Google: If Viacom Can't Figure Out Which Videos Are Infringing, How Can They Expect Us To Do So For Them?
from the good-question dept
Following Viacom's Washington Post editorial explaining why it believes it would be easy for Google to police YouTube for copyright-violating works, a lawyer from Google has responded. He starts out first by explaining the important reasons for having a safe harbor provision (protecting platforms from the actions of its users). However, he then points out that Viacom has been making mistakes, forcing content offline that wasn't actually infringing which leads him to note perceptively: "Viacom seems unable to determine what constitutes infringing content, [yet] its lawyers believe that we should have the responsibility and ability to do it for them." If even Viacom is unable to police its own content correctly, how can they claim that it's no problem for Google?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Old media wants absolute control, no matter how much it hurts current and future customers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Article
Very simply as a matter of fact. All they have to do is hire a lawyer to say some legal crap and they have said it is supper easy for google to police the internet, the real world, and maybe mars....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Obvious
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hooray!
Perhaps some day Viacom will fire it's "old school" managment and hire people who understand the complicated environment they have been thrust into.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Viacom go awa
But I'd prob get a sudden woody if i found out viacom had demised. I hate them with a passion because every time something new and interesting "or/and free" comes to the internet you have weeny wusses with a lot of money trying to shut it down because their "a lot of money" still just isnt enough.. I'd not cry one bit if viacom collapsed completely. Does viacom actually believe their "customers" is a different set of people from the people that use youtube?? Well viacom.. GREAT way to build a repuation, or destroy it.. Good job..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Viacom go awa
But I'd prob get a sudden woody if i found out viacom had demised. I hate them with a passion because every time something new and interesting "or/and free" comes to the internet you have weeny wusses with a lot of money trying to shut it down because their "a lot of money" still just isnt enough.. I'd not cry one bit if viacom collapsed completely. Does viacom actually believe their "customers" is a different set of people from the people that use youtube?? Well viacom.. GREAT way to build a repuation, or destroy it.. Good job..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
copyright vs. billfold
[ link to this | view in thread ]
dissenting view
To be fair, Viacom's error rate was very small considering they were dealing with over 100,000 violations of their rights.
Look at this from another angle:
Google/YouTube create an infrastructure that enables hundreds of thousands of property violations. They make money off of the property violations because it drives traffic to their site and they make revenue off of that traffic. They then turn around and say to those whose property is violated: "If you want to stop the violations, you pay a lot of money to hire people to police us."
Not only does Viacom lose revenue from having their property expropriated, they wind up spending money to police Google.
Of course, this would all be different were Google/YouTube really just an ISP. But since they provide the service free to the violators and make money off of the violations, Google is party to the violations.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
squik- ask Socrates
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Copyright is for small people too
Fair enough (if 100k is true), but ... the DMCA is framed for the little guy too, who didn't make 'John Stewart' or 'Friends' or 'Cosby show'. If they can't get it right with their main stream American recognizable product, then what chance has uTube with less recognizable product?
WHO IS BETTER TO RECOGNIZE THE PRODUCT? THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER OR A THIRD PARTY? Google has millions of videos, Viacoms product represents a tiny fraction of those, so they can't simply say *ALL*, there are other parties involved in this other than youtube and Viacom.
"Google/YouTube create an infrastructure that enables hundreds of thousands of property violations."
Welcome to the internet, you just described every single ISP on the planet. The difference is YouTube not only processes DMCA notices, they will also close accounts for repeat violations. *Enabling* violation is not enough.
"But since they provide the service free to the violators and make money off of the violations, Google is party to the violations."
An ISP charges for the service and makes a profit if there are violations. The only difference is free vs not free.
So it comes down to 'does free make it different'?
Does Viacom promise not to sue ISP's who charge money? If not then that argument collapses. Because then Viacom sees no distinction bewteen free sites like YouTube and other free sites. If I send friends a John Stewart video via free email are the free email providers also liable?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Google has snowed everybody
The artists employed by viacom are waiting, ready to sue Viacom if they don't exploit their properties and pursue copyright violations in earnest. Behind them are the unions. WGA, SAG etc. They are watching intently too.
