Ideas Do Matter, But That Has Nothing To Do With 'Intellectual Property'
from the keep-up-folks dept
Glyn Moody points us to a website put together by Microsoft, Philips and DSM -- three giant companies that have relied heavily on intellectual property laws to fend off upstart competitors and disruptive innovation -- called Ideas Matter - the value of intellectual property. As you can tell from the title, the website focuses on two key points, which they then try to conflate as a single point: (1) Ideas matter and (2) because of that, intellectual property is important.Of course, there's a huge problem with this: while ideas do matter, that has nothing to do with intellectual property. As people are quick to point out in our comments any time we suggest that ideas are being blocked or censored by intellectual property laws, such laws are not supposed to apply to ideas. In fact, it's explicit with both copyright and patent law. In copyright law, protection is supposed to be applied to expression, not ideas, and the difference is supposed to be key -- even if it isn't always observed. Similarly, with patents, protection is supposed to be applied to inventions, not ideas -- again even if that isn't regularly observed in practice.
To be honest, I find this particularly nefarious and disingenuous, in that any time people point out that ideas are being censored, defenders of IP laws insist that there's a split and "ideas" are not covered. Yet, when these same folks seek to push forth a propaganda campaign in support of greater protectionism, they use the claim that "ideas matter" to support those laws. Not surprisingly, given the nature of the site's name and premise itself, the rest of the site is filled with ridiculous and unsupported propaganda, such as this laughably misleading video that seems to assume that because certain things are protected by intellectual property laws, they wouldn't exist without them. It also tosses out ridiculous debunked industry figures on "losses" due to infringement. This is extreme propaganda.
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
Filed Under: copyright, ideas, intellectual property, patents
Companies: dsm, microsoft, philips
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let's run a test for those defenders of IP laws and see if they really mean what they say.
Publicly state, along with your name and any organizations or law practices you represent, that you would support adding to copyright and patent laws this phrase:
"Under no circumstances whatsoever is this law to be used to block the expression or use of generalized or specific ideas. This law may only be used when significantly specific expressions or inventions are used without permission. Any party found attempting to assert ownership of an idea will be liable for all reasonable legal fees and damages that result in such assertion."
Or if that doesn't quite work for you, offer a alternate phrase that conveys the same thing.
I'm one of the more vocal commenters on TechDirt in support of complete abolition of all copyright and patent law. If I can take a step away from that "extreme" position (despite it being evidence backed), and admit this may help fix those systems, certainly you can support adding that line that would not be used anyway if you really do mean what you say.
I imagine all we'll hear is crickets. Prove me wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Josh has stated, repeatedly, that he would love to see a world without IP law at all. He's actually willing to compromise with the most vehement defenders of IP, and yet, those two goals are at odds?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Replying to just the first sentence isn't a valid argument either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I don't want a government that in any way compromises the public interest, I want a government that serves the public interest without compromise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You see there in AC's first sentence, he opens what would appear to be an argument, yet there in the rest of it...well nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Doesn't go nearly far enough. Thanks to the corporations that write the laws, infringement damages are absurd. I want plaintiffs who initiate bogus IP lawsuits to potentially face damages that are equally as high. Why should the laws that protect the rich have steeper penalties than the laws that protect the public?
and if you're a patent troll, or if you're suing over a patent that you do not use, you should automatically lose the case and be subject to equally high damages, since you don't directly use your patent for anything other than suing others and collecting licensing fees.
If you sue for IP that you do not own, the damages should be at least equally as high as infringement damages. Plaintiffs are in a better position to know what IP they hold than defendants.
Non-used patents should be abolished within a reasonable period of time. Books that are out of print should automatically enter the public domain. Copyright needs to be substantially shortened anyways. Tech related patents should also be substantially shortened.
If a company goes out of business, any IP (patents and copyrights) they have should automatically enter the public domain. Companies do not invest in R&D for the sake of being able to pay 6% of their debt in opposed to paying out 5% after they go out of business. The company is going out of business anyways, whether it can sell its IP or not is meaningless to it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
...nefarious and disingenuous...
