Royal Society Issues IP Charter 250
An anonymous reader writes "The Economist
and the Guardian
both have stories about the release of the
Adelphi Charter – an international blueprint for how
intellectual property should be made – by Britain's Royal
Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufacture and Commerce.
The Economist says “The Adelphi group are a varied crew
ranging from Gilberto Gil, the Brazilian culture minister (and pop
star) to Sir John Sulston, a Nobel-winning scientist who helped
decode the human genome, and James Boyle, a law professor at Duke
University. They believe that the intellectual-property system is
starting to lean so far in favor of private enrichment that it no
longer serves the public interest.” The charter calls for
evidence-based policy, and a balance between rights protection and
the public domain. It also condemns business method and software
patents."
In other news.... (Score:2, Funny)
Fatalism (Score:5, Insightful)
Will current posters please instead offer suggestions for how to get the Government to pay attention instead of whining? Or at least, do both? How many millions of smart (don't prove me wrong) people read this? We're a force of Nature on the Internet, capable of manually DDoSing servers into a meltdown.
Let's turn that power to doing good -- statistically, at least one person here is bound to have a good idea.
Re:Fatalism (Score:5, Insightful)
Easy answer - in discussions with 'said government officials, point to other innovative or useful applications of copyleft and the public domain. GNU and the GPL, Project Gutenberg, and Wikipedia are probably the best examples. (Full disclosure - I am a prolific Wikipedia contributor). The surging disaster that is copyright and patent protection threatens such projects. On the other hand, their redistributable nature has made them wonderful sources of the most unexpected applications - witness the incorporation into google of Wikipedia's database for Google Answers.
Re:Fatalism (Score:5, Insightful)
This whole 'copyleft' catchphrase really does our cause no favours. It muddies the water and scares off people who are not left who should be our allies. Hayek is arguably the definitive right-wing, twentieth century economist. Look at this paragraph from p35, _The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism_, 1988:
"""
Just to illustrate how great out ignorance of the optimum forms of delimitation of various rights remains - despite our confidence in the indispensability of the general institution of several property - a few remarks about one particuilar form of property may be made.
[... he introduces immatierial property rights invented recently having to do with as example literary productions and technological inventions]
The difference between these and other kinds of property rights is this: while ownership of material goods guides the user of scarce means to their most important uses, in the case of immaterial goods such as literary productions and technological inventions the ability to produce them is also limited, yet once they have come into existence, they can be indefinitely multiplied and can be made scarce only by law in order to create an inducement to produce such ideas. Yet it is not obvious that such forced scarcity is the most effective way to stimulate the human creative process. I doubt whether there exists a single great work of literature which we would not possess had the author been unable to obtain an exclusive copyright for it; it seems to me that the case for copyright must rest almost entirely on the circumstance that such exceedingly useful works as encyclopaedias, dictionaries, textbooks and other works of reference could not be produced if, once they existed, they could freely be reproduced.
Similarly, recurrenc re-examinations of the problem have not demonstrated that the obtainability of patents of invention actually enhances the flow of new technical knowledge rather than leading to wasteful concentration of research on problems whose solution in the near future can be foreseen and where, in consequence of the law, anyone who hits upon a solution a moment before the next gains the right to its exclusive use for a prolonged period (Machlup, 1962).
"""
I realise 'copyleft' is meant to be cute, but it's really unstrategic. A lot of people tend to think that impies bad economic underpinnings when the word 'left' is used.
Re:Fatalism (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Fatalism (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Fatalism (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately, these provisions do not exist in every jurisdiction, and there are no similar provisions for libel, as far as I know.
Re:Fatalism (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that to see lots of organizations and individuals taking public positions like this and making sure that their government representatives are aware of it. So long as outfits like the RIAA are able to give the impression that they represent the "content creators" and that the only people who have problems with the way "IP" law has developed are people too cheap to pay for their entertainment and long-hair hippie programmers, they'll stay in the driver's seat. It's important for prominent scientists, engineers, inventors, film-makers, authors, musicians and the like, in short, the real creators and innovators, to make it clear that they regard the current IP regime as intolerable.
Re:Fatalism (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Fatalism (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Fatalism (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Fatalism (Score:3, Interesting)
Hmmm that is an interesting idea, a campaign to put on $1,5,10,20,100 dollar bills "Repeal the DMCA" then simply spend them. Have the person's head say it as a speech balloon, if enough people do it it can make headlines.