Google has cast itself as the david, but they might quickly become the new goliath. In general, i think its good when big corporations fight. Good for all of us.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Viacom is right..no one else sees it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Blame shifting...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
googleyed
google provides a service that allows copyrighted content to be shared with millions of other users. they have as much responsibility in removing and restricting infringing content as do copyright holders, and they have the technology to do so.
more at Opinion #1: Googleyed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Copyright infringements
Example: I had never watched the Daily Show until I saw a clip on YouTube. Now I watch it. I try out software before I buy, listen to music on the radio and the computer before I buy, I also test drive autos before I buy. The fact that Viacom's material is being shown should make them happy that it getting this free advertising. Microsoft as another example would be nothing if it was not for a little piracy. The internet has provided the world with the means of getting any kind of information to the masses don't destroy it, welcome it. So what if I can see a clip or two of a show I would not normally tune in to watch. Who does it hurt? What revenue are they really losing? If I am ignorant of a show or just never been that interested to tune in. They have lost. If I see a clip or a series of clips that gains my interest then they win. Simple isn't it, someone thought that something they saw was interesting enough to share with the world. FREE ADVERTISING! So grow up get wise and let us all share.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Intelligent Sharks
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BOYCOTT ALL VIACOM copyrighted material
BOYCOTT VIACOM! I will do so until they come to their senses or go under and I am hoping for the latter!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: squik- ask Socrates
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Copyright is for small people too
ISPs are exempted from liability by the DMCA as long as they comply with the takedown provisions.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: dissenting view
If i see something from a TV show on Youtube that i find funny or interesting i make a point to watch that show when it is on. Im sure most other people would do the same. Wouldn't that be getting them an audience?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Google
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: dissenting view
Viacom makes money by selling advertising, which is presented when people view their media. Expropriated content shown on Google/YouTube reduces the number of viewers who may watch the media on Viacom's site. In any event, unfettered expropriation of Viacom's content will reduce the overall value of the content both to those who steal it and to Viacom.
Wouldn't that be getting them an audience?
That is one possibility. But since Viacom owns the content, it is their right to determine its use. You are not allowed to force someone to do something with their property merely because you think it is in their best interests. Even if you can prove they would make more money doing one things instead of another with their property, you cannot force them, unless you change our laws concerning property rights.
If you want to argue it is in Viacom's interest to allow limited use of their video on YouTube, then have at it. In the end, though, it is Viacom's right to determine what is in their best interests. If they make a mistake, then so be it. The vehemence and anger thrown at Viacom shows that most people here are arguing from either an ideological standpoint (e.g. anti-property rights), or a selfish standpoint (e.g., "I want their property when and where I want it and if they don't give it to me then I hate them").
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Google
They are unlike an ISP because the user who uploads content to the site is not charged for the bandwidth used when someone views the video.
They do act like a television station, showing content to attract viewers to whom they can show advertisements. They make their revenue from advertisers who pay for the traffic coming to YouTube. That traffic is attracted by the content.
it's not Google's job to continually police the millions of videos for the small percentage that violate copyright.
To allege that Google had no idea their service was being used to violate the law would be disingenuous. I know people at YouTube and they have played for me content that they knew the uploader didn't have the rights to upload. Their attitude was: "As long as we don't receive a DMCA notice, we don't care." Why didn't they care? Because they were making money off of the content.
It would be different if Google/YouTube were not making money directly off of the traffic brought to the site by expropriated video.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
oh man...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Google is playing everybody
Also for all you Google lovers, consider this... Youtube does not allow you to upload a piece of content with ads embedded. Why? Because THEY want the ad money. It is NOT an awesome organic community free-for-all. You can't find someone, even on a small scale, to sponser your art and then embed one of their commericals in your show. Google cannot play the small-guy victim in this fight. It's silly. They are not standing up for free expression.
Small artists and producers should be behind Viacom. Big content owners will have to muscle distributors (Gootube) to get themselves the most money. Then everyone else can follow. Do you think a small video production alone is gonna get any kind of deal out of Gootube?
What if MTV suddenly took videos off of youtube, strung them together, and aired them with 8 minutes of ads per half-hour and kept all the money. Youtube gets great exposure! Freedom of expression! Who cares about copyrights?!
The only losers in the Google victory is artists and, by extension, consumers of art. Copyright law in this country will have to keep evolving to keep up with these changes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
hey 'Damn Straight' - Ask Kant
I personally believe that both Viacom and Google are both responsible and should have worked together in a think-tank and just came up with a kick ass solution. Whining about it and pulling out the lawyers don't solve shit for the common man (only with money does this work, but in this case, we also have videos to worry about). Viacom needs to stop being such a overpowering, world dominating media asshole and realize that there are people that want to watch their shows on youtube. And that if they don't want others to see them, then they should work WITH google.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike H
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: squik- ask Socrates
I hate you. I hate you so much.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
apparently
[ link to this | view in thread ]
damn strait? straight?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: apparently
Seeing as I am not Mike H, you tested nothing. All you've offered are more empty ad hominems.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hurray for squik
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: hey 'Damn Straight' - Ask Kant
Squik adds nothing intelligent to the conversation.