...laughingly misleading video...
Even one of your infamous "morons in a hurry" can easily discern that general statements are being made, and not "legal treatises" analyses of law.
Why not just simply come out and say what you mean? All patents, even from Nobel Laureates,are invalid because, after all, every one of them "stood on the shoulders of giants", are blatantly obvious, are laughably supported by those who point out that they serve the function of imparting useful information to the public worldwide, kill sick kids, etc., etc., etc.
Can people abuse the system? Yes, and some do. But exceptions are not the rule, and to focus on just the 6 sigma extremes is hardly a basis by which to level what is clearly a personal animus to a an entire body of law that experience reading many of the tomes here teaches me is understood at largely a very superficial level.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
btw, I've noticed Masnick's Friday "trolling for weekend hits" is getting more extreme by the week...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
He's basically TAM cranked up to 11.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yup, people can abuse the system all the time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Epic fail. Go back to trolling with the record companies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Funny thing is, good patents seem to be the exception, at least for software and business method patents, while bad patents seem to be the rule.
In fact, I am unaware of a single good software or business method patent. A genuine invention. Not just a paper patent. Something that took time and sweat to develop rather than an obvious idea or extension of existing practice, written down, and patented.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That's because there aren't any.
By definition, software and business method patents are not good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yeah, so the fact there maybe one good patent does not prove that patents are good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Most patents never make it to product (at least not by the patent holder) and every patent that doesn't make it to product (by the patent holder) is a bad patent, and so most patents are bad patents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
General statements being made that are nefarious and disingenuous and seeking to influence people's positions and policy.
Why not just simply come out and say what you mean? All patents, even from Nobel Laureates,are invalid because, after all, every one of them "stood on the shoulders of giants", are blatantly obvious, are laughably supported by those who point out that they serve the function of imparting useful information to the public worldwide, kill sick kids, etc., etc., etc.
Because that's not what I mean at all. Why would you say that?
Can people abuse the system? Yes, and some do. But exceptions are not the rule, and to focus on just the 6 sigma extremes is hardly a basis by which to level what is clearly a personal animus to a an entire body of law that experience reading many of the tomes here teaches me is understood at largely a very superficial level.
Yes, some people abuse the system, but that's not the key concern. The key concern is, as noted in the Constitution, that these systems are designed to "promote the progress," and the economic evidence suggests that the system as a whole DOES NOT DO THAT, and, in fact, hurts the progress.
I find that to be a problem.
As someone who has profited off of such a broken system, you, apparently, feel otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
For the provision to reflect what is so oft repeated here, it would read something such as "To promote the economic progress of society as a whole in the sciences and useful art, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors exclusive rights to their respective writings and discoveries so long as such exclusive rights do not impose any burdens on subsequent authors and inventors".
As recurringly proffered here, the operative effect would be to render Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 as constitutional surplussage and of no moment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, I love making up other peoples' positions too. Much easier than actually debating their real, more nuanced and realistic opinion.
For example, "To promote the infinite monetisation of existing content, for the sole benefit of major players at the expense of any work not already massively successful and the prevention of future works built off existing content as my works were built". That the opinion of you and your ilk, isn't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thanks Mike Masnick, for clearing that up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
i�de�a /īˈdēə/ Noun
1. A thought or suggestion as to a possible course of action: "the idea of linking pay to performance".
2. A concept or mental impression.
Ideas cannot be owned.
Ideas are not property.
You can not stop others from "having an idea".
You have no way of knowing when the ideas of others are similar to yours.
You can not charge others when their idea is similar to yours.
Not sure why this idea is so difficult for some to grasp.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ideas Are A Dime A Dozen
Once you start getting distracted by litigating, you cease innovating.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ideas Are A Dime A Dozen
You're wishin this blog had an edit option.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ideas Are A Dime A Dozen
You labor under the false notion that none of us here are capable of "inventing" those things that often fall under patent or even copyright.
With patents, things are especially out of balance and trivial things that were published in consumer computer magazines in the 80s end up patented.