Probably illegal I'd guess in the United States, to deface money?
Nice little protest.
Re:Fatalism (Score:2)
Rock on, Psychology 110.
Re:Fatalism (Score:5, Insightful)
That would put their "influence" back to the traditional bribery and graft scenario
No vote? NO SAY.
Re:Fatalism (Score:4, Insightful)
More important is to open the minds of those whom these organizations have successfully brainwashed into thinking copying = theft. Once an overly moralistic friend of mine called me up and opened the conversation with a patronizing "Have you been pirating again?" No, he was not joking. So I cut loose on him. I told him how I *bought* OS/2 version 3, thinking it came with networking capability same as Windows. Didn't occur to me that OS/2 might not have networking included, so I didn't check on that. After I opened the box, thereby making it unreturnable, I found an EULA saying, among other things, that I wasn't allowed to use it on more than 1 computer, and a note in the back of the manuals saying networking was not included and I'd have to pay twice as much again for that feature. I also pointed out that it wouldn't cost IBM one penny in extra materials if I put OS/2 on a 2nd computer-- no 2nd copy of the manuals, disks, and so on needed, and so I didn't see why I should have to pay full price to be allowed to put it on a 2nd computer. And also, why shouldn't be just as logical to think that this restriction to one meant one user/many computers, not one computer/many users? I bought a pig in a poke, and got burned. He conceded I had some points and ended by saying my morals were my business.
Re:Fatalism (Score:2)
Re:Fatalism (Score:3, Insightful)
This is the sort of brainwashing I'm talking about. No, they can't put any restrictions they want in the agreement and expect it to hold up in court. They're hoping users will be impressed by the authoritative tone and just roll over. They can argue about what constitutes, for example, Fair Use. Or they can try to say users must waive their Fair Use rights, but they can't enforce that. They can even lob
Re:Fatalism (Score:2)
What pressure? The fear of losing to the other guy at the next election? That other guy stands for the exact same thing as them. You, as a voter, have essentially two choices: vote for corporate america, or throw your vote away. Because that's what you d
Re:Fatalism (Score:2)
Those guys don't even believe in laws. They're like anarchists, but with more chewing tobacco.
Re:Fatalism (Score:3, Interesting)
Not that voting for a Libertarian is going to help you. He who has the biggest campaign budget wins the election. If you're not "on the take" you can't possibly beat the people who are. Therefore anyone who is in office is there
Re:Fatalism (Score:3, Insightful)
What about the freedom to:
Re:Fatalism (Score:2)
That really is one of the more idiotic, uncomprehending-of-the-dmocratic-process, yet all too frequent posts I see here on
It just doesn't happ
Re:Fatalism (Score:2)
Optimism (Score:5, Insightful)
But our power can be more usefully applied as a grassroots political force than by merely DDOSing all and sundry in an ineffective attempt to change policy. That tactic just gives the opposition a ready ad hominem attack with which to dismiss us, no matter how just our cause or how rational our arguments. As with SCO, every web site outage for the next six months suddenly becomes the work of lawless commie pirate hackers who want to selfishly stop people making music and... well, everyone looses interest, expect maybe to pass tough new laws further restricting free speech online.
Not that I'm saying that was your suggestion, but I'd hate for someone to misread it that way. I'm sure you understand.
Let's turn that power to doing good -- statistically, at least one person here is bound to have a good idea.
I think the good idea is the charter from TFA. This is a tremendously valuable contribution to the debate. For one thing, the Royal Society have considerable prestige. It's a lot harder to laugh them off than it is slashdot. The diversity of the authors helps in this regard as well.
For another the charter gives us a good talking point - something to campaign for. So you can contact your local lawmaker type and ask what he'd doing to bring about compliance with the Adelphi Charter. We can use it as a justification to ask whether the public good has been considered in respect to a specific IP ruling, and as further support for the abolition of software and business methods and software patents.
This doesn't give us any new techniques for getting the attention of government - but then we don't really need any - the old ones still work. What this gives us a lot of new, high quality ammo. My bright idea would be to suggest that we use it.
Re:Fatalism (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure. Start by coming up with a really solid reason the government officials should believe what you believe, and finish by making sure the governemnt officials know there are a lot of people who agree with you. As a bonus, make it apparent that most (if not all) of those people are (at least potential) voters.
