World Intellectual Property Day 302
Dotnaught writes "The Business Software Alliance wants everyone to know that today is World Intellectual Property Day, 'an initiative to educate young people about how intellectual property rights foster innovation, creativity and economic opportunity.' To mark the occasion, CopyNight, a monthly gathering of people interested in restoring balance in copyright law, is hosting a get-together tonight in various cities throughout the U.S."
World Intellectual Property Day (Score:5, Funny)
WIPD (whipped).
Sounds about right.
Not even subtle.
Oh well.
Re:World Intellectual Property Day (Score:2)
Re:World Intellectual Property Day (Score:2)
Re:World Intellectual Property Day (Score:5, Funny)
A Bitter Protest Against Copyrights (Score:5, Interesting)
Well I for one intend to celebrate by reposting this ....
A Bitter Protest Against Copyrights
If they said there was no incentive to do good things unless the government could choose your religion ... or they said there is no
incentive to grow food, unless farmers
could rip up your garden ... most people would
see these as the awful values that they are.
But if they say that there is no incentive to
make beneficial or creative works without the
power to restrict what people copy (copyrights),
then all too many people just take it on
faith. They don't even question it, as if
incentive makes rights, as if society would fall
apart without them. But just as much of the
Renaissance happened without copyrights so
should the information age.
Calling copyrights "intellectual property" is intellectually dishonest. The moral and historical foundation of property derives from mutual respect and the fact that not everybody can posses something at the same time. The foundation of copyrights derives from kings who granted publishers monopolies in return for not publishing bad things about the monarchy. Copyrights are about control, censorship, and not a free market property. In fact, they cheapen property rights by treating things that have natural limits in supply such as food, shelter, and medicine like information that does not.
Worse, is how people who copy are slandered with names such as "thief" and "pirate", as if copying was akin to boarding a ship and murdering people. They are even accused of stealing food out of the mouths of starving artists. Yet these verbal assaults hide a cold and calculated lie, the one that says "copyrights benefit creative people". The truth is that for every artist or writer that has made it "big", there are unmentioned thousands whom copyrights haven't helped a bit, hindered, or even destroyed. Some are even barred or sued from sharing their own creations in public, while others die with the world never truly knowing their artistic genius as the mass media drowns them out. Most creators are far better off sharing and distributing their creations freely to make a reputation for themselves. Copyrights not only cause them to be drowned out in a sea of hype, but do so deceptively.
However, these aren't the only problems related to copyrights. They are just a sample of many that are constantly blown off, glossed over, or ignored. Like the failures of Hollywood culture, the failures of big media to offer quality material, the failures of the market to offer competitively priced books for college students while tabloids are dirt cheap, and massive anti-trust behavior in the software industry to name a few. Their hypocritical pleas like, "how will we make money without copyrights?" is like a mobster asking "how will I make money with out victims to extort?"
The burdens of imposing copyrights might have been bearable a quarter century ago when the biggest issue was copy machines. But today in the information age there is no technical distinction between copyright content and free speech content. Information is so easy to copy and manipulate, there can be no "middle ground". Our society must make a choice: Our communications will either have to be monitored or free, our privacy will either have to intruded or protected. Our speech, writing, and free expression will either have to be abridged or unabridged. Any institution that has the power to control one, must have the power to control all. Copyrights are like a vine that will never stop growing to choke off our freedoms until we cut it off at the root!
Consider parallels to other periods of transition like the industrial revolution:
History teaches that during the 1800's there were many people who believed that the entire meaning and purpose of the industrial revolution was to leverage inventions like the cotton gin to expand their plantations for unlimited growth and profit. Ironically just the opposite was
Re:A Bitter Protest Against Copyrights (Score:3, Insightful)
Update!! (Score:4, Funny)
Examples? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Examples? (Score:2)
Re:Examples? (Score:4, Insightful)
GCC
BASH
GNU/HURD
Linux
Minix
Those are a few of the things which would not have been invented had it not been for copyright law and the restrictions surrounding the use and distribution of UNIX.
Re:Examples? (Score:2)
When did this happen?
I thought it was still vaporware.
Re:Examples? (Score:2)
There is no stable release (but it is still under rapid development). So, this would really be for your experimentation only. But you can run X & a few other apps.
GNU/Hurd (Score:5, Funny)
Interesting. Please share your definition of "rapid" with the rest of us.
Re:GNU/Hurd (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Examples? (Score:2)
Good to see you have a sense of humor!
