Abolish copyright? good or bad..
Moderators: NeilBlanchard, Ralf Hutter, sthayashi, Lawrence Lee
I voted kept as is, although this isn't something I've put into a great deal of thought.
If I build a house, I want to have rights to it. If I put similar effort into a design for a house, I'm going to want the same protection. Rights should exist because the work is the designer's. It's an irrational justification, but one I firmly believe in, in general, although I imagine different rules would ideally apply to different types of intellectual property.
There's also the argument that protection of intellectual property encourages further development (although I've come to see technology in general (esp. biotech but let's not get into that again
) as more of a danger to the primitive chimps who wield it).
People are always demanding rights to things of others. Without some protective force, e.g. police, military, they will succeed. Might makes right unfortunately.
That's not to say I necessarily believe Exxon should have full rights to an oil field they've developed in an impoverished nation. There's something to be said for local ownership as well.
If I build a house, I want to have rights to it. If I put similar effort into a design for a house, I'm going to want the same protection. Rights should exist because the work is the designer's. It's an irrational justification, but one I firmly believe in, in general, although I imagine different rules would ideally apply to different types of intellectual property.
There's also the argument that protection of intellectual property encourages further development (although I've come to see technology in general (esp. biotech but let's not get into that again
) as more of a danger to the primitive chimps who wield it).People are always demanding rights to things of others. Without some protective force, e.g. police, military, they will succeed. Might makes right unfortunately.
That's not to say I necessarily believe Exxon should have full rights to an oil field they've developed in an impoverished nation. There's something to be said for local ownership as well.
The strong always have more rights than the weak and always will. It's not ideal, but it's a truth of life. Under our modern managerial states, there's an elite just as there is under a bourgeois, aristocracy, or any other elite. There's always an elite with special rights, and there always will be.cAPSLOCK wrote:Yup, it's not the law of the strongest anymore, it's the law of the richest, that's the foundation of capitalism.mathias wrote:In this "free society" of yours, the biggest right you have is the right to hire lawyers. If you can't afford a good team of them, you're f#$@ed in a lot of situations.
I'd say the strong have more power (rights) than the weak as a clarification of the above point. With capitalism, money=power, so rich=strong. Those who hate multinational companies might point to that as a reason they shouldn't exist, you take rich/poor to a national level and thousands if not millions are manipulated by the rich.
Yea power is probably a better word. Theoretically the law applies equally to all of us in the US*, but the powerful can get away with more. Not only get away with crimes more easily, but the possession of enormous capital provides perhaps unfair rights to capital and resources. Large scale and specialisation are more productive, but there's also the risk of abuse by the sheer power of the large corporations. Also, ownership should be local to some degree because a foreign corporation isn't going to care for its workers as much as a local one.
And yea the elite also manipulates the rest of us via mass media, public schooling, government regulations, taxes, etc. I'd argue that the government bureaucracy is more powerful in general now than the corporate elite, but perhaps the Iraq War should keep me quiet. I think the Iraq War had a lot to do with British and American oil companies.
Not... that I understand the system fully.
*I just use the US for an example because I live here.
EDIT: oh and my point from "People are always demanding rights..." was that I suspect this reform is motivated partly by whoever gains from the reform. It's important to consider any major change like this carefully, to ensure it really is better and to keep in mind core principles. Not being familiar with it, that's all I can add ATM
And yea the elite also manipulates the rest of us via mass media, public schooling, government regulations, taxes, etc. I'd argue that the government bureaucracy is more powerful in general now than the corporate elite, but perhaps the Iraq War should keep me quiet. I think the Iraq War had a lot to do with British and American oil companies.
Not... that I understand the system fully.
*I just use the US for an example because I live here.
EDIT: oh and my point from "People are always demanding rights..." was that I suspect this reform is motivated partly by whoever gains from the reform. It's important to consider any major change like this carefully, to ensure it really is better and to keep in mind core principles. Not being familiar with it, that's all I can add ATM
-
NeilBlanchard
- Moderator
- Posts: 7681
- Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2002 7:11 pm
- Location: Maynard, MA, Eaarth
- Contact:
Open Source Information
Hi,
I am restarting this old thread, because it is roughly the same topic, but I'd like to take it in a slightly different direction:
Like how open source software works, I think that we need to have open source information; about anything and everything. All good ideas need to be shared, and built up, and revised, and improved -- for the benefit of all. Patents are not working; not in the way they were intended. And good solutions to the world's challenges are too important to "sit on".