It really is that simple in most cases. The problem so far has been that nearly every argument against (for one example) patents applying to software has been exceptionally weak.
You have to be prepared to deal with issues like why expressing a particular piece of logic in C or Ada doesn't deserve patent protection, while expressing the same logic in Verilog or VHDL, which look identical to a non-programmer should deserve that protection. Likewise, why a device that fits the description in a patent claim should not be protected if the implementation happens to be (even in part) carried out with an embedded processor with embedded code, even though it's not at all apparent to the outside world that there's any software involved at all.
Along with that, you're going to have to define your terms so the distinction you're trying to make is sensible to somebody who neither knows nor wants to learn the details of the issue at hand.
At least in the US, you also have to deal with the fact that patents on inventions are enshrined in the constitution, so you'll have to figure out whether you want to revise the constitution itself, or only the patent laws that are written under that constitution. Again, when/if you do that, you'll have to make your decisions and arguments sensible to relatively average Joes on the street, not just to other programmers.
In the end, laws need to make clear-cut distinctions between what is allowed and what isn't. The reasons for those distinctions generally need to be seen not only by specialists, but by by the public at large, as meaningful and sensible. If that is not the case, even if a law is passed, changed, etc., it will almost certainly be ignored anyway.
So far, what I've seen indicates that the major problem with software patents isn't that they're allowed -- it's that for a long time they were NOT allowed. The problem here is that the patent offices of the world tend to treat previous patents (and applications) as their primary source of information about existing art. Since (for a long time) patents on software weren't allowed, nobody applied for them, so the patent office lacks a base of knowledge about what's really new and what's not.
Another factor tends to apply to patents in general, not just software patents -- I think there's a general belief that the tendency should be to assume something is not not patentable, and require the applicant to prove that it is original. At least in the US, the law more or less reverses that though, saying the patent shall be issued unless the patent office can prove that it's not patentable.
There are some other details along with that (e.g. the standard of evidence for getting a patent issued is much lower than for proving it's invalid) but it seems to me that when you get down to it, the problems we see are far less with software patents in general than with the way they've been implemented, that has led to the patent offices of the world believing, in essence, that any example of having an IQ higher than the average dog qualifies as novel and brilliant.
At least in my opinion, this is where the real changes need to take place. As it happens, along with making more sense, at least to me, these are also changes that are likely to be much easier to make. Most lawmakers are also lawyers, and doing something like adjusting the standard of evidence one step higher in a particular area is something with which they're quite comfortable. My guess is that they're likely to see s
Re:Fatalism (Score:3, Interesting)
Isn't that the wrong way around? Shouldn't the politicians have given a really solid reason why we should obey their law and finish by making sure there are a lot of people who agree with them? And don't you think such laws are automatically invalid until such rationale has been given? Perhaps in
Re:Fatalism (Score:5, Interesting)
You are shifting the burden of proof and rather distorting the facts: You may only ever have seen exceptionally weak arguments, but that is not because only exceptionally weak arguments have ever been deployed - quite the converse is true*. The problem so far has instead been that no argument with even a semblance of strength for introducing software patents has ever been produced. And however weak you think any argument against the expansion of patentable subject matter is, it automatically wins unless you have a strong argument in favour of that expansion. But the expansion has occurred anyway of course, and in the face of strong arguments and strong opposition from industry and academia. That many companies, academics and individuals had to make such arguments at all illustrates the appalling state of recent policy making in this area (if you can call it policy making). Any credible economist will tell you that patent scope expansion without prior empirical and sound theoretical justification is verboten. Too bad - the damage is done and in the US it seems the fight's effectively over now, but the rest of what I want to say is appropriately Eurocentric anyway.
*
http://researchoninnovation.org/online.htm [researchoninnovation.org]
http://www.si.umich.edu/~kahin/mip.html [umich.edu]
http://swpat.ffii.org/archive/mirror/impact/index. en.html [ffii.org]
http://philsalin.com/patents.html [philsalin.com]
http://lpf.ai.mit.edu/Patents/knuth-to-pto.txt [mit.edu]
http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/jul05/1557 [ieee.org]
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=stor y_16-8-2005_pg5_12 [dailytimes.com.pk]
http://swpat.ffii.org/archive/quotes/index.en.html [ffii.org]
"You have to be prepared to deal with issues like why expressing a particular piece of logic in C or Ada doesn't deserve patent protection, while expressing the same logic in Verilog or VHDL, which look identical to a non-programmer should deserve that protection."