His rhetoric is old and tired and relies on the concept that digital media is in some way like physical property. Guess what? It isn't! 0101010011001 a couple million times is not the same as a physical DVD, CD, or any other media for that matter. We must first address this issue before trying to apply the same tired old laws.
When your hard drive crashes and every piece of digital media you owned is gone then you may begin to understand that a bunch of zeros and ones are really nothing more than a magnetic wave.
You really think Viacom is going to work with Google? NOT! They want to be Google and they want to be You Tube. They don't want to share, they want to dominate. Thats what this is really about. They could have made a deal with Google/You Tube a long time ago, but they are too greedy.
Viacom trying to blame Google for anything is paramount to the police trying to shutdown the phone company because they willfully allow drug dealers to make deals on the phone lines when they clearly have the technology to prevent it, right?
Just plain stupid, if Viacom doesn't want to police everything in the world then maybe they shouldn't try to own a million copyrights.
Maybe it is time to start breaking up these massive conglomerates in order to better protect their supposed copyrights? Something is going to have to happen and trying to blame You Tube for their own inability to be able to monitor their own copyrights is pretty lame.
Technology does not need to adapt to our world, we need to adapt to technology. This is something Viacom seems unable to do.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: dissenting view
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Why not roll with it
[ link to this | view in thread ]
to reed
Property law is human convention instituted to keep order within society. Whether something is physical or virtual does not change the fact that it can be defined as property and subjected to human laws.
It is a fact that most of the technological progress that mankind has made has been under human regimes with property laws. I'm waiting to hear a good argument for why IP laws are bad. But you haven't offered one yet.
In the meantime, I'll offer this: Our current corporate system is based on property laws in general and many thrive due to IP laws in particular. The evidence from the real world is that property laws and IP laws work well. The failure of every communist country to create a vital economy is strong evidence that a lack of property rights supresses progress. The exception that proves the rule is China -- which only started growing after it started introducing capitalist incentives. It is interesting to note that China has just recently introduced its first step towards introducing property rights as a means to keep its new found progress going.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Viacom is a good and honest corporation, like me and my son. We have the right to have our material protected.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Me, as a citizen of the 21st century I have to deal with a governemtn that can spy my telephone conversations, emails, credit card expenditures and my whole life as it was never possible before, without ever even knowing about it. I still don't know what to do about it. I don't know yet how I can protect my self and my family from this. Viacom, which is a multi billiion dollar company is having a similar problem. They owns million of copyrights and don't know how to proptect them all because there isn't yet a technology capable of easlily pin point infringements. "Dear Viacom, welcome to the life of the layman whom everyday has to fight battles too big and too expensives for his/her status". I can agree that Youtube is more than happy , implicitly, to host interesting material even though subject to copyright. Still, as they state, they are more than happy to remove it if you let them know. Maybe Viacom could invest in developing technology to detect their material. Then they coudl either use it or demand Youtube to use it or be sued for not collaborating with their fair demands. Just an idea.
If Viacom gets their way I'll sue my ISP for not monitoring all email databases in the US against storing and using my email address to send me unsolicited content without my permission. There's no law that states it's my responsibility to monitor who is storing my email address!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: apparently
Squik is obviously a lawyer who has a vested interest in making these kinds of arguments, since that's were he makes his money. I wouldn't be surprised if he was found to be working for Viacom.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Like a TV STATION????
Youtube does not. It's customers do. It would be analgousto holding hotmail responsible for an email that one of its users sent. Just because it is visible to the public does not change the responsiblilty. Youtube advertises on its members pages.
Would you hold the phone company responsible for an illegal phone call made on its equipment?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Repsonsibility
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Repsonsibility
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Google > Viacom
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: apparently
"Ad hominem" is a term of logic. If you think such phrases are merely "legal talk", then I recommend taking a freshman class in logic. You can find it given by the philosophy department at any college or university.