This is the only non-GPLed app you list. It was originally under a proprietary license (pre-OSI days) & was relicensed under a BSD license. It was originally a teaching OS & I would argue that if there were no copyrights, professors would still have a need for teaching & so this program would still be written (of course neglecting prior art which may have truly needed copyrights).
Even under the current license, it "plays fewer games" with cop
Re:Examples? (Score:2)
No doubt. The state of gaming applications on Minix is even more dismal than on MacOS!
Re:Examples? (Score:4, Interesting)
I deliberately chose that example not because it's Free Software but it was still created in response to the restricted nature of the UNIX source code.
Andy needed something to base his class on, copyright law kept him from being able to use UNIX, so he wrote Minix. The license he distributed it under (which was a result of the needs of his publisher, if I remember right) is neither here nor there to the point I was making.
Re:Examples? (Score:2)
I would still propose that a teaching OS would be needed had UNIX been freely available. Minix is less daunting than all of that AT&T code would have been.
Re:Examples? (Score:2)
Re:Examples? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Examples? (Score:3)
These utilities of course wouldn't have to be created if not for the _restrictive_ nature of Intellectual property in the software industry! It's like saying that everyone who uses electricity produced from fission driven power plants should thank the 1930-1940's nazi germany for starting WWII because it propelled the inventions surrounding atomic energy (yes, the example is deliberately harsh).
If not the restrictive nature of the copyright law, those utilities wouldn't have been created in t
Re:Examples? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Examples? (Score:3, Interesting)
Noone would have put the funds into designing it if they hadn't had the ability to patent the thing. Once they developed it, they patented it. This is just fine with me. However, what's really neato is that all these other companies decided they would reverse engineer / one up them, and therefore a year or two later have faster chips. Works all good.
The real problem I have with patent
Re:Examples? (Score:3, Interesting)
Anyway, do you think companies like IBM would be so enthusiastic in their research into new technologies, if any competitor were allowed to just sit back and copy IBMs methods as soon as they hit the market? In such a patent-free market, those doing the research would actually be at a disadvantage. They'd be first to market, sure, but their competition w
Re:Examples? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Examples? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Examples? (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, I think they would be. I think that a great deal of the stuff they get
Re:Examples? (Score:2)
Re:Examples? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Examples? (Score:2)
Re:Examples? (Score:2)
Cool! (Score:5, Funny)
Cool! Does that get-together include a CD/DVD swap session?
These guys are getting worse (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:These guys are getting worse (Score:3)
Re:These guys are getting worse (Score:2)
Re:These guys are getting worse (Score:2)
Re:These guys are getting worse (Score:3, Funny)
No, you're thinking of the Republicans.
Re:These guys are getting worse (Score:4, Interesting)
Copyright is outdated (Score:3, Insightful)
Software, particularly OSS, is very different. Much of the value in software is derived from all the testing etc that is done to prove the software and flush out the bugs. I have heard of this being compared to the "stone soup" story. Throw out any (sometimes crappy) software and let people give you feedback. Copyright only protects the interests of the authors - not of those who do all the testing etc. Often the value added by the testers etc is many times the value added by the original authors.
Re:Copyright is outdated (Score:3, Funny)
Real programmers have 0x10 fingers.
Re:Copyright is outdated (Score:4, Insightful)
It's no longer fine for things like a book, etc. The whole system has been perverted by corporate interests and needs an overhaul.
Re:Copyright is outdated (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Exploring your book analogy... (Score:2)
Some programs, small utilities, etc can be *perfect* external testing help. Perhaps a short story (or a slashdot post -- not this one) can be perfect without others participating in creation process.
Then there are massive software solutions that are beyond the capacity of a single skilled developer. For example, Linux. To get something like that right in one lifetime you need a team. Sort of like creating an encyclopedia.
I have no idea why you thin
Re:Copyright is outdated (Score:3, Insightful)
Modern copyright probably starts with the Statute of Anne [wikipedia.org]. It lasted 14 years, with an option to renew for another 14 years. Content consumers were granted freedom from publishers to do with their purchases as they wanted, but content creators were given the right to say who could publish (or republish) their works when, where, and how. This exclusive right was strong incentive
Re:Copyright is outdated (Score:2)
No it wasn't.
First, copyright is the right of a person to their works; it's not protecting some other set of rights.
Second, copyright was intended as a way of promoting the public good, which is served by both increasing the number of original and derivative works created, and by promptly placing those works in the public domain so that they can be free to all. Granting rights to authors is merely a way to accomplish par
BSA ? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:BSA ? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:BSA ? (Score:2)
Re:BSA ? (Score:5, Interesting)
He had 2... count 'em 2, machines in his office, both running Win2k, Microsoft Office, and some accounting and scheduling software. He got a nice little letter from the BSA saying they wanted to do an audit.