That is definitely not an issue. One does not ask whether or not some invention deserves a patent, but whether or not it is patentable subject matter at all and your example is a poor one because if the claims of a patent are directed to the expressions of logic, then they are software patent claims.
"Likewise, why a device that fits the description in a patent claim should not be protected if the implementation happens to be (even in part) carried out with an embedded processor with embedded code, even though it's not at all apparent to the outside world that there's any software involved at all."
The distinction between hardware and software is not useful and is not at all relevant to the question of whether a patent claim is a software patent claim or not. One way to discover how the distinction between software patent and non-software patent is determined (and it is not always easy) is to read the way it is expressed by Judge Peter Prescott QC in his recent CFPH decision [bailii.org], in which he carefully and fully interprets the EPC Article 52 exclusions. Unfortunately, Prescott's interpretation seems to me to leave a lot of room for claiming things such as image enhancement techniques derived from purely mathematical considerations, but at least compression algorithms and data manipulation and data st
hmmm... (Score:2)
Re:hmmm... (Score:2)
What to do (Score:2, Interesting)
Our weapons for freedom can be our webbrowsers, because most of us are too untrained, too cowardly or too afraid of t
Re:What to do (Score:2)
That's interesting to note. It's not that people are too untrained, cowardly or afraid. It's that times are a lot different now then the 1800s. Back then, a few guys with guns could make a difference. Now, unless you have a sizable army a few guys with guns can't even step out of their house.
The new form of revolting
Re:What to do (Score:2)
Slashdotting the government servers will do zero good but get this site shut down. It's one thing having the Slashdot effect, but it's a whole other thing trying to use it to our advantage.
well measured and balanced polices (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe it will have an effect... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think our lawmakers are bought and sold by big corporations, but perhaps, just perhaps, enough of them can be shamed into doing the right thing. And that's to remember that the goal of government is to serve the public interest, not the person with the most money.
Maybe it won't happen, but at least it's worth the try. Because I can promise you it will never happen if we don't *start* trying.
Re:Maybe it will have an effect... (Score:2)
Re:Maybe it will have an effect... (Score:3, Interesting)
I had a conversation about it with my parents recently, and I was rather shocked to find out that they thought that the ONLY purpose of a patent was to give an inventor the ability to milk the market for as much money as possible (that's not the way they phrased it, of course, but what they said i
How sad (Score:5, Insightful)
I've always thought that it's mind-bogglingly moronic to have anything but this. Surely laws of any nature should be passed only if there's evidence that it is necessary for the public good? And seemingly no law that's been passed in association with copyrights since I've been alive has had this.
I asked this question in the AWOL Sid Meier interview, but I'll ask it again: which software company would find it infeasible to continue if software copyright terms were limited to fourteen years? Fourteen years ago, Atari and Amiga were mainstream systems. Fourteen years ago, the WWW was being invented. Fourteen years ago, Windows 3.1 didn't exist. Are there seriously people out there that argue Microsoft depends upon copyright protection for Windows 3.0 today?
actually.... (Score:2, Interesting)
first, would be valuable code in window 3.1 that would help the people writing windows emulation write better stuff. even though it's win16, it would still help to understand where ms started and give clues to where it went.
second, i would expect that there is a lot of source code out there (not just ms) that would have evidence of wrong doing. patent infringement would still be an issue for several more years and trad
Re:actually.... (Score:2)
Re:actually.... (Score:2)
it is my understanding that they only way to protect a resource from becoming public domain is to try and protect it as a trade secret (the formula for coca cola, etc).
ms might try to keep the source under wraps, but once copywrite expires, copies are *legal*.
Re:actually.... (Score:2)
In some cases, the source code (or parts of it) may have been published, under something like a
Re:actually.... (Score:3, Interesting)
However, we can deal with the situation at hand fairly easily, so long as we're considering reforms.
Require publication and deposit as copyright formalities (as has traditionally been the case). Expand the scope of publication to include all sorts of public release, including performance. Expand the requirements for deposit to include such supplementary information as the Copyright Office believes is reasonably necessary t
Re:How sad (Score:2)
Limiting software copyright to fourteen years would be sensible but doesn't go far enough. As RMS has pointed out, it is absurd that software originally gained the protection of copyright by virtue of being a creative work, yet the thing that humans actually create, the source code, is not required to be published.