So, here's an idea I have been working on: a two cylinder diesel cam driven engine (as opposed to a crankshaft driven engine) that directly spins a counter-rotating electrical generator. The torque profile can be optimized for the load of the generator, and since the cams are already rotating in either direction, why not spin the armature in one direction, and the stator in the other direction?
I'l come back with more description, and drawings, and maybe even a 3D model. I want to make a mini version of a diesel train locomotive, and add the huge increase in efficiency that comes from a cam driven engine. The ability to burn biodiesel efficiently, and generate electricity for a serial electric hybrid drive system seems to make a lot of sense to me.
Getting ideas "out there" might just get other people thinking, and all sorts of cross pollination can happen.
I am restarting this old thread, because it is roughly the same topic, but I'd like to take it in a slightly different direction:
Like how open source software works, I think that we need to have open source information; about anything and everything. All good ideas need to be shared, and built up, and revised, and improved -- for the benefit of all. Patents are not working; not in the way they were intended. And good solutions to the world's challenges are too important to "sit on".
So, here's an idea I have been working on: a two cylinder diesel cam driven engine (as opposed to a crankshaft driven engine) that directly spins a counter-rotating electrical generator. The torque profile can be optimized for the load of the generator, and since the cams are already rotating in either direction, why not spin the armature in one direction, and the stator in the other direction?
I'l come back with more description, and drawings, and maybe even a 3D model. I want to make a mini version of a diesel train locomotive, and add the huge increase in efficiency that comes from a cam driven engine. The ability to burn biodiesel efficiently, and generate electricity for a serial electric hybrid drive system seems to make a lot of sense to me.
Getting ideas "out there" might just get other people thinking, and all sorts of cross pollination can happen.
-
xan_user
- *Lifetime Patron*
- Posts: 2269
- Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 9:09 am
- Location: Northern California.
My understanding of the original intent of copyright law was that protected materials would become public domain rather quickly, rather than giving its creator the luxury of sitting back on his/her lorals and collecting revenue off a single idea way beyond ones death, so as to spur further creation rather than stifle it. Sadly the opposite is true.
Similarly Corporate law was originally set up to ensure that no company could have more power than an individual. But thats for another thread...
Greed killed Capitalism. Corruption Killed Socialism. And we get stuck holding the bill. (more like our dicks...)
Can't wait to hear more about your idea Neil.
Similarly Corporate law was originally set up to ensure that no company could have more power than an individual. But thats for another thread...
Greed killed Capitalism. Corruption Killed Socialism. And we get stuck holding the bill. (more like our dicks...)
Can't wait to hear more about your idea Neil.
-
aristide1
- *Lifetime Patron*
- Posts: 4284
- Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2003 6:21 pm
- Location: Undisclosed but sober in US
I say have a contest. The first person to create a zero pollution ICE gets:
1. A Nobel prize.
2. $10 million a year for life.
No patents, no nothing, design is free for all to use, like Mercedes Benz safety improvements.
Alternative:
Lock all current ICE designers from all over the world altogether in a sealed room. Let them work to create a clean ICE in a year. If they fail then start one ICE from each car maker and send the exhaust into the room. Let them live or die by their own hands.
Neccessity is the mother of invention. I decided to make it the MF of invention. A slight motivational increase.
1. A Nobel prize.
2. $10 million a year for life.
No patents, no nothing, design is free for all to use, like Mercedes Benz safety improvements.
Alternative:
Lock all current ICE designers from all over the world altogether in a sealed room. Let them work to create a clean ICE in a year. If they fail then start one ICE from each car maker and send the exhaust into the room. Let them live or die by their own hands.
Neccessity is the mother of invention. I decided to make it the MF of invention. A slight motivational increase.
aristide1 : that is quite silly. I could make an ICE that uses hydrogen and oxygen... Is water pollution? It's been done
My question would be where or how do you get the hydrogen?
It's not terribly difficult to make a (sub)system seem pollution free with some creative boundary layers or ignoring some pollutants.
Let's look at another example:
Corn based ethanol sounds great in the limited scope of net carbon pollution, but when you consider the amount of fertilizer and pesticides needed to create that corn, it ends up being a bad idea from an environmental standpoint. Atrazine is scarier than global warming link 1 link 2.
My question would be where or how do you get the hydrogen?
