Copyright and Patent Laws Hurt the Economy 597
Norsefire writes "Two economists at Washington University in St. Louis are claiming that copyright and patent laws are 'killing innovation' and 'hurting [the] economy.' Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine state they would like to see copyright law abolished completely as there are other protections available to the creators of 'intellectual property' (a term they describe as 'propaganda,' and of recent origin). They are calling on Congress to grant patents only where an invention has social value, where the patent would not stifle innovation, and where the absence of a patent would damage cost-effectiveness."
Their site/blog (Score:5, Informative)
www.againstmonopoly.org [againstmonopoly.org]
Re:The flip side of monopoly abuse (Score:5, Informative)
The other side is that many companies refuse to pursue innovations unless they see parts that can be patented to lock in the monopoly returns. Lesser profits just aren't worth the trouble of pursing innovation as they see it these days.
You've got that completely wrong. Due to the fucked up nature of the US patent system, patents are valuable to a company. Either for blackmailing companies that produce actual value, or for preventing blackmail from competitors. There is no innovation behind them.
My company tries to get patents exactly for the reason to prevent blackmail from competitors, who have patents in the same area. That works quite fine, as long as our competitors are doing well because when they are doing well, they can't afford mutual destruction by patent lawyers. Where it goes wrong is in a case like RIMM, where they totally beat their competitor in the market place, so their competitor had no reason anymore to be afraid from RIMM's patent, and could use their own patents in an offensive way.
The reason why my company innovates is not because of patents, it is because we want to offer our customers competitive products, so that they buy ours and not our competitors, and that way we make money. We do _not_ innovate to get patents. We do, however, like everyone else, turn our innovation and also our failed innovations into legalese to get patent.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wrong, AC.
What about 4 years ago, when there was a fuckload of venture capital floating around looking to be spent?
The companies that already owned tons of patents were looking to do what? GET MORE PATENTS.
Capitalism is Murder.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Capitalism is Murder.
We've talked about this before, but there is a difference between capitalism, and corporatism. The two are often confused.
What we have in America right now leans far more towards the Corporatism end of the spectrum, than true (pure) capitalism.
Re:The flip side of monopoly abuse (Score:4, Interesting)
There is no 'Capitalism'. There is classical Liberalism, and there are other 'systems' that depart from it in degree, some more than others.
Liberalism is more advantageous for everybody and benefits nobody in particular, while all systems we currently experiment today are attempts to favor certain groups while necessarily screwing everybody else in the process. Which is kind of why they're so popular today. :-)
Re:The flip side of monopoly abuse (Score:5, Insightful)
When I see Enron and AIG and all pretty much lying to investors' faces, deliberately abusing the notion of deregulation, and eventually destroying tens of thousands of peoples lives, homes, and savings, I don't sit down and think "damn regulations!".
Maybe I should. Maybe you're right and all the work that the EPA does, and DHEC, and the FDA- maybe it's all just a false savings, and the market could correct against them without government interference.
Obviously, though, I wouldn't be writing this screed if I thought that were the case. I appreciate the phenomenal theoretical beauty of the informed participant model, both from a political and economic standpoint, but I cannot completely agree with it in practice. The fact is that liars are common, and their art is highly profitable. Deception, known in some circles as "marketing", is the bane of that theory, and the backbone of the modern economy. Add to that that our system is rife with the local dependencies that obliterate the free exchange of goods and services demanded by the founders of Enlightenment thought, and I simply cannot agree that economic issues should be allowed to ride roughshod over the social concerns of the day.
So when I hear someone ranting about regulation, I have to stop and think- has this person never worked minimum wage? Never pondered the implications of the forty hour work week, or of working 80 hours at the age of 8? It seems foolish- shortsighted- for us to sit in the midst of our comfortable lives, griping about the difficulty of accruing more comfort, and pondering enacting a system virtually guaranteed to grind the comfort from our lives. Do you think we would live so well without those protections? If so, how? And how can you be sure that that is true for society in general, rather than just yourself, or me? I look forward to hearing your answers.
Re:The flip side of monopoly abuse (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly. The proponents of unrestricted free trade are like proponents of a frictionless physical world. Sure would be nice if it could exist, but the reality is that because of political manipulation (friction) the system is skewed so that some systematically benefit at the expense of others.
Example: When a large corporation sends jobs overseas it's called "Free Trade" and they even get tax breaks for it. When an ordinary citizen tries to buy prescription medicine from Canada it's called "smuggling."