At the very least, software developers who want the protection of copyright should be required to lodge their source with a central library, to ensure it can be released when copyright expire
Re:How sad (Score:3)
Every other artistic form that I can think of is essentially an end product that can be further refined. Software is unique in that its end product is nearly impossible to modify without going back to the source material, and that is the critical
Re:How sad (Score:2)
Registration is advantageous to society because it establishes when the work was created and who to contact to request permission to make deriviative works. R
Re:How sad (Score:3, Interesting)
In fact, if copyright must exist, this should apply to *all* things protected under it. Copyright should be an opt-in system that requires the lodgement of the work to be protected in a "public information store" to be valid.
Also, since copyright is primarily used for giving "intellectual property" actual financial
Re:How sad (Score:3, Interesting)
I challenge ... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I challenge ... (Score:2)
Re:I challenge ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Putting 1000 leaflets in letterboxes is an immediate action you can do yourself right now. There is no need to get consensus or permission from anyone. Just go out and DO IT!
Re:I challenge ... (Score:2)
Re:I challenge ... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I challenge ... (Score:2)
I don't see how this works in general. Its true that locked mailboxes of the sort found in apartment buildings and post offices only allow things to be inserted if you can open them up, but lots of mailboxes can readily be opened by anybody, and others have slits that allow things to be put in but don't allow anything to be removed, or only allow with considerable difficulty. Prohibiting other people from inserting things into mail boxes doesn't change the security picture one way or the other.
Perhaps the first thing that they patent... (Score:2, Funny)
Hey, even international spies need IP...
Gilberto Gil, biopiracy, and Brazil (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Gilberto Gil, biopiracy, and Brazil (Score:2, Funny)
Mr. Gil sure is lucky
Optimal balance possible for IP? (Score:5, Insightful)
Who says there needs to be a balance at all? You have 2 extremes when it comes to intellectual 'property': a) none, read: no IP protection of any kind, and b) the kind that would give **AA bosses a wet dream. You think (what is best for society as a whole) is somewhere in between? Personally, I doubt it. I seriously doubt that the whole concept of intellectual 'property' has ANY net postive effect for society as a whole. I think it's more like DRM: good for some, but mostly a net negative, overhead, 'red tape'.
Now since around the same time that the concept of IP was introduced, there's been an explosion in literature, music, scientific advances etc. And proponents of IP protection like to say that's cause and result. I think that's bull, and pure coincidence. Anyone think the world would never have seen beautiful animated movies like those coming from the Disney studios, had there been 0 IP protection? Or that MP3 audio format would never have been developed?
We'll never know, since there's no way to find out what our world would be like if IP protections hadn't existed. But I do know one thing for sure: the overhead that IP protections cause, exist. No doubt about that. Drawing up licenses costs money, enforcing them costs money, fighting over them in court costs money, destroying 100,000 counterfeit CD's is waste (of energy and production capacity), reading EULA's takes people's time. Anyone ever tried to make an estimate how big a cost to society this all adds up to?
For me it's been clear for a while: I fundamentally don't like the concept of intellectual property (even for what I might produce myself), and simply try to ignore it as much as I can get away with. Like so many people do in practice. Oh and BTW: that doesn't mean none of my money goes to creative folks like musicians etc. It's just not IP laws that make me do that.Re:Optimal balance possible for IP? (Score:2)
I seriously doubt we can come up with a meaningful answer to that question until we have mainstream media entering the public domain on a regular basis.
Re:Optimal balance possible for IP? (Score:3, Interesting)
There sure is. There are many nations that never enacted IP laws or don't enforce them. Look at the state of the film industry in Hong Kong for example. During the mid-90's Hong Kong produced over 300 features per year and had a yearly income of more than a bilion HK dollars. In 2004 the produced only 64 features because rampant piracy prevents studios from making money on film.
There are plenty of examples of this
Re:Optimal balance possible for IP? (Score:3, Insightful)
During the mid-90's Hong Kong produced over 300 features per year and had a yearly income of more than a bilion HK dollars. In 2004 the produced only 64 features because rampant piracy prevents studios from making money on film.
