), or any sound alternative that is not subject to the same criticisms that are inherent to what we have now.
(That being said, I think the idea of patenting software strikes me as wholly inappropriate, the problems of publicity and retention long having been solved by the internet and open source projects, and the value software patents provide to the public is virtually nil in almost every way.)
Re: (Score:2)
However I also wonder, in the examples you gave, whether other factors li
Re: (Score:2)
There is this notion that patents are good because they encourage an exchange of designs and technology that otherwise would be made secret. However, assuming that's the purpose and util
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
not to mention prohibitively expensive, as in the USA the government may have to compensate patent holders by weakening their rights
Why? If the government weakens the rights of patent holders, it will probably be because the system has flaws. Why should they be compensated when the government corrects those flaws?
we should also bear in mind the consequences of going too far in the opposite direction.
There is no chance of that happening, so why should people bear this in mind?
Too few discussions of patent reform have an intelligent, informed and balanced basis in the purpose and benefits of the current patent system
Maybe because the current patent system is anything but balanced, but rather tilted to the extreme in favor of the patent holders (especially big companies).
Perspective and individual details are important (Score:4, Insightful)
There is a lot of talk about getting rid of patent trolls, but little consensus as to what a patent troll is. Very few companies will say "yes: we're patent trolls." At best, they're willing to tolerate being called patent trolls [com.com].
What makes a patent troll? Does a company that develops a new technology but licenses it because it does not have the capital or market position to exploit the technology count as a patent troll? What about IBM? They produce products, but they license their patents [ibm.com] for use by others in products that don't compete with IBM's products. Does that make IBM a patent troll? Would they have to be making competing products to be on morally solid ground?
There are definitely companies out that abuse the patent system (e.g., by filing continuation applications or requests for reexamination during which the applicants try to stretch the claims of their patents to read on subsequent innovations). But this author has a point that distinguishing the bad guys from the good guys is not easy. Many companies out there see themselves as just legitimately trying to leverage their full rights. Is that significantly different from consumers trying to maximize their rights as consumers by engaging in activities that aren't clearly legal (e.g., using direct music and movie clips for new works without seeking permission, creating libraries of MP3s and copying them to multiple systems, etc.).
Activities that push the limits of the law create risk. Patent applicants pay significant fees and must spend a lot of time in their efforts, resulting in a guaranteed loss. Certain uses of a patent can raise anti-trust concerns or result in loss of the patent. Consumers pushing the boundaries of "fair use" often play a lottery in which the winner loses a nasty law suit. And there is always the risk that Congress or the courts may react by changing the law or interpretation of the law to minimize questionable activities.
But those who are engaged in those activities probably believe that all they are doing is playing by a valid interpretation of the rules.
Re:Perspective and individual details are importan (Score:2)
Finally, there is a difference between legal and legitimate. The patent troll will ignore that.
Re:Perspective and individual details are importan (Score:2)
What makes a patent troll? Does a company that develops a new technology but licenses it because it does not have the capital or market position to exploit the technology count as a patent troll? What about IBM? They produce products, but they license their patents for use by others in products that don't compete with IBM's products. Does that make IBM a patent troll?
No.
But this author has a point that distinguishing the bad guys from the good guys is not easy.
Actually, it is pretty easy. A patent troll is a company that licenses patents to other companies, but do not produce any products themselves. If you are sued by a patent troll for patent infringement, you do not have the option to countersue them for infringement of your patents, since they do not produce any products. And without products, the number of patents that can be possibly infringed are much lower, the only ones I can think of are business method patents.
Re: (Score:2)
Evidently it not that easy since you missed that a large number of patents are issued to companies or individuals who aren't capable of producing the product themselves but rather license the right to other manufacturers.
Maybe a more appropriate definition of a patent troll is an entity that aquires a patent with no intent to distribute or license the right to produ
so.. (Score:2)
After reading that "summary" I assumed it was a submitted blog. I can't believe garbage like that makes it on to the front page.
hey, he believes in hydrogen powered vehicles too (Score:2)
LoB
Obviously NOT a creative brain type (Score:2)
The point would be to get the nightmares out of my head, you idiot! Fighting Microsoft or even earning money is a distant motivator in comparison to actually fixing something that needs fixing and that I know how to do.
There is no defense. (Score:5, Insightful)
That's why Microsoft ignores software patents. Even they, the richest company on the planet, have no alternative. And that's also why they're getting hit with a few 9-figure verdicts already. But they still play the game and pretend they're legitimate, because they somehow think they'll benefit, in the end, using them to crush current and potential competition with multi-million legal actions and the threat thereof.
It is impossible to tell if any piece of code infringes. By the way, have you read many of these things? Almost every line of code does infringe.
Every line written is a ticking patent timebomb. Every player has to ante up and make their own "patent portfolio" which they can then apply against whoever sues them. If that sounds like it excludes everyone but a few rich, dominant corporations... now you're getting the idea. Only minor fly in the ointment: those patent shell companies that actually don't do any work except suing people, therefore can't be hit with a retaliatory claim. Ooops. And yet even after getting whacked by a few, MS is still winking and continuing to play the game. Shows you how much they hate honest competition.