WRT deregulation, you've also hit the nail on the head. Sadly, those advocating it don't even have a recent historical sense, much less a deep one. It took centuries to achieve things like a 40 hour work week, outlawing child labor, and outlawing slavery. These would *all* come back if we eliminated regulation. For those who doubt the last, slavery, because the efficient market would eliminate it, realize that slavery still exists and is on the rise [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The same way the "War to End All Wars" wasn't. The same way the "unthinkable" seems to happen all the time.
Sort of like "How are 19 religious fanatics with boxcutters gonna take down the World Trade Center?" and "Now that we're 200 years past the Enlightenment, how would Religious Fundamentalism ever come back?"
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It doesn't just "seem" contradictory, it is contradictory.
Anyone can post with their own account and forgo the karma bonus. But the question is: "Why?".
If you object to the +1 bonus that a signed comment gets, believe me, it all works out in the wash.
Further, I want to make sure I give more weight to a comment from someone who's name I
Re:Their site/blog (Score:5, Informative)
Correct me if I am wrong (as I am sure many will), but aren't patents granted by independent law firms? I didn't think Congress had any direct involvement in decisions about which patents get granted and which don't.
Patents are granted by the Patent and Trademark Office, which is part of the federal government. Congress is not directly involved, but it is responsible for the laws which direct the PTO on what should and should not be patentable.
Prizes for innovation (Score:4, Interesting)
The trouble is it is very hard to: "grant patents only where an invention has social value, where the patent would not stifle innovation, and where the absence of a patent would damage cost-effectiveness."
How can some average patent examiner do that consistently and reliably enough? The temptation after a while would be to just rubberstamp everything.
To me what they should do is to award Prizes for Innovation, much like Nobel Prizes. Most people's hindsight is better than their foresight.
To qualify for the prize, inventors have to register their inventions and pay a registration fee that goes to the prize pool.
You could have one category of prize being awarded by "Experts in the Field", and another category awarded by members of the public (somewhat similar to the Hugo and Nebula prizes, except maybe we could allow a wider participation for members of the public?). Multiple prizes per category would be awarded. Prizes could be awarded every year.
Inventors could win a prize for something they did years or even decades ago.
So even if you are 30 years ahead of everyone and/or your stuff only gets declassified decades later, you can still win a prize.
In contrast patents don't reward the inventors who are really far ahead of their time. They instead reward people who somehow manage to sneak "Method of making omelettes by using contents of eggs while excluding shells and detritus" past overworked patent examiners deluged by similar garbage.
Also, punitive actions could be taken against people who falsely claim they were the first to invent something - at least based on the patent registration database.
What the "Patent Office people" would then do is: try to reduce dupes (you can't prevent dupes 100% but at least reduce them), organize and manage the data so that it is not too hard for people to find candidates for nomination - for instance you don't want to have people keep nominating an invention that has already won! That said an invention that has already won, could qualify for a "top winners amongst winners category".
The patent office workers could also help authoritatively link registered inventions with actual products out in the market.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
these two people are from Washington state, clear across the country
Nice job of not reading. They are from Washington university in St. Louis, not even halfway across the country from Beantown.
I bet that little truth hurts a bit more, eh?
Re:Down with GPL - it HURTS THE ECONOMY !! (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, I feel about the GPL the same way I feel about firearms... I'll gladly toss mine into the bonfire, as long as mine is the last one left after all others are in the pit. I won't need it then.
Absurd! (Score:5, Funny)
Wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
This vile proposal threatens to sacrifice shareholder value on the altar of the progress of the useful arts!
Shareholders benefit because their money isn't going into lawyers pockets, and being lost to the invisible, incalculable cost of hindered progress.
(yes I know you were being sarcastic. Sadly, that is actually the majority sentiment on this issue.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This vile proposal threatens to sacrifice shareholder value on the altar of the progress of science and the useful arts! The founding fathers would never stand for it.
There, fixed your partial quote of the Copyright Clause.
Re:Absurd! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Absurd! (Score:4, Informative)
Which it shouldn't.
The US constitution did not specify that author's should be granted a reproduction monopoly, but that their exclusive right to their writings should be secured.
See An Author's Exclusive Right [digitalproductions.co.uk] for more detail.
Re:Absurd! (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it says that Congress has the power to secure it, if Congress so wishes. There is no Constitutional obligation, though.
As for your essay, while I'd agree with you on some issues, and disagree with you on many others, I don't really see the point.