That's not a fair example though because the copyright system distortes the industry to begin with. For example, the money that went into those 236 features that weren't produced could have very arguably been redirected toward creating online content on the internet, or online serv
Re:Optimal balance possible for IP? (Score:3, Interesting)
It is no accident that cheap methods of reproducing DVDs coincided with the demise of the HK film industry.
http://cio-asia.com/ShowPage.aspx?pagetype=2&artic leid=2175&pubid=5&issueid=55 [cio-asia.com]
http://english.sina.com/taiwan_hk/1/2005/0430/2961 6.html [sina.com]
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Set/880 [geocities.com]
Can we get some protection for receipes?! (Score:5, Insightful)
Bravo! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Can we get some protection for receipes?! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Can we get some protection for receipes?! (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, a lot of recipes are protected. When was the last time you cooked up some KFC or made some Coca Cola?
There are a great many ways of making "southern-fried chicken", and you're welcome to follow any recipe you like. You can't make Kentucky Fried Chicken(tm) unless you're KFC. The situation is just the same for software - you're free to write your own word processor, you just can't write Microsoft Word.
Actually, you are confusing not two, not three, but four distinct kinds of "Intellectual Property" law. (One can see from this example why Stallman hates the term so much. Disclaimer: IANAL.)
Incidentally, according to William Poundstone's book Big Secrets, the "secret" recipe [topsecretrecipes.com] for KFC is salt, flour, pepper, and MSG: cook in a pressure baster. By telling you this, I have as far as I know violated no US laws. Go cook up some chicken that tastes "Southern Fried" and contemplate the complicated world of the simple recipe.
Misleading Title (as ever) (Score:5, Informative)
*Yes, they should call themselves The Royal Society of Britain or something else a bit more specific to prevent confusion like this.
Re:Misleading Title (as ever) (Score:3, Informative)
IP laws are no longer necessary for the public (Score:4, Insightful)
Pure BS. I can guarantee that at this point in our society the abolition of IP law would do anything BUT destroy the economy of a nation or the world. Why can I guarantee this? Because the general public has become accustomed to being content consumers. When something comes along (say, digital music) that is significantly useful or good, people will consume regardless of the "legality" of it. Hence, the widespread piracy of music and the eventual development of legal download services.
People want their music, their movies, their medicines, and their meat. The incumbent monopolies keep saying that without DRM, broadcast flags, or patents, they would never produce the products that they do. I say that's just fine by me. Because even if the big companies halted all production in protest of the removal of IP laws, the public would still maintain its desire to consume, so at that point the market will be wide open for ANYONE to fulfill the neeed of the people and profit from it.
I'm not saying the IP laws SHOULD be abolished, just that they are seriously flawed and need some reform a 'la the article above. Also, the public's need for "stuff" is a powerful force (capable of toppling governments in the past), so it is only a matter of time before the current establishment of monopolistc laws fall as well. The sooner the change comes though, the better all will be.
Re:IP laws are no longer necessary for the public (Score:2)
There's a lot of stuff that is debated in Economics, but the laws of supply and demand aren't in that category. When price for a good decreases, the quantity of goods demanded by consumers, all things being equal, will increase. Conversely, as the price of a good decreases, the willingness of a producer to supply
Re:IP laws are no longer necessary for the public (Score:2)
sir, economics is a science of studying
Re:IP laws are no longer necessary for the public (Score:2)
I know my post was quite long, and started out with a criticism of the original poster's logic, but in actuality, I agree with the original poster in most respects, I simply don't agree with the logic he used to arrive at the points he arrived at. I think if you read the rest of my pos
Re:IP laws are no longer necessary for the public (Score:2)
Quite right, if you take "production" to mean "copying". Unfortunately, this isn't production, it is simply distribution. The actual production of content still requires labour, which is (and will remain) a scarce resource.
I think that's the whole point of the information age though. The true model for success in the information age centers arround value added serivces, support, customisation, branding like google, live concerts, etc... - and not arround controlling distrubution. The latter gets in the
Re:IP laws are no longer necessary for the public (Score:2)
rather large error in my original post (Score:2)
However, despite being embarassingly wrong on a public forum, I think that the underlying logic remains relatively intact. Consider: the existance of strong consumer demand for a product at a particular price in no way guarantees that suppl
More oil on the fire (Score:3, Interesting)
The Economist Brings Up A Good Point (Score:5, Insightful)
Where's their proof that the ideas they're putting forward are right.