Software Patents are currently ignored by almost everyone. But to the extent they are enforced, they will categorically end the American software industry, and software will continue to be a business in Europe, Asia, and... well basically every other civilized nation, who have soundly rejected this silly game and are by the way laughing their asses off at us.
Re: (Score:2)
"Somehow"? I'll tell you how: lawyers. Set up a system where everyone has a potential laws
Re: (Score:2)
But to the extent they are enforced, they will categorically end the American software industry, and software will continue to be a business in Europe
That may be why the US government is lobbying for software and business method patents in Europe.
Europe, Asia, and... well basically every other civilized nation, who have soundly rejected this silly game and are by the way laughing their asses off at us.
The EU hasn't rejected the idea of software and business method patents. The parliament rejected the idea for the time being, but the commissioner for the internal market is still in favor, just like many ministers in the Council of Ministers. They are biding their time, and just waiting for a new opportunity to sneak it in. By the way, my own country, Sweden, views software patents as legitimate, and is an
Re: (Score:2)
To me, the practice of software patents (which in the US, were not even started by policy, but by an arbitrary, almost accidental decision by a judge) is so ridiculous on its very face that it feels like something of a rallying cry for systemic reform.
Watching the issue fly around America's media, one gets the sense that a citizen of a 3rd wo
Hello? (Score:2)
And frankly, without them, most open-source projects would rapidly wither away: without an intellectual property behemoth like Microsoft to fight, what would be the point?
Maybe to produce truly good software, rather than just lie about doing so in your marketing, perhaps? The author seems not to understand that some people create things for the sheer beauty of it; more often than not, OS projects have nothing to do with Microsoft; in fact, if OS was out to "get Microsoft", it is doing a pretty poor j
Help me with my conflict (Score:3, Insightful)
OTOH, the key innovation in the liberal western revolution (liberal in the Adam Smith sense of the word) has been the ability, due to lax legal and societal restrictions, of the individual to use their ingenuity to better their condition.
Said differently, absolutely all of the progress of society in the last 300 years comes not from the owners, or from the workers, or such strange Marxist notions, but from the ideas and ability to make good on them.
The progress of humanity western society is based in the ability of the individual to profit from their own intellectual labor - not their lower back strength.
So how does one resolve this apparent conflict? It is man's mind, not his back, which creates wealth, progress, and an easier life. Yet the current implementation of intellectual property laws is broken, causing many to question even the valididty of intellectual property as a concept?
I'm familiar with Jefferson's quote, but i don't think it can credibly used as an argument for dismissing the concept of intellectual property entirely.
So what does a world look like where people are still compensated for the labor of their mind but which has a rational / sane legal framework around that compensation?
Re: (Score:2)
Patents are exactly what they are stated to be: legal constructs designed to encourage the advancement of the arts and sciences. Anything that inhibits this (and we're starting to see the effects of asinine patents and overly broad copyrights) needs to be
You're expecting intellectual integrity from (Score:2)
That's like expecting it from a Zionist - or a Republican - or a Democrat - or...well, just about any human.
a meandering editorial (Score:3, Informative)
First of all, "almost everyone" isn't "everyone". I'd like to hear about those that didn't have a persuasive story too. And there's no way we can tell from this piece if his sampling of the "trolls" is in any way characteristic of the group as a whole or if his selection was pre-sorted by political or economic bias. The article contributes nothing to the public debate on this issue and therefore deserves to be dismissed with dignified scorn.
Contentious eh? (Score:2)
So we just had to post it on Slashdot in order to get an assload of new hits.
Private Property Wins Out (Score:2)
As much as I personally disagree with it, I certainly would not want to see it end if it were my property on the table. I'd employ every trick they have to modify consumer behavior such that it seems perfectly logical to check with the media conglomerate who owns the media each and every time before I consume it.
And then I'd maintain my dominance in entertainment distribution
"...go ahead and reprint this for free." (Score:3, Funny)
Uh, okay ... wait a minute...
Hmmm, so should we believe the last line of the page, or the second to last line of the page?
Fuck it...
Lawyer thinks IP litigation is good (Score:2)
Difference Between Slashdot Editors and Cnet Ones (Score:2)
If the Patent system were working as designed I'd have no problem with it. I've actually seen a few things patented where I thought "Wow, that's actually an innovative idea and the deserve a patent f
Is this guy a Shill or just a moron? (Score:2)
This worked well for most of our histo
I hope he's checked with the fire marshal. (Score:2)
"I think patents, trademarks and copyrights are simply fantastic and a primary, necessary driver of the world economy."
Yep, they sure are. Don't forget contracts, licenses, and trade secrets. They're all useful tools... open source developers use them too, you know.
The problem comes when you start using the wrong tools for the job. For example, the fact that software can be copyrighted doesn't mean that software should be patentable. The fact that music can be
It is the enforcement that is the problem (Score:2)
The problem is that the terms are unreasonable, and the enforcement is simply ludicrous.