There are really only three options for an author who would see his works published. First, make a deal with a publisher. As there are a lot of authors (who tend to be bad at making deals) and rather fewer publishers (who tend to be quite good at making deals), the author is probably going to get a bad deal. Second, self-publish, but this is often inefficient, as authors are unlikely to get the best deals, or have working relationships with retailers, big-name reviewers, etc. The Internet is making this a little easier, but not a whole lot easier, unless your sights are set low (e.g. being the top dog of some sort of fanfic community). Third, for the law to treat authors paternalistically, not allowing them to make deals which outsiders viewed as bad (by letting the authors terminate transfers, or be unable to sell the entirety of their rights in a work). This is offensive, and it certainly isn't in keeping with the normal level of government involvement in business dealings. If the author were selling land to a developer, we'd certainly let him make a bad deal.
This is what we have under a normal copyright system, and I don't see how your somewhat Lockean approach really would help authors any.
Re:Absurd! (Score:4, Insightful)
No, it says that Congress has the power to secure it, if Congress so wishes. There is no Constitutional obligation, though.
There is no Constitutional *mandate* to grant copyrights and patents at all, but once Congress chooses to allow even one copyright or patent, they must do so on grounds that are fair and equitable for everyone.
Congress cannot merely grant copyrights and patents to whomever they choose based on mere whim. That would violate so many Constitutional provisions... Off the top of my head, the 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments and the General Welfare clause. There may be more, but that would be sufficient for someone to force Congress to apply their copyright/patent rules fairly to everyone.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, I dunno. I think that you'll find that everyday copyright legislation would be judged on a rational basis standard. Sure, if copyrights were whites-only or something, that would be overturned, and rightly so. But granting copyrights only for books and maps, and not for music, or visual arts, would likely stand, even though it treats different classes of works, and thus authors, differently.
Off the top of my head, the 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments and the General Welfare clause
Not granting copyrights i
Re:Absurd! (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the real issue...
Article 1, Section 8 says:... "by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"
A copyright that lasts for 200 years (or even 20 years in our modern society may be too long... 10 years, I think is OK) is NOT conducive to progress.
Re:Absurd! (Score:5, Informative)
Below is a fitting quote from a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to Isaac McPherson ( http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_8s12.html [uchicago.edu] )
Thomas Jefferson (Score:5, Informative)
Below is a fitting quote from a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to Isaac McPherson ( http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_8s12.html [uchicago.edu] )
Thomas Jefferson was originally against copyrights and patents but his beliefs evolved [monticello.org]. In correspondence on 1790 June 27 to Benjamin Vaughan [monticello.org] he wrote:
"An act of Congress authorising the issuing patents for new discoveries has given a spring to invention beyond my conception. Being an instrument in granting the patents, I am acquainted with their discoveries. Many of them indeed are trifling, but there are some of great consequence which have been proved by practice, and others which if they stand the same proof will produce great effect."
Falcon
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe not, but the concept of intellectual "property" lasting forever is definitely a new thing.
Until recently, it seemed reasonable to expect that an innovator could hold a patent or copyright for his life. Now he's got great-grandchildren sucking off his decomposing teat. What's that do for encouraging creativity, Thad?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The founding fathers would never stand for it.
Actually, Thomas Jefferson said THIS about copyright:
"The saying there shall be no monopolies lessens the incitements to ingenuity, which is spurred on by the hope of a monopoly for a limited time, as of 14 years; but the benefit even of limited monopolies is too doubtful to be opposed to that of their general suppression."
I dare say this Thomas Jefferson would beat the RIAA, MPAA and the congress which allowed those copyright-extensions to bloody pulp.
10 Years, not Infinity+ years (Score:5, Insightful)
Copyrights should only be a limited amount of time, not the current infinity+ that it is now.
More than the authors life is excessive.
A picture I took today shouldn't expire in 75 (if I live to 100) + 70 years, or in 2154.
If I had a son, he might not be alive at that point.
That is just way too long.
Re:10 Years, not Infinity+ years (Score:5, Insightful)
A picture I took today shouldn't expire in 75 (if I live to 100) + 70 years, or in 2154.
If I had a son, he might not be alive at that point.
What I dont get is why your son needs to be rewarded for you working in the first place.
Outside of world leaders & royalty, no other profession gets a free pass for their children.
Are the children of copyright owners incapable of working like everyone else has to?
(not directed at you but at copyright holders)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What I dont get is why your son needs to be rewarded for you working in the first place.
Why should you indefinitely? 5 years should be enough to capitalize and come up with something new to sell.