I've been accused of many things in my life, but never being a lawyer. For the record, I have no connection with Viacom other than a patron of their content. My interest in this issue is as an engineer and entrepreneur who is interested in keeping intellectual property ownership laws intact.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: hey 'Damn Straight' - Ask Kant
That's a scary thought. Technology is an artifact of human culture. It is created and exists to serve human values. There is no doubt, technology can have a transformative aspect on cultures, but ultimately technology serves man and amplifies his values.
In this particular case, property rights are human values that have been encoded in law. Communism has demonstrated what happens when property rights are taken away. If adaptation to technology equates with the end of property rights.... well, let's just say there are too many dystopian novels which have described that scenario.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: hey 'Damn Straight' - Ask Kant
"Communism has demonstrated what happens when property rights are taken away. "
You just love to bring up communism anytime someone talks about changing they way we look at copyrights. Not very fair and completely off base!
When looking at copyrights critically you can see their faults clearly and their benefits seem to disappear.
If you really believe that copyrights are good for our culture then please produce a peer-reviewed article that scientifically proves that copyrights encourage creation of works rather than just imagining it.
I believe that copyrights need to be done away with. At the heart of any copyright is the idea you came up with the "orgiginal" work and you somehow need protection.
First nothing is original, all works are borrowed/copied/influenced by our culture. Without our society nothing would be created in the first place. Copyrights ignore this important fact and give unfair rights to someone who has borrowed from our culture in order to create.
Copyrights are really an outdated idea designed to constrict and prevent creation of new works and ideas. This is the "protection" they offer. You borrowed from human culture in order to create and now that you did no-one is allowed to do the same thing? Seems kind of silly to me.
Copyrights now of course serve big business and not individuals. We could compare how many copyrights single entities like corporations hold compared to individuals. You would quickly discover 90+% of all copyrights in the hand of corporations and not individuals.
This along with patents is how corporations control culture and innovation for their own personal benefit. It was a good idea at one time, but now it is a poor excuse to give leverage to the richest 2% of our society.
A truly free market cannot exist with these kind of constraints and the fact that the governmental policies and laws protect these unfair rights shows how we continue to lean towards fascism in our country.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: to reed
Property law is human convention instituted to keep order within society. Whether something is physical or virtual does not change the fact that it can be defined as property and subjected to human laws.
Squik, I believe you are confused. Property law is designed to keep people from fighting over scarce resources. That is not the case when those resources are non-scarce. So, yes, it very much changes what can and should be defined as property.
It is a fact that most of the technological progress that mankind has made has been under human regimes with property laws. I'm waiting to hear a good argument for why IP laws are bad. But you haven't offered one yet.
Actually, if you look at the details, you'll find that while there may be a correlation between IP laws and development, the development usually starts well before the IP laws. The IP laws actually *slow down* the development, by allowing existing providers to rest on their laurels instead of continuing to innovate.
And if you think we haven't shown why IP laws are bad, you clearly have not been reading the site very long. IP laws *artificially* restrict resources that don't need to be restricted, shrinking the overall economic pie.
The failure of every communist country to create a vital economy is strong evidence that a lack of property rights supresses progress
I already pointed out to you why this was a false analogy -- yet you seem to ignore my earlier post. We're not suggesting communism as a result. Not at all. I'm a HUGE supporter of property rights and free market capitalism. However, IP laws are the opposite. They're much more like communism: a centrally planned, government-backed monopoly? How is that capitalism?
If you want to be taken seriously in this conversation, don't confuse getting rid of intellectual property laws with being against property rights. We're not saying anything of that nature.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: to reed
That's an interesting assertion. The history of western technological development seems to counter it. Where is your proof?
You act as if no one can innovate unless they can steal someone else's idea. IP laws actually force people to innovate. You aren't allowed to just copy off your neighbors paper. You are required to do your own original work or you don't have the ante to play the game.
IP laws *artificially* restrict resources that don't need to be restricted, shrinking the overall economic pie.
That's an interesting assertion. The history of western economic development seems to counter it. Where is your proof?
IP law actually encourages more economic development by stimulating investment in innovation. Without it, the owners of capital have little incentive to fund new ideas because they will have little hope of making money. The new technology that costs $250 million to develop will not be funded because a company will be able to make greater return by spending it on improved marketing, sales promotions, and cut throat business manuevers. The great blockbuster films will not be made because no one will fund them if they lose all rights to it once someone makes a copy.
However, IP laws are the opposite. They're much more like communism: a centrally planned, government-backed monopoly? How is that capitalism?
There's another assertion. How are IP laws, which allow individuals and corporations a limited monopoly on their inventions, like central planning? Sure it is a property right secured by the government, but the government has no direct role in planning who owns what IP.