Copyright violations that don't involve charging money should be a civil fine only, and should certainly not involve the FBI. Go after people selling pirated DVD's though, by all means.
Patents should not have the one-size-fits-all problem that currently exists. One-click and a cure for cancer that has gone through the trial system certainly don't deserve
cnet stands for crud-net (Score:2)
This reminds me of two things.... (Score:3, Interesting)
It also reminds me of the final scene in the Hitchhiker's Triology, where survivors of the B ark burned down all of the trees so they could use the few remaining leaves as currency. He tries to justify the same thing - trying to create an artificial scarcity on things which are plentiful and easy to reproduce.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That is NOT IT (Score:2, Insightful)
There is a distinction for a reason. I suggest you might study the history of copyright, you fucking dumb ass.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Old Media monopoly again (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Mike Masnick [techdirt.com] covers all this quite nicely in his attempt to explain how Old Media "should encourage people to get their content for free". Old Media does not have to die at the hands of the "whiners", as you eloquently put it, though some may choose (business) suicide rather than change. To quote from Mr. Masnick's summary:
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Well DUH! Its not theft.
They made a 'digital copy of it': that means:
its not assault
its not loitering
its not shoplifting
its not election fraud
its not running a red light
its not coveting your neighbors ox
oh and its NOT THEFT.
It is however... "copyright infringement".
So how about we just call it THAT, mkay? Call it what it is.
Calling it theft is inaccurate and just confuses the issue.
Re: (Score:2)
So how about we just call it THAT, mkay? Call it what it is.
Theft of revenue...
You could say that you are stealing the use of copyrighted material, since you didn't lawfully fulfill your obligations due to copyright.
hmmm... sounds like theft.
When you make a digital copy of something, I am sure the person who allowed you to copy it is not a victim of theft. However, the copyright owner who didn't receive any revenue from your unauthorized use is a victim.
Re: (Score:2)
Its only even theoretically 'theft of revenue' if he would have bought it had he not copied it. When I was younger I had a copy of Photoshop. Was that 'theft of revenue'? Its not like I would have (or even could have) paid for it. My parents sure wouldn't have bought it for me; if they were willing to drop a few hundred bucks on something for me there are a ton of things I'd have preferred to get. I simply wouldn't have had it, and for the 3 times I used it in high school I wouldn't have
Re: (Score:2)
Admittedly not a lot more. After all quality improvement is exponentially function of current investment.
Re:Oh boy (Score:5, Funny)
Clearly, you dont watch much p0rn.
Re: (Score:2)
However the one thing I can't stand is all these morons wanting to add some crap to my computer to attempt to maintain their disappearing business model. If the lack of it makes them go bankrupt, I won't miss them. If youtube is all that remains, I'll gladly take that "loss".
Fucking Wah (Score:2)
Because if you're successful in killing Old Media, that's all you'll have!
At least the folks running into each other with shopping carts care about something other than their net worth. Why are "Old Media" suits getting millions of dollars from artistic works while the artists themselves get shafted?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Whether or not
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
it IS stealing as our current law defines it
It is neither stealing in actuality or as defined by law. Stealing something deprives the owner of the object being stolen. What it is is copy infringment.
Movies, I suppose, are the rub - these really do cost a tremendous amount of money to create
Not all movies cost a lot to make. For instance The Blair Witch Project [imdb.com] was made by some college students for a project and they didn't have the money of a major studio yet in All-Time Worldwide Box office [imdb.com] r
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm a far cry from the richest
So called intellectual property does need protection in order to encourage invention and innovation, but after a point (20 years at most), that protection starts having a sti
Re: (Score:2)
Mod Parent Up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So? Should the author or inventor not be able to sell or license his or her rights to another? It's not like the law automatically takes away the rights from an author or inventor -- the auth
Re: (Score:2)
That said, I think your view of the constitution is overly narrow, and certainly narrower than has been interpreted by the Supreme Court. One can disagree as to whether or not SCOTUS has got it right or not, but for the time being at least, the sale or licensing of a copyright or patent is legal, and consi
Re: (Score:2)
Copyright (c) RLiegh 2007.
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this post
under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2
or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation;
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Man, you (literally) poor fascist work drones really loves you some Rush Limbo propaganda more than you love your country, your job, your children, or any glimmer of sense, dontcha?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Sounds like a good idea to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Because prior to the establishment of the federal government, the states retained more powers to themselves, while the United States government was considerably less powerful. While it had seemed like a good idea to avoid centralization of power originally, it rapidly became clear that it just wasn't very practical. The states made a hash of copyright laws, so the power to have a uniform copyri
Re: (Score:2)
Some people create works for money which is obtained from exploiting a copyright.
Some people create works for money which is not obtained from exploiting a copyright.
Some people create works for the purpose of fame or reputation, without concern for monetary gain.
Some people create works as a hobby, for relaxation, or to occupy their time.
Some people create works as practice, because they are honing their skills.
Some people create works because they are required to do so by som
Re: (Score:2)
Because we all know innovation didn't exist before 'IP'...
And there is nothing stopping us from disassembling their closed up code or just using it as it stand
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How about this as a