Re:10 Years, not Infinity+ years (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I disagree. Too often it takes years just to take a patentable idea and turn it into a viable consumer product. A reasonable time would be at least 10 years, but probably not more than 20 years. I have nothing against patents. I have everything against patents for stupid and obvious ideas.
Now copyrights are another matter. A book or a piece of music is going to sell now or not at all. So 5 years is reasonable. I'm willing to compromise and go to 20 years. This forever minus a day is just bullshit.
Th
Re:10 Years, not Infinity+ years (Score:5, Funny)
Re:10 Years, not Infinity+ years (Score:5, Interesting)
someone like that not receiving any royalties (even if they are dead, the royalties being left to whomever they willed it to or whatever) isn't fair.
I wonder, how many times does it have to be pointed out that the copyright clause isn't about "fair" or authors "getting their due"? It's right there in the bloody constitution. It's about being just enough enticement to encourage people to create these works in the first place so as to enrich the public domain to the maximum degree. If Emily-dang-Dickenson wrote 1800 poems without making money off but a few, then obviously the enticement was adequate.
copyright and patent terms (Score:3, Informative)
I'd push more for 15 to 30 years. Not every idea can be rolled out at Web 3.0 speeds. Anything that requires physical manufacturing, quality control, and any kind of regulatory oversight can't hope to go from concept to consumer within less than 2 years.
This is close to the original copyright and patent terms. Using an actuarial [wikipedia.org] table of life spans Thomas Jefferson calculated that they should last 14 years with 1 14 year extension possible.
Falcon
Re:10 Years, not Infinity+ years (Score:5, Insightful)
The benefit to the patent holder is supposed to be a head start in the market by allowing them to establish name recognition and other first mover advantages, not to milk customers in a non-competitive market for near forever. When the country began, it took much longer to develop and execute a plan to enter the market. Now days, if you can't get your foothold in a year or two, you never will. If fewer companies see shorter patents worth applying for, all the better.
There isn't supposed to be any advantage for the inventor. An inventor used to be free to keep his invention secret, and milk it for all it is worth. You are absolutely free to make an invention, don't show it to anyone, and turn it into products making tons of money forever because nobody is capable of reproducing it. Patents are a bargain that the government allows you to make: You publish your invention, so that the world can learn from it and improve the state of art instead of it being away, and as exchange for that information, you get a limited monopoly.
That exchange doesn't work anymore. If you look at patent applications, what the patent applicant publishes will usually not give anything of use to the world, so giving him a limited monopoly in exchange for useless information is pointless.
What the patent examiners should really decide is: Does the publication of this patent benefit society in a sufficient way to justify giving the applicant a limited monopoly? If not, they should tell the applicant: Go away. Do with your invention whatever you like. Keep it secret, hide it away, we don't care.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
What if, like many creative people, you struggle in obscurity for years before gaining a reputation?
When you get your big break and your work finally has some real dollar value, should large corporates be entitled to move in and use your work for free?
Re:10 Years, not Infinity+ years (Score:4, Insightful)
What if, like many creative people, you struggle in obscurity for years before gaining a reputation?
You mean, like everybody else does in life? Start out small and work hard to develop valuable skills, contacts and a reputation?
When you get your big break and your work finally has some real dollar value, should large corporates be entitled to move in and use your work for free?
If your work has value, then make some more and sell it.
Re:10 Years, not Infinity+ years (Score:5, Insightful)
Many great artists only had one or two truly great works in them. Some only created one (such as JD Salinger).
Tough shit. No one said life was easy.
Art is not a commodity which can be cranked out like a Model T Ford, and it does not obey the calculus of supply and demand.
Lol. No wonder artists are always starving.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Let's put that in perspective. I'm writing a sci-fi trilogy. I've written and edited the first part, written (but not edited) the second. If you set the copyright term to five years, the first part and half of the second would be out of copyright. None of it has been published yet.
It is important when considering copyright laws to consider the inherent difference in published and unpublished works. Unpublished works are the exclusive right of the creator until publication. If you set the copyright ter
Re:10 Years, not Infinity+ years (Score:4, Insightful)
No, it doesn't. Copyright exists from the date of creation in the U.S. and other Berne Convention signatory nations. Further, you cannot register a copyright on an incomplete work. Thus, what you are suggesting makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. There were some changes a few years ago that make it possible to pre-register prior to publication a work that is basically complete to help protect films from being distributed prior to their release, but that's not the same thing as registering your copyright on a book one chapter at a time....
Perhaps you're thinking about statutory damages, which cannot be claimed on an unregistered work.