IP law is not part of capitalism, just as anti-trust laws are not part of capitalism. These are laws made to stimulate competition and innovation.
If you want to be taken seriously in this conversation, don't confuse getting rid of intellectual property laws with being against property rights. We're not saying anything of that nature.
IP is property. IP laws have been part of property law in western society for over 600 years. If you advocate the destruction of IP laws you are changing property rights.
Thanks for your admonition, but I've no worries about being taken seriously. I argue issues and facts. Those with open minds will listen and either agree or refute with better arguments. You might try it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Communism?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: hey 'Damn Straight' - Ask Kant
I might ask you to do the same to prove the opposite. Produce a peer-reviewed article that scientifically proves a copyright stops someone else from being creative.
First nothing is original
If nothing is original, then why do some works stand out above others as unique? There were a hundred shlocky space films and many hundreds of westerns before George Lucas created Star Wars. That was an original work of art even though it borrowed ideas and themes from other space stories and from westerns. The same can be said for many creations.
The cultural context within which a work of art is created does not diminish the originality merely because the art reflects ideas and themes within the culture.
Copyrights ignore this important fact and give unfair rights to someone who has borrowed from our culture in order to create.
You don't like me to mention communism. But you are sounding communist here. You are asserting collective ownership of our culture and advocating that any work within our culture be subjected to the same collective ownership.
Copyrights are really an outdated idea designed to constrict and prevent creation of new works and ideas.
Prove this, please. How does the copyright on Mickey Mouse prevent someone else from creating a new work or idea? It only prevents them from copying Mickey Mouse as a character. It doesn't prevent them from creating a new character. It doesn't even prevent them from creating a new mouse-based character.
Copyrights now of course serve big business and not individuals.
The authors of books and films would disagree with you. They make their living by creating copyrighted materials and either selling copies directly or licensing/selling the copyrights to others (including big businesses).
Your assertion that copyrights do not serve individuals is patently false.
This along with patents is how corporations control culture and innovation for their own personal benefit. It was a good idea at one time, but now it is a poor excuse to give leverage to the richest 2% of our society.
Again, you don't like me to mention communism. But this sounds very communist. You act as if corporations are the enemy. What do you propose as an alternative? You've already asserted collective ownership of the culture and all ideas from it.
I myself, a little guy, have benefitted from patents and copyrights making the company I started as a one-man operation in my house worth more than you would imagine. I have many friends who have done exactly the same. They weren't big corporations; they were individuals. They used their creativity to make something new. They used IP laws to protect their creations and they benefitted from the same protections as large corporations.
A truly free market cannot exist with these kind of constraints
Right. We don't want a truly free market. The question is which laws do we want so that we have a market with the characteristics society desires. I don't think a market in which every idea can be immediately stolen and hammered into a commodity situation is the type of market we want.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: to reed
"You act as if no one can innovate unless they can steal someone else's idea. IP laws actually force people to innovate. You aren't allowed to just copy off your neighbors paper. You are required to do your own original work or you don't have the ante to play the game."
No, I think you have it wrong. Innovation and great ideas are discovered by many people simultaneously. This is seen in the creation of things like flight, electricity, and phones. If one person claims IP does this then disqualify every other idea?
This is the paradox IP creates! How can you protect one person and not everyone? What if it is a truly great discovery, should a single person or corporation own the rights to our future?
"IP law actually encourages more economic development by stimulating investment"
Thanks for the generic answer, but I like to think outside the box and little here is anything but regurgitation.
"IP law is not part of capitalism, just as anti-trust laws are not part of capitalism. These are laws made to stimulate competition and innovation."
Great point! A free market does not include these supposed protections. Although your assertions that these laws stimulate competition and innovation has come into question by many brilliant people. I tend to agree with them that these artificial market constraints do not operate as intended. For one example, anti-trust laws actually encourage conglomerations and discourage new upstarts thereby destroying their own premise.
Great discussion BTW, I am very impressed with everyones points so far.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Communism?
The fundamental flaw in the communist system is the lack of property rights. It isn't IP in particular that made them fall. It is the failure of their economic system in the absence of property rights that made them fall.
The last I checked China is communist and is quickly becoming one of the world fastest growing economic powers
You haven't been paying attention. China's growth has come from a liberalization of their economic policies to allow capitalist incentives and partial foreign ownership of corporations within China. Three years ago, China passed laws insuring property rights.