He had no idea where his license info was, it's just him and his wife running a 2-exam-room office and he called me in a panic. I had told him about the Ernie Ball Case [infoworld.com] previously - he was all sorts of freaked out. Short of shelling out hundreds of dollars for new licenses, he was screwed. Granted, Ernie Ball is a larger company that might be able to suck it up, but it could mean financial ruin for a husband & wife operation.
He's now happily running Debian and OpenOffice on both machines. He had been planning on buying an updated version of his accounting/scheduling software regardless, and we found that it runs perfectly under wine.
He won't be hearing from the BSA again any time soon.
Celibrate (Score:4, Funny)
*Cheers*
Software Freedom Day (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Software Freedom Day (Score:4, Funny)
CopyNight (Score:5, Funny)
Economic opportunity maybe... (Score:2, Insightful)
The far more creative method of human thinking is to express ideas to as many people as possible and have those people alter and improve upon the original. One person sitting in a box alone will come up with boring ideas (unless they are crazy).
Re:Economic opportunity maybe... (Score:3, Insightful)
Ownership of ideas encourages people to invest into research or creating an original work. Research can be a costly undertaking, and even an activity like writing a book requires the writer to invest a great deal of his time. Would a writer make that investment if he knew that anyone at all would be free to copy his work without compensation? Would companies do any research or keep the results of their rese
Re:Economic opportunity maybe... (Score:3, Insightful)
Why is it so hard for captialist pig dogs to grasp the simple concept that money != motivation, the accumulation of wealth is not the purpose of life.
Writers write as they have a story they want to share with others.
Companies would have to do research, or they wouldn't have anything to sell to keep them going. or do you think that when this happens now they should be able to
Re:Economic opportunity maybe... (Score:2)
Re:Economic opportunity maybe... (Score:2)
Re:Economic opportunity maybe... (Score:2)
Also neither copyright nor patents protect ideas. Nor do trademarks. Trade secrets approach it, but even they have significant weaknesses.
Re:Economic opportunity maybe... (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think that it's all that beneficial now, but I do think that it's generally possible for it to beneficial to the public if done right.
I celebrated (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I celebrated (Score:3, Informative)
More like AllOfPayPal (Score:3, Insightful)
If you buy music from allofmp3.com, none of that money goes to the artists.
That's why you follow up by tipping the artist directly at allofpaypal.com [paypal.com], short-circuiting the vulture-capitalist labels.
HEY, WAIT! (Score:5, Funny)
Yay! (Score:5, Insightful)
There's so much to celebrate.
Laws that allow others to lock their ideas away so no one can use them.
Laws that allow organised price fixing.
Laws that allow people to own ideas that should belong to everyone. Everything down to your own DNA has some form of IP on it.
Rejoice world.
Gimme a break!
Re:Yay! (Score:2, Insightful)
Laws that mean companies must innovate to succeed.
Laws that allow people to own ideas that are the result of their time.
Laws that incite people to go over the top at Drudge-esque lengths by claiming that somebody's going to copyright your DNA.
Okay, well, I like the first three things.
Re:Yay! (Score:2)
But it doesn't profit me for creators to benefit from their works. In fact, that benefit probably derives from me, so in fact it's harmful. How can you justify harming me so?
Laws that mean companies must innovate to succeed.
Innovation is good, but refinement and commoditizing are also good. It's great to invent the first light bulb, but light bulbs are better when they last longer, are very inexpensive, are very cheap, and can be had anywhere or mad
Re:Yay! (Score:2, Insightful)
This is complete nonsense. Anyone who produces something is allowed to benefit from it. How is producing software any different? If you considering paying for stuff you use harmful, then maybe you shouldn't buy anything from now on... at all. But if you decide to keep buying stuff, be so kind to explain why paying for software is more
A perfect judo move (Score:3)
WIPD is a protest-magnet, and the CopyNight people have simply used WIPD's big-money marketing of the event against them. It will be interesting to see if WIPD is "quietly" discontinued next year.
Re:A perfect reverse-judo move (Score:2)
>
> WIPD is a protest-magnet, and the CopyNight people have simply used WIPD's big-money marketing of the event against them. It will be interesting to see if WIPD is "quietly" discontinued next year.
I've got a feeling this is going to be like a lot of those WTO protests, where about 50 idiots in suits show up, along with 50 agen
Wow! (Score:3, Funny)
And after the announcement...... (Score:2, Funny)
Out of the.... (Score:2)
All that's missing now... (Score:2)
I've seen a DVD or two with an overly-long commercial at the beginning that likens copying movies to stealing cars or purses, etc.