It's not terribly difficult to make a (sub)system seem pollution free with some creative boundary layers or ignoring some pollutants.
Let's look at another example:
Corn based ethanol sounds great in the limited scope of net carbon pollution, but when you consider the amount of fertilizer and pesticides needed to create that corn, it ends up being a bad idea from an environmental standpoint. Atrazine is scarier than global warming link 1 link 2.
I'm going to veer the thread back to its original direction -- if only briefly -- because there was a point that was overlooked:
What most people forget is that a lot of music, a lot of songs, were and are written by people who don't perform. Cole Porter, Irving Berlin and countless others, in fact practically every hit record of the pre-rock and roll era was written by someone who was not a performer; more recently Holland-Dozier-Holland, Mann and Weil, Carol King (for a long time), Boyce and Hart, Burt Bacharach and many many others. I don't know what the music scene is like today, but I know that a lot of the biggest solo acts don't write their material. Eliminate copyright, or royalties from copyright, and there'd be no music.
Talk about a nightmare -- that's what would happen if there came to be pandemic file sharing of books. That would lead to books only getting published by corporate sponsorship. {Pepsi presents the latest novel by Stephen King}. Works that don't have great mass appeal or whose point of view was antagonistic to the corporate world would not get distributed. Welcome to the dark ages.
As long as the world is mired in trade and capitalism, copyright is necessary.
Patents I would say also. Although most patents seem to be in the province of IBM and their ilk, if there's even one guy working in his garage with a good idea, the abolition of patents would be a moral and spiritual tragedy.
There's a lot of good technology, a lot of patented technology, that never sees the light of day. That's because the prevailing interests smother it. Abolishing patents wouldn't change this, in fact the corporations would simply hide their discoveries.
I applaud Neil for his altruism, but apparently he can afford it. Not everyone can.
What most people forget is that a lot of music, a lot of songs, were and are written by people who don't perform. Cole Porter, Irving Berlin and countless others, in fact practically every hit record of the pre-rock and roll era was written by someone who was not a performer; more recently Holland-Dozier-Holland, Mann and Weil, Carol King (for a long time), Boyce and Hart, Burt Bacharach and many many others. I don't know what the music scene is like today, but I know that a lot of the biggest solo acts don't write their material. Eliminate copyright, or royalties from copyright, and there'd be no music.
Talk about a nightmare -- that's what would happen if there came to be pandemic file sharing of books. That would lead to books only getting published by corporate sponsorship. {Pepsi presents the latest novel by Stephen King}. Works that don't have great mass appeal or whose point of view was antagonistic to the corporate world would not get distributed. Welcome to the dark ages.
As long as the world is mired in trade and capitalism, copyright is necessary.
Patents I would say also. Although most patents seem to be in the province of IBM and their ilk, if there's even one guy working in his garage with a good idea, the abolition of patents would be a moral and spiritual tragedy.
There's a lot of good technology, a lot of patented technology, that never sees the light of day. That's because the prevailing interests smother it. Abolishing patents wouldn't change this, in fact the corporations would simply hide their discoveries.
I applaud Neil for his altruism, but apparently he can afford it. Not everyone can.
-
xan_user
- *Lifetime Patron*
- Posts: 2269
- Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 9:09 am
- Location: Northern California.
Expansion of U.S. copyright law
If anything that graph should go the opposite way, as time goes on we should rely less on protection of profits, and more on humanitarian enrichment.
If anything that graph should go the opposite way, as time goes on we should rely less on protection of profits, and more on humanitarian enrichment.
Last edited by xan_user on Fri Jan 02, 2009 5:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Good chart!
Yes, the copyright term has become ridiculously long. It is appropriate now, though, to have it be at least for the life of the copyright holder, or a specified reasonable length, whichever is longer.
Walt Disney no longer needs his copyrights, but Disney Inc. thinks it does, which is why they're still in effect.
The great rationalization for the file sharers is that art should only be a humanitarian or charitable pursuit. Producing good art requires as much education, time, and effort as any other vocation.
Yes, the copyright term has become ridiculously long. It is appropriate now, though, to have it be at least for the life of the copyright holder, or a specified reasonable length, whichever is longer.
Walt Disney no longer needs his copyrights, but Disney Inc. thinks it does, which is why they're still in effect.
The great rationalization for the file sharers is that art should only be a humanitarian or charitable pursuit. Producing good art requires as much education, time, and effort as any other vocation.