Yes, I know, this is /. & we have a million examples of patents stifling innovation... but no legitimate analysis. Until there is a enough money behind the idea that copyright/patents are overbearing, no one is going to seriously try to prove it.
no analysis is needed (Score:4, Insightful)
No such analysis is needed--that's the whole point of the Adelphi principles--the burden of proof isn't symmetric.
Patent proponents want society to give them something truly extraordinary: a 20 year monopoly on the exploitation of an idea. That demand requires justification by people who want that kind of monopoly. No counterargument is needed--if proponents can't provide a clear justification, patents should not exist.
Re:The Economist Brings Up A Good Point (Score:2)
Re:The Economist Brings Up A Good Point (Score:2)
A while ago in an article in the Economist they picked out the phrase
Economics is not the be-all and end-all of everything.
(Also, the subject line is slightly misleading. The Royal Society [royalsoc.ac.uk] is the UK's equivalent
Re:The Economist Brings Up A Good Point (Score:2)
It is not enough?
Come on, we know that killing man is not right, with or without laws or proofs. Proofs are needed only for them who are killing men. Strange fallancy, isn't it?
But if we are pratical, ANY unnatural monopoly, however how small, is BAD for ecenomy. Sometimes it is acceptable, but sometimes...
Just say just because some coorporations or people want _more_ money (isn't is that they don't have enough), it is not suitable t
Re:The Economist Brings Up A Good Point (Score:2)
I think such proof already exists in part, but the volume of it needs to be expanded greatly, and it probably needs to be compiled into one source.
Re:The Economist Brings Up A Good Point (Score:2)
The way I see it is that they are the ones that want to coerce and impose these massive restrictions and impositions on what we can copy and immitate. The burden of proof is on them. Systems exist to serve people, not the status quo. The burden of proof really is on them at all times.
Prove that you should have freedom of speech? You'd be a fool to try because that would presuppose that I have the right to take it away under certain curcunstances to begin with.
Understanding false property rights (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, slavery. They called it a property right, they screamed there was no incentive without it, they said it was responsible for great wealth and prosperity of American business and commerce. And it was all bunk, even though it was geniuses that were saying it.
Well the same is true with copyrights and patents. Anyone with an IQ over 20 can easially see that they are not anything like any other kind of incentive or free market property right. And most people with an IQ over 80 can see that inspite of the theory, that is is far more the exception that copyrights or patents help the small time creator than it is the rule.
In fact copyrights and patents are not only bunk, they are often pure evil. Like how copyrights have ripped apart american culture and replaced it with hollywood and ruined the persuit of knowledge in student text book industry, or like how thousands of patnets are sat on and not used for anything but to lock out competitors. Or how disputes and lawsuits in the world court involving AIDS patents arguably caused over a million people to be dead from AIDS in Africa who wouldn't have been otherwise. And now, for copyrights, they pratically want to shut down the internet and microregulate every technology chip maker in the US. Well I say F**k em, on the internet copyrights are dead and they don't even deserve the token support they are getting.
Re:Understanding false property rights (Score:2)
Good point, but who were the "geniuses" defending slavery on economic grounds? I'm not aware of that.
Re:Understanding false property rights (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe our point is valid, I wouldn't know, but the argument that got you there is complete, as you say, "bunk". Also, your last paragraph intrigues me, and I would like to subscribe to your planet's newsletter. The perspective of a people that apparently haven't
And the end result will be obvious... (Score:2)
UK developments WRT software patents are amazing! (Score:5, Informative)
In the meantime, there has been remarkable progress on most of those fronts. The two individuals who deserve most of the credit on the campaigning and lobbying side are Rufus Pollock and Gavin Hill of the FFII UK. Gavin is the "someone" who contacted me last year. In fact, that contact resulted from a slashdot discussion. And in parallel to the political stuff, we've now seen some really good rulings [ffii.org] by Judge Prescott of the High Court of England and Wales who has already invalidated a few software patents.
Someone said in this thread that people should make suggestions for how to make political decision-makers more aware. Here's a suggestion:
Vote Against Software Patents / Vote For Your Right To Program [nosoftwarepatents.com]
We're doing this online campaign and we've already had a very good start. This is about the most important political award series in the EU, and if our camp once again demonstrates its Internet campaigning power (we're trying hard!), then this will make politicians, press and the public more aware of the software patent issue.