You can hold China up as a communist counterexample. But the fact is, China's economic boom only started when it instituted capitalist incentives, including the institution of property rights.
One thing that is clear is that we cannot alow companies like Viacom to destroy our growth as a society just to protect there antiquated business methods and greed.
How is Viacom destroying our growth as a society? How does asking Google to keep the Colbert Report off of YouTube lead to the destruction of society?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: hey 'Damn Straight' - Ask Kant
"I might ask you to do the same to prove the opposite. Produce a peer-reviewed article that scientifically proves a copyright stops someone else from being creative."
I am sorry, I meant point me to an journal article not create one. I am interested in seeing the statistical evidence to support patents and copyrights. Do you know of any?
"If nothing is original, then why do some works stand out above others as unique?
Because you believe they do. I do not, the premise of Star Wars was more than just borrowed. I do not argue people can profit from their works, only that they somehow own an idea.
"You don't like me to mention communism. But you are sounding communist here. You are asserting collective ownership of our culture and advocating that any work within our culture be subjected to the same collective ownership."
Its not about me not wanting you to mention communism, it about the fact that you do not understand the concept and therefore are unable to apply it. What kind of communism are you talking about anyways, the high thinking concept or the military dictatorships that claim to be communist?
Where do you then draw the line between socialism and communism? Are we communists for having socialistic programs like Medicare and Medicade?
"The authors of books and films would disagree with you."
They can disagree all they want, but they don't hold the majority of copyrights and patents, corporations do and that was my point.
"Again, you don't like me to mention communism. But this sounds very communist. You act as if corporations are the enemy. What do you propose as an alternative?"
Corporations are the enemy! Duh! You have to think outside the box. I disagree with the concept of a single entity called the corporation. I am not against business or the people involved in corporations. You have to take a long hard critical look at the institution of corporations and if you do, you won't like it. We are becoming more and more fascist as time passes and thats what I am most scared of.
The alternative is just plain business without the giant conglomerations. You revoke the corporate charter as an illegal and immoral idea and turn businesses back over to the people.
Corporations originally were public works, thats why they got the special rights they did. Corporate lawyers have changed the face of corporations so much that they are hardly recognizable.
Corporations have too many protections and too many privileges that even I as a citizen of the USA do not enjoy.
"You've already asserted collective ownership of the culture and all ideas from it."
I didn't assert this. It is fact that everything our society creates from our culture is part of our collective future. We all own the ideas of our forefathers, does that now make us communists? lol
"Right. We don't want a truly free market. "
Wrong, I want a truly free market because I am tired of corporations using our system to their advantage. They have too much power already and as long as the system continues to cater to them they will only grow. Absolute power corrupts absolutely and our corporations are absolutely corrupt already :)
I have no problem with business, capitalism, and entrepreneurship. They are the foundations of our country. On the other hand, corporations are truly abominations that take our wealth out of our towns and cities and deposit it in offshore accounts and invest it in replacing the American worker. No-one in their right mind would agree that the way corporations have treated us in the past 20 years has been anything close to fair.
Once again, stimulating conversation!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: to reed
Innovation usually comes from one person first. More than one person may be working on a solution to the same problem, but not all approach the problem in the same way. Unique solutions may be patented by their inventors.
What if it is a truly great discovery, should a single person or corporation own the rights to our future?
You presume one patented innovation will change our future. I think that is a false assumption for a few reasons.
1) IP rights are limited in duration.
2) An innovative solution to a problem does not preclude someone else from inventing a different, and even better solution to the same problem. In fact, if another person wants to compete, they would have to invent a new solution. I've done this in the past. It is possible.
Allowing people to merely copy patented ideas only serves to drive the value of the innovation to its recurring costs. That makes it unlike the fixed costs will be recovered, including the up front investment in creating the technology as well as the additional fixed costs necessary to deploy the technology.
3) Governments grant (sometimes force) exceptions to IP rights when called for exigent circumstances. For instance, by international agreement, patent protections for medicines are suspendable should a health emergency require greater supply of the medicine than can be produced by the owner of the patent. (Think Bird Flu). As someone else has mentioned in one of these threads, the government has forced companies to pool and license patents to stimulate competition in areas where conflicting IP rights have put a stranglehold on an industry.
4) Ultimately, patent rights are protected by governments and governments are subject to the will of the people. If the situation were to get as bad as you seem to think, the people can change it.
Thanks for the generic answer, but I like to think outside the box and little here is anything but regurgitation.