Re: (Score:3)
What I like is the implication that you somehow have a right to their work. Why do you get to decide that they have made "enough" money from something?
Isn't that precisely what copyright law does? US deciding when THEY have made "enough" money from something?
I don't agree with endless or ridiculously long copyright, but I think that people who high handedly assert that it should be very short are not thinking it through. Something like 30 years from the date of creation or the lifetime of the creator, whichever is longer, seems reasonable to me.
Ohhh! So now YOU are deciding when "they" have made enough money. Gee, what a hypocrite.
The "boogey man" of large corporations was mentioned in my earlier post because they are precisely the ones who would benefit in tangible financial terms. For instance, people are likely to still buy physical books and other media, so even if they only cost a few bucks the companies with the means to manufacture and distribute those things will still make money.
And do they not provide a valuable service - that of putting the words in a tangible form and then distributing it to you so that you can read it while sitting on the toilet? Are you saying that they do not deserve to profit from such work?
Re:10 Years, not Infinity+ years (Score:5, Interesting)
No, I am suggesting an amount of time which would give someone a reasonable opportunity to exploit their own work however they see fit. Unlike you, I am not basing my suggestion on whether they have made "enough" money, I am basing it on the practicalities of exploiting creative work.
Apparently you regard the service of printing and distributing a book to be far more valuable than the service of actually creating the words which go into that book. You must love the phone book - it's totally free and has a huge number of excellently printed words in it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The "boogey man" of large corporations was mentioned in my earlier post because they are precisely the ones who would benefit in tangible financial terms.
Not really. The fact that it is all public domain means the RIAA would be competing with free and legal torrents, and they are already losing to illegal torrents.
For instance, people are likely to still buy physical books and other media, so even if they only cost a few bucks the companies with the means to manufacture and distribute those things will still make money.
The publisher is providing a service. The customer would be able get the book for free online, but they may not wish to use so much toner, paper, and time to put it all in a loose-leaf binder when a professionally bound book is so much cleaner, faster, and simpler. (think "White Fang" or "Gone with the Wind")
Same with the music stores: They won't b
Re: (Score:3)
...but the majority of bands have decided they'd rather get paid if they can.
The majority of albums aren't still popular 40 years later like Elvis is. Most will be dead (as a cash cow) before a 7-14 year copyright expires. Microprose isn't making much money off of Civilization 2 anymore.
So if the majority of bands have already made a decision not to release to the public domain, what makes you so sure they'll continue making music if you force them to release to the public domain?
They have decided to release to the public domain, because they didn't lock the recording in a vault for the rest of eternity. All works (theoretically) enter the public domain eventually. It is only a question of when. StarCraft, in it's current form, will be very long in the tooth when it's source
Re:10 Years, not Infinity+ years (Score:5, Insightful)
What I like is the implication that you somehow have a right to their work
The same reason you have the right to use the English language.
The same reason you can use ideas that you've heard elsewhere and repeat them verbatim or modify them based on other ideas that you've heard/read or thought up. All without paying someone for the use of an idea that they "came up with". How on earth can we have conversations if people that come up with ideas aren't paid a licensing fee each time they're used?
No one would ever think about something and speak their mind without direct monetary compensation! In fact, I'm not really posting an idea that has been rehashed on slashdot again and again and again, I'm really just a twitter sockpuppet.
Re: (Score:3)
(a) You're American I assume, modern copyright has varying origins not all of them from the USA
(b) I'd love to see a source for this assertion anyway
Re:Different length for different product - (Score:5, Insightful)
A lot of old 8 bit software we grew up with won't even run on most modern platform, but they're still "protected."
One is due to the other.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You should get paid if you're working. That's how it works for everyone else. Authors and musicians aren't special.
Re:10 Years, not Infinity+ years (Score:5, Insightful)
The entire idea is to give people a way to protect their source of income while they labor to create more stuff. If it takes you more than 10 years (off the top of my head) to create something else that people are willing to pay for then you should find yourself a new career.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The changes to copyright law have pretty obviously been made solely to benefit huge corporations.
That's the whole problem. If we had 10 years for a sole-proprietor patent, 5 years for a corporation patent, and maybe 12 years for a copyright we'd totally shut down all this wasted litigation money from corporations. I don't think an individual should be able to get a patent; if they aren't planning to make money on it, it should be given to the public domain.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think an individual should be able to get a patent; if they aren't planning to make money on it...
Patent owned by individual != Does not plan on profiting from it.