Re:Cue angry rants from radical libertarians. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Cue angry rants from radical libertarians. (Score:2)
Re:Cue angry rants from radical libertarians. (Score:4, Interesting)
Speaking as a writer and designer who theoretically benefits from copyright law (I say theoretically, because if ever I had to go to court over copyright, the court fees alone would bankrupt me), copyright and patents, although they are treated as tangible property, to be bought, sold, and lent against, should not be enshrined in common law AS tangible property. You can see this attitude at work when businesses and controlling individuals have an expectation that this "property" can generate profits indefinitely, without any sort of maintenance, upkeep, or recompense to the government and the people, for an artificially maintained monopoly and the tax-supported infrastrucuture built around it (like the FBI anti-piracy division.)
Cue Idiot Who Doesn't Understand Libertarians (Score:5, Informative)
Oh... what is this? It turns out that libertarians actually fall somewhere between against IP laws or vaguely in favor of weakened IP laws. I know that +1 insightful karma tastes wonderful, as you did manage to throw in a bunch of libertarian buzz words combined with IP law and disparaging remarks, but you can do it without posting in complete ignorance.
The libertarian position in IP law is weak at best. They do NOT have a universal stance on the issue. Libertarians do NOT like the idea of a government enforced monopoly via IP laws. Only the utility of IP laws has led some libertarians to abandon the extreme position of no IP laws at all to favor something more limited. In other words, your average libertarian is more likely somewhere left of your average democrat on the issue. The most pro-IP law libertarians are moderates at best.
So, thanks for your ignorance. It really livened up my day. Hey, how about you make a post showing that libertarians are pro-war and how they love drug laws. I bet you can score another insightful post off that ignorant bullshit too.
Re:Cue Idiot Who Doesn't Understand Libertarians (Score:2, Insightful)
Looks like "libertarian" will be this decade's "hacker".
Re:Cue Idiot Who Doesn't Understand Libertarians (Score:2)
What the GP said about Laissez-Faire Capitalism, Randism, Libertarianism and greed are all true. Just because a handful of Libertarians online are anarcho-libertarians, doesn't change the fact that libertarianism irrationall
Re:Cue Idiot Who Doesn't Understand Libertarians (Score:2)
What do you mean by that term?
Re:Cue Idiot Who Doesn't Understand Libertarians (Score:2, Insightful)
And what would prevent you from copying the CD? Why, that'd be a law. You seem to understand that Libertarians view laws as a necessary evil that should be minimized wherever possible. But you don't extend that to copyright... law.
Let's review exactly what the Constitution said which resulted in copyright law and
Re:Cue Idiot Who Doesn't Understand Libertarians (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Cue Idiot Who Doesn't Understand Libertarians (Score:2)
It seems to me the public is filled with innumerable different interests, and almost as many contradictions between them. How can these be reduced to a discrete self-interests of the public in general?
I would saw I'm libertarian in some sense, but I wouldn't treat the common parlance corporation(like a Delaware corporation) as a private individual. Certainly not directly, just because, plainly, they're not people. And not ind
Re:Cue angry rants from radical libertarians. (Score:2)
You cannot be a free marketeer and favor strong government interventions at the same time! That's why libertarians are against codified monopolies, don't like medical guilds very much, and aren't the strongest supporters of intellectual property.
Let's just say that the repeated embarrassing slams you got for mischaracterizing libertarianism were thoroughly desserved. Next time do some homework before hitting the (SEND) button!
C//
Re:Cue angry rants from radical libertarians. (Score:2)
Well, no shit Sherlock.
Elementary, my dear Caspian(9921)! The adelphi charter was meant to be read by the common public, who DON'T KNOW SH*T about the consequences of software patents. I believe it to be more like an education campaign.
After all, how do you think Firefox got popular? Just by quality? No. With campaigns like the New York Times ad, and the
Re:Cue angry rants from radical libertarians. (Score:2, Insightful)
> fairly and those that aren't greedy will be the ones that succeed in a "real"
> free market. Buying congresscritters and lobbying for unconstitutional laws
> would not be an option for companies in that market.
This is nothing but wishful thinking of the worst kind. It boils down to "vote with your wallet", and that will never ever work. Relying on "vote with your wallet" effects is about as stupid as saying "everybody