You may pooh-pooh the idea that economic development comes from investment, but you would be mistaken.
The two most important things affecting economic growth are capital and technology. Capital drives the economic engine and technology makes workers more efficient.
I understand your concern is that technology creation is stifled under IP laws. You correctly posit that economic growth is slowed if technology growth is slowed.
However, technology creation is itself an economic activity that requires capital. Indeed, the more advanced our technology becomes, the more capital investment is needed to create real advancement.
Capital chases return. If there is no return on the investment of capital in technology, or the returns on investement are collectivized by allowing everyone to benefit from the capital invested, then capital will not fund technology development. The reason IP protections have limited duration is to incentivize capital to seek returns on investment in innovation, but also spread that innovation after the period of limited monopoly to all in society.
So, we are left with a situation where it is in the best interest of economic growth to stimulate technology innovation through IP laws. But we don't want to allow them to stifle competition, so we give them limited duration. If you want to argue that the time limits are wrong, that is different from arguing the laws should be abolished.
I tend to agree with them that these artificial market constraints do not operate as intended.
To advocate the abolishment of IP laws is to advocate something more than that they are not operating as intended; it is to assert they are fundamentally unsound.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nice squirk
[ link to this | view in thread ]
You topped yourself
[ link to this | view in thread ]
IP, Oh yeeah
I disagree there are too many instances of ideas being invented across the globe at the same time. Besides this, sometimes there is only one best way to do something. Its kinda like a math problem. There is only one good way to do the problem, so what right does someone have to claim that idea as their own?
"1) IP rights are limited in duration."
True, but they are on the increase in the US. Does the current duration make sense in our modern world where innovation is happening at an enormous pace across the globe?
"2) An innovative solution to a problem does not preclude someone else from inventing a different, and even better solution to the same problem. In fact, if another person wants to compete, they would have to invent a new solution. I've done this in the past. It is possible."
Untrue in many examples of small companies forced to shut down by strong armed business tactics or patent/copyright threats. You are also not free to innovate if someone already patented or copyrighted the best solution. Then they can of course sit on that idea and keep anyone else from doing it. This is a real issue as I know several people who have come up with great ideas just to find out that they are already owned by a corporation that has not interest in developing them.
"You may pooh-pooh the idea that economic development comes from investment, but you would be mistaken. "
I thought it sounded like something from a basic economics course textbook.
"So, we are left with a situation where it is in the best interest of economic growth to stimulate technology innovation through IP laws."
You really buy that? Seems naive when critically examining the system.
"If you want to argue that the time limits are wrong, that is different from arguing the laws should be abolished."
I am not arguing for a change. That has already been well argued and it seems pretty clear that a change is needed. I am arguing for abolishment right now :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: to reed
The research of David Levine and Michele Boldrin shows this.
For other examples, you can look at how the Netherlands turned into an industrial powerhouse after it *got rid* of patents. During the same period, Switzerland also became quite the industrial power without patents.
More recently, (and again this is from Levin and Boldrin) Italy introduced patents on pharmaceuticals, despite having a thriving pharma industry without drug patents. After it was introduced, however, no new significant developments came out of the Italian pharma industry -- and in fact, the industry shrunk.
There are plenty more examples...
You act as if no one can innovate unless they can steal someone else's idea.
Don't make dumb assumptions. What I believe (and what the research supports) is that innovation is an ongoing process, not a one-off spark of genius. And, since it's a process, limiting how that process works by using patents slows down and delays important advancements to society. The steam engine is a great example. Thanks to Watt's patents, almost nothing important happened with the steam engine until after the patents expired. That slowed down the entire industrial revolution. It's not at all clear how that's a good thing.
It has nothing to do with "stealing" ideas. It has to do with how innovation works.
You are required to do your own original work or you don't have the ante to play the game.
Except that innovation is an ongoing process, and it's usually driven by the market -- meaning that lots of people discover the same innovation at the same time. Giving a monopoly to one player is just bad economic planning.
What's wrong with letting the market reward the producers in the space?
Without it, the owners of capital have little incentive to fund new ideas because they will have little hope of making money.
This is false (and laughably so). The market provides the incentive. Selling goods in the marketplace is how you make money.
The new technology that costs $250 million to develop will not be funded because a company will be able to make greater return by spending it on improved marketing, sales promotions, and cut throat business manuevers.
This also has little to no basis in reality. Smaller, hungrier companies often beat out larger more well backed companies. Microsoft beat IBM. Google beat Microsoft. It happens all the time. Don't think that just because some company is bigger and has more money it automatically wins. That's now how the world works.