Given the current lifespan of patents, if I have a good idea that can be profitable I would be tempted to patent it now and then work towards being able to start a business 2-5 years down the road that can make money from it. Or, if I am lazy, I could license it out.
Re: (Score:2)
If it takes you more than 10 years (off the top of my head) to create something else that people are willing to pay for then you should find yourself a new career.
And that's exactly the argument that "content producers" are going to make, but in favor of extending copyright protections. As you say, those who cannot capitalize on their creations will find new careers, instead of creating more content. End result: less new content.
I'm all for reducing or eliminating copyright. But, this argument won't convince anyone.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If content creators are creating content with only profit in mind, then we don't need their crappy content.
Less new content is not necessarily a bad thing - the end result is more time to contemplate that which has already been made, and a lot less profit for artistic industry (art is never something one should endeavor to industrialize).
I know we live in a "Ooh! Shiny! New!" culture, but have you ever considered that maybe that isn't entirely a good thing?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The copyright on Windows 95 would be expiring in a few months. Oh how on Earth would MS survive if Windows 95 was no longer protected by copyright law?~
Re: (Score:2)
Double that, I think it was 14 years, + 14 years if they wanted it to be extended. Which is about right, although personally I think 15 + 10, or 15 + 10 + 5 + 3 + 1 where the proof/necessity/legitimacy of the copyright is harder to prove/costs more with each succession.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
More than the authors life is excessive.
I'd prefer lifetime plus some short additional period (say 10-20 years) just for safety's sake. If you make it just lifetime it wouldn't surprise me in the least if some bright, young corpling arranged for an accident or two to 'free up the rights issue we're having'. To a corp it may be considered an acceptable risk to put out a $100k contract rather than fork over a few mill for the movie rights. Just sayin'
skribe
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So how about a fixed period, maybe with an extension, and leave the authors life out of the length?
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. Basing anything on the lifespan of the creator is unfair.
Why is the work of someone who dies at age 20 worth less than that of someone who lives to age 100?
Why should an 18 year old receive more protection than a 50 year old?
Why are terminal cancer sufferers less worthy of protection than those in good health?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Distribution is easier, but creating the works still takes time. That novel that you took a year to write should be protected for more than single digit years. I would argue that the copyright duration should be dependent upon the amount of risk the creator or creators had to take on in order to create the work. Thus, a photograph's copyright might last only five years because it takes a fairly short amount of time to create it and the risk is thus relatively low. A novel... twenty years. A movie... te
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree, and this also applies to patents.
Abolishing them completely is a bad idea - in fact, it would make people stop using their heads. Right now if something is patented, you need to figure out another way to do the same thing. Sometimes the new method is even better than the original. THAT IS THE [IMPLIED] GOAL. Without a patent, everyone would just use the 1st method and nobody would want to improve upon it.
But if nobody can figure out another way to do the same thing, the patent does indeed stifle in
Re:10 Years, not Infinity+ years (Score:5, Insightful)
Right now if something is patented, you need to figure out another way to do the same thing. Sometimes the new method is even better than the original. THAT IS THE [IMPLIED] GOAL. Without a patent, everyone would just use the 1st method and nobody would want to improve upon it.
Why don't we outlaw the wheel, then? I'm sure that will force the market to come up with all sorts of creative alternatives. We'll probably waste billions of dollars in the process, but at least we'll be promoting "innovation"! Isn't that what's important, after all?
Re: (Score:2)
If I had a son, he might not be alive at that point.
No discussion about a daughter - interesting. Would she not be able to hold a copyright?
Re: (Score:2)
I also would like to see other restrictions in copyright. When releasing a work you should be forced to decide whether you want to protect it using copyright or technical means -
Re: (Score:2)
Re:10 Years, not Infinity+ years (Score:5, Insightful)
What about "Life of author or x years, whichever is longer"?
I'd still prefer X years where X is single digit, or Very low double digit.
Just because its 'intellectual property' doesn't mean they shouldn't have to work for a living just like every one else.
If one album can only guarantee income for 5 years, then they would be encouraged to, i don't know, make another one! Or perhaps get out and find a real job. Either would be better for society as a whole.
Re:10 Years, not Infinity+ years (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd still prefer X years where X is single digit, or Very low double digit.
Just because its 'intellectual property' doesn't mean they shouldn't have to work for a living just like every one else.
If one album can only guarantee income for 5 years, then they would be encouraged to, i don't know, make another one! Or perhaps get out and find a real job. Either would be better for society as a whole.