All that's missing from the BSA now is some sort of analog to this.
Using patented algorithms (as obvious as some are) is like...
How About A Libre Software Day? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:How About A Libre Software Day? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:How About A Libre Software Day? (Score:2)
Re:How About A Libre Software Day? (Score:2)
Timing is crucial. (Score:2, Insightful)
That way, all those free-spirited, pirates will be too busy studying their asses off to give a hoot about it. "intellectual property day". LOL.
Original Copyright (Score:3, Insightful)
You mean all that innovation that comes from 1-Click software patents, the Happy Birthday song [snopes.com], Winnie the Pooh [fortune.com], etc.
If you look at the Constitution [findlaw.com], copyright covers: "[o]nly the writings and discoveries of authors and inventors...and then only to the end of promoting science and the useful arts."
Original ideas should not become commodities that are transferred to purchasers and assignees - which is the problem with all the examples above.
Re:Original Copyright (Score:2)
Science referred to general knowledge, and Pooh would fall in there. The useful arts were the applied sciences, and fall under patents. (c.f. state of the art technology, prior art, persons having ordinary skill in the art, etc.)
But of course (Score:5, Funny)
We already have a World Cancer Day and a World AIDS day, why shouldn't we have a World Intellectual Property Day too? I'd like to give my support to all the victims of Intellectual Property and I'm sure a lot of other people would too.
Language change please (Score:3, Interesting)
We have to recognize, and incorporate into our dialogue, that these concepts are better termed IP conventions; ie, things which are adopted because they are convenient in practice.
Only then will we be able to cogently argue against them when they cease to be convenient for the public as a whole, and decide how to adjust them to maximize their convenience.
Re:Language change please (Score:2)
Unfortunately, I think that fight was lost some time in the 19th century when the term "Intellectual Property" was coined in a successful move to extend copyright terms. The fact that every type
Re:Language change please (Score:2)
They changed the language then, and we can change it again today. All that's required for the language to change is for enough people to start using the new language.
Re:OK (Score:2)
Some might then suggest that this contradicts my original argument, since now calling something a convention makes it more attractive. However, I never said that calling anything a convention makes it less attractive then when it is called a right; rather, I was trying to emphasize that call
Google (Score:2)
Fish (Score:3, Funny)
Classic.. (Score:5, Interesting)
"We must continue our shared public-private efforts to deter piracy and promote intellectual property rights in every corner of the globe. Our children's ability to learn, create and innovate must be protected now and in the decades ahead."
A classic maneuver; stating two unrelated topics in the same paragraph deceiving lay readers into drawing nonexistent conclusions between them. This is especially prevalent with statistics, where correlations between two data sets are often shown (which do exist), but where any actual connection between the two is purely happenstance. For example: "After using product X for 2 weeks Rob's weight dropped 25 pounds." At first glance Rob's use of product X and his weight seem to be related, but their not. The real reason for his weight drop was he stopped having his hourly burrito during that time period.
- Piracy and children have nothing in common, and this man's an asshole for even implying such a connection exists.
Information wants to be MINE (Score:2)
Yes - they WANT everyone to know that. But since I Trademarked "World Intellectual Property Day" - they will be required to pay me (inserts pinky in mouth) one-million dollars - ah ha ha ha ha ha ha!
Did you catch the text at the bottom? (Score:5, Interesting)
What a surprise, they don't want to pay for intellectual property either.
Except (Score:2)
Except it doesn't foster innovation or creativity, its all about making money - usually by slightly amoral means.
Oh, joy! (Score:2)
How about ingrown-toenail day? BSOD day? Stomach ulcer day? Patent appreciation day?
It's a regular party.
Parteeee (Score:2)
Wow. Sounds like fun.
If you're a square.
Re:Let's Celebrate! (Score:2)
Thanks a lot Sega for the worst copy-protection ever!
Re:Let's Celebrate! (Score:2)
Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. (Score:3, Informative)
Positing that "Proerty is Theft."
Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Remember when copyrights were 17 years? (Score:2, Informative)
Patent term in the United States used to be 17 years from the date of issue, now it's 20 years from the date of filing.
Copyright term in the U.S. was originally 14, extendable for another 14. Subsequent developments have lengthened the term to what it is today.
See this website for the history of copyright http://arl.cni.org/info/frn/copy/timeline.html [cni.org]
Re:Announcing the Creation of Spam Sig Opt Out (Score:2, Funny)