The great blockbuster films will not be made because no one will fund them if they lose all rights to it once someone makes a copy.
This is a terrible example. Movie makers can still make a ton of money if they recognize that going to the movies is a social experience. People like "going out" to the movies with the family or friends. They like seeing a movie on a huge screen with a great sound system. You can't replicate that service with downloaded films.
Besides, if it's really a problem, there are tons of incentives the movie industry can put in place that have nothing to do with copyrights. I've written about them at length before, so test out the search box to find them.
IP law is not part of capitalism, just as anti-trust laws are not part of capitalism. These are laws made to stimulate competition and innovation.
They are supposed to -- but if they are not, then shouldn't we be getting rid of them?
IP is property. IP laws have been part of property law in western society for over 600 years. If you advocate the destruction of IP laws you are changing property rights.
No. Just because it's called IP doesn't mean that it's property. The reality is that it's not property at all. It's an artificial restriction on ideas and knowledge. Ideas and knowledge are what drive economic growth -- and restricting such things are simply bad policy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: to reed
This is incredibly wrong. I'm sorry, because I'm not sure what gave you this idea, but it's just wrong. It very rarely comes from just one person -- and history is littered with multiple inventors coming up with the same or similar inventions at the same time.
Also, you meant to use the word "invention" not innovation. The two are different.
An innovative solution to a problem does not preclude someone else from inventing a different, and even better solution to the same problem.
That would be true today only if the patent office didn't insist on approving such broad patents that cover entire concepts.
Allowing people to merely copy patented ideas only serves to drive the value of the innovation to its recurring costs. That makes it unlike the fixed costs will be recovered, including the up front investment in creating the technology as well as the additional fixed costs necessary to deploy the technology.
This shows a false understanding of economics. Yes, it does drive prices to marginal costs, but that's what drives continual innovation (rather than one-off innovation). You can keep making money by continually being the best in your space -- and you can charge a nice premium for it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: several above
I've looked at what Levine and Boldrin assert. They use an argument of weak or no correlation between IP law and innovation to build their opinion that IP law hurts. Their mistake is to assume that weak to no correlation gives them that license. In fact, strong negative correlation is what is needed for them to make their argument.
Furthermore, the arguments of Levine and Boldrin concentrate solely on the "monopoly" aspect of IP law, ignoring both its temporary nature and the beneficial aspects of disclosure. The limited monopoly comes at a price to the inventor. That price is disclosing the invention for all to use at the end of the limited monopoly. That disclosure happens before the innovation is available in the marketplace. This gives competing companies the details to a company's temporary monopoly, which in turn allows competitors to plan their own innovations.
This is false (and laughably so). The market provides the incentive. Selling goods in the marketplace is how you make money.
You demonstrate little understanding of economics. If the market is a commodity market, then you are selling at marginal cost. Any investment in technology innovation that can be immediately copied gives you no competitive advantage. You stay at marginal cost. You don't reclaim your extra investment, thus you have no incentive to make the investment.
Oh, sure, there will be people who rush to innovate thinking they can do something better. But once it is copied, they have no advantage and they never recoup their investment.
Movie makers can still make a ton of money if they recognize that going to the movies is a social experience. ....
You ignore the fact that without copyright protection a movie theater doesn't need to pay the movie maker for their copy of the blockbuster. They can just download a high def copy for pennies as soon someone rips it off. The movie maker gets no royalties from the showing. The theater may make money from people seeking the "social experience", but the movie maker won't. Thus the movie maker will lose incentive to make blockbuster movies.
They are supposed to -- but if they are not, then shouldn't we be getting rid of them?
I agree. No one has made a compelling argument that they should be gotten rid of. There are arguments, more or less compelling, that time limits or terms might be changed.
Yes, it does drive prices to marginal costs, but that's what drives continual innovation (rather than one-off innovation). You can keep making money by continually being the best in your space -- and you can charge a nice premium for it.
Actually, that is quite naive. If all technology is available to all parties then in the long run there is no difference between vendors. All prices will be driven to marginal costs. Anyone who is operating in an area charging a nice premium will find themselves deluged with people who will copy their unprotected technology and offer the same service/product for less, until marginal cost is hit.
You show little understanding of market dynamics and even less of what it takes to charge a premium price. Operational efficiency, the only advantage available when all technology is available to all customers, only allows you to compete on margin cost.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]