Bearing in mind, of course, that you're discussing copyrights and the article is about both copyrights and patents, in some industries it may take much longer than 5 years to research and develop the idea - pharmaceuticals take 10-15 years to go from lab to market, due to all the human trials they have to run. The patent would be expired before the thing even got off the bench in a 5 year term... Or, if you want to go 5 years from market date, then imagine drug prices 10-20 times higher then they are now, because they have such a short time to recoup the hundreds of millions of dollars it costs to run all those fraking human trials.
But yes with regard to copyright. Those bastards should get up off their asses and make another album. 5 years between releases is way more than reasonable.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree a set span would be a better policy.
Their book... (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, I'm glad to see the description of the term "Intellectual Property" called for precisely what it is : propaganda. It's time for this term to be thrown out, and not to let so-called self-professed "intellectual property owners" inject this horrible term into the collective mind-set any further - it muddies the water of the discussion.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Agreed. Somehow, not-copyrighting your inventions before they are actually manufactured (IP?) will protect against those awful corporations that can do anything with their money. Because that way, you, without any money, can eventually manufacture it and finally copyright it, while the corporation that could manufacture it in 2 months and start selling it sits idly back, scared of taking your uncopyrighted non-intellectual-property un-manufactured invention from you...
[/sarcasm, if you couldn't tell]
The s
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The situation isn't good, but goodness, if there weren't ANY copyrights on non-implemented ideas, the idea of private "inventors" would be over; corporations could be in the business of stealing (only it wouldn't be stealing) ideas.
Ideas are about as valuable as air, so I really don't expect that that's a generally valid worry. People who actually put in actual work would still find ways to get paid.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What do you call the design of your Intel Core 2 processor before it gets fabbed into silicon and metal?
Probably "Trade Secret"
Re: (Score:2)
Would it be irony if their book was copyrighted? ;)
You don't have a choice in the U.S. to not copyright your works. It is automatic.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Their book... (Score:4, Insightful)
A man has the right to the product of his mind, and to do with it what he sees fit.
I agree. The problem is that when you share what's on your mind with everyone else, now it is in our minds too, and we can use it just as well as you could. You're arguing against intellectual freedom and censorship. To argue in favor of copyright, you have to say that Alice has the right to censor Bob, merely because Bob is repeating what Alice said first. There may be a good reason to do this, but the right to censor others for no other reason than the provenance of what they say could only be artificial in origin. It's granted by the people who are being censored, in fact, which means you'll essentially need their consent, which is unlikely to be granted unless they're benefiting from it somehow.
Re: (Score:2)
Would it be irony if their book was copyrighted? ;)
i dont think this qualifies as irony
I have it, from a very good source, that some people constitute this as one form of irony. I'd quote my source but I'm afraid they'd sue.
Read it Online, Free (Score:5, Informative)
They put their mouths where their money is, or something like that (too late in the day to be properly witty). Read it online for free.
http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/against.htm [dklevine.com]
Re:Read it Online, Free (Score:5, Informative)
That link is 2 versions old (from 2005), here's the newly released one:
http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm
Re: (Score:2)
Nice - wish I could mod you up - thanks!
Genius... (Score:5, Insightful)
And of course, such a thing as "social value" can be easily determined before the product has the ability to hit the market...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Limited Time (Score:4, Insightful)
As a Zombie-artist (Score:2, Funny)
Furthermore I submit that royalties be amended to include BRAAAAAINS.
Copyright definitely kills innovation (Score:5, Interesting)
The Whiskey Tango Foxtrot Moment came when I checked online to find out how much it would cost to subscribe to the journal. I thought someone misplaced a decimal point: $23,245 a year is the institutional subscription rate! That's about what I paid yearly in college tuition back when I was in college. Even worse, it's almost the value of the lab equipment I'm using in the work I've been doing on my own time.
Re:Copyright definitely kills innovation (Score:4, Informative)
The Cathedral and The Bazaar (Score:4, Insightful)
I'll begin simply by suggesting that companies strong in IP are looking pretty good now.
GM is the penny stock.
Not Microsoft. Not Pfizer.
They are calling on Congress to grant patents only where an invention has social value, where the patent would not stifle innovation, and where the absence of a patent would damage cost-effectiveness."
Now this scares me.
Because it means that "social value" would be defined by the legislator, the bureaucrat, and the courts.
--- and how this new measure of socially redeeming value - could be limited to the denial of a patent or copyright escapes me entirely.
The politician, after all, likes to be pro-active.
I am not sure what it takes to "stifle innovation." I don't even have a clear notion of what innovation really means.
A patent only implies only distinction - a measure of originality in concept and execution.
The examiner does not have a crystal ball.
He does not ask and can not know whether you have accomplished anything significant and lasting.
The geek who would give the politician - the bureaucrat - that crystal ball and demand that he play oracle does enormous harm, I think.
"Cost-Effectiveness" is a lovely phrase.
Damnation in two words.
Big Pharm gets the Malaria patent because Big Pharm can quickly and safely ramp up to full production.
The little guy will botch it.
Cost-Effectiveness is about economies of scale. Technical competence. Managerial competence. Financial resources.
Cost-Effectiveness is also about papering over the politically unpalatable choices you know you have to make.
I'll admit to having become very cynical about this sort of thing.
But it still surprises me sometimes how High Church the geek really is.
They do have a point (Score:4, Interesting)
China, which is kind of like our Wild West(tm) right now, does whatever it wants. And it's going to completely leave us behind much as we did with Europe. Remember, Europe at the time had very restrictive guilds, laws, and regulations. The U.S. didn't. So we invented and invented. We built and didn't really care that much if it was someone else's idea.
Just like China now is doing.
And you wonder why they are going to put up their own space station modules next year and beat us to a habitat on the moon... We have to dismantle the idiocy or we'll never be able to move fast enough to keep up.
Honestly, if I was interested in space or technology or just making new things, I'd be making a beeline to China and doing it there without the millions of laws and tens of thousands of lawyers all suing everyone into oblivion over idiotic patents.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd say it'd be well worth it.
Remember: they can't lock up what they do any more.
Re: (Score:2)
Patents and copyright exist to ensure that the creator is protected.
This is exactly why you should read their book.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Better yet, you can read it online.
It's freely available on their web site.
http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/against.htm [dklevine.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Just imagine if Wal-Mart could print and sell and book they wanted without permission from the author or the publisher. What if they could take your program or product, have it made in China for a tenth of your cost and sell it for their own profit.
Yay for them, I guess. .torrent), the professional music industry will die, taking all the half-bakes with it. Only the artists for whom making music is its' own reward will continue to do so.
People here constantly complain about the music the RIAA offers us. If WalMart can sell CDs without paying the artist (good luck to them in offering a better perceived value than
Re:Why bother inventing... (Score:5, Insightful)
Protecting your work from duplication for a time, allowing you to make money and, hopefully, finance future works? Good!
Creating one successful work and living off it for your whole life while preventing anyone else from improving on it? Terrible, and sadly what we're dealing with today.
Re: (Score:2)
Why bother inventing when you can be a patent troll instead and predict broad classes of "inventions" ahead of time without doing any actual work?
Re:Why bother inventing... (Score:5, Insightful)
... or writing if someone else can come along and make money off your invention.
Because you also make money off it.
Just imagine if Wal-Mart could print and sell and book they wanted without permission from the author or the publisher. What if they could take your program or product, have it made in China for a tenth of your cost and sell it for their own profit.
Good for them. If there's enough volume for them to do this profitably, then I've probably already made enough money and can move on to something else.
If I come up with a unique and new idea, it's mine (or at least it belongs to the company I created it for.)
Why? And what happens when someone else has the same idea later, should they be denied the right to their own thoughts?
Patents and copyright exist to ensure that the creator is protected. Sure there are problems with the way things are now, where patents are being given a little too freely, but to abolish copyrights and patents altogether is just absurd.
This protection comes at the public expense. And since it appears that this expense is greater than the benefits resulting from the protection, not abolishing copyright and patents is what is absurd.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget that the GPL is effective because it is based on the protection of copyright.
Re:Why would we listen to economists? (Score:5, Insightful)
Your post starts with the assumption that simply because they are economists they are not worth listening to before suggesting critical thinking as a positive thing that most of the slashdot readership do not engage in. This is either an example of an American not understanding irony or a brilliant piece of irony.
You then use the term 'reds', an old propagandist word, as if 'reds' are inherently bad before highlighting "China's lack of respect for IP" as if IP has real meaning beyond your own mindset, as if it is a part of reality that exists outside of you political environment. In doing this you demonstrate that you are not flexible enough to think within the bounds defined in the fine article which has clearly stated that intellectual property is a modern propagandist word.
Even if you disagree with that premise, it is important to take that concept on, suspend disbelief if you will, in order to understand the whole point of what they are saying. You are unable to do this, apparantly incapable of critical thought, so you can only miss the point.
Oh, and the 1950's called. They'd like their bigotry back.