The underlying problem here is that it really doesn't take that much to run afoul of IP law. The more broad you make a law, the more likely more people will run afoul of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ideas Are A Dime A Dozen
People who actually wrote useful software? (ideas)
People who later patented trivial techniques that were used in that software years earlier? (intellectual property)
(ideas != intellectual property)
Oh, look! People are being sued over a patent on putting a spinning animation as a placeholder in a rectangle on a web page before the content for that rectangle is available.
So who is lazy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Politicians and lawyers are a small group that make money off of the favorable legislations they pass.
It's uncanny how the money passes around Washington and how much each Senator/Congress representative has to spend money to look good for their state. Corruption isn't the word here.
Unfortunately, it's moral bankruptcy. The quid pro quo is that businesses pass so much money around for legislation, that the ones that end up getting screwed is the public. Meanwhile, this is a good thing for a politician because in a sense, it's job security. They get elected to "fix" problems, when all they really do is exacerbate it. The more turmoil that they can legislate, the better they'll do until the other representative comes in.
That's the state of our legislative branch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
as opposed to the hundreds of innovative companies that *don't* rely on intellectual property when competing...
Masnick = Silly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Relied *heavily* on intellectual property *laws*" does not mean the same as "relied on intellectual property". There's a reason those sentences contain different words, and the four letter one at the end changes the scope of the sentence completely.
Try to learn the differences here, it really helps when you try addressing the claims people are actually making rather than a fictional reality. The argument often presented here is that while IP can be useful and even necessary, the laws to "protect" it are often overreaching, draconian and even counter-productive.
If you want to debate opinions, try debating those that people actually hold.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Criminalize everything, then let the judicial branch sort out the details. That seems to be how it works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110607/09204914592/ideas-do-matter-that-has-nothing-t o-do-with-intellectual-property.shtml#c633
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A translation . . .
Why do monopolies Matter?
Monopolies Matter is a consortium of cross-sector enterprises, small and medium-sized businesses and trade associations that aims to expand awareness and propagandize the benefits of intellectual monopoly (IM). We firmly believe that IM -- and the money that lies underneath it -- are important to the business, important to corporations, important to companies both large and small. In other words, Monopolies Matter.
Despite its importance, intellectual monopoly (which includes patents, design rights, trademarks, domain names and copyrights) remains a complex and often misunderstood topic. We want to tell the personal stories of individuals and businesses that are enriching themselves due to IM and give attention to the enormous profits that IM, without any need for innovation, brings to companies, corporations and businesses in general.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A translation . . .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
tHIS IS DISTURBING
If ideas are money...
And Copyright should be held forever..
AND all the good ideas of the past are copyrighted...
WHERE do you stand?
yankee doodle is held in copyright?
The pledge of aligence?
How about all the mechanical devices..
HOLD IT..ALL resisters are copyrighted..
tHE CPU is copyrighted..
PLASTIC is copyrighted..
on and on and on...
So..What would be the cost of ANY device/product you wish to make? After 2000 copyrights are paid? For every PART/PIECE/COVER/GLASS/resister/capacitor/battery/USB connection.. Each program used, on and on and on...
Even at a $0.01 each...everything would start at $20 COST.
How befuddled do you REALLY want this?
How long did MP3 format take to be used?? AFTER the copyright ended, EVERYONE JUMPED onto it. Even AAC..is a free format.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: tHIS IS DISTURBING
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: tHIS IS DISTURBING
Parts of the auto industry is held in limbo bt patents held for over 50 years. both in Europe, USA, Asia.. The USA will NOT copy/use a foreign design/concept of a motor even if its Proven better then the USA versions.
The Media industry(movies/audio) have controlled ALL IMPORTS into this country.
You may not believe this but, Corps have figured out how much money you have..and are willing to raise prices to MATCH that value.
Corps will push any concept or idea that befits them.. DARE them with retroactive Copyright. it will SCARE them to death.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They are cowards
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They are cowards
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Always the same response - where is YOUR originality Mike ? This is Glen Moodys
(I know it's harder than surfing the web for 'dirt') or just going to moodys site and 'cut and paste' + dirt + Spin = $$$$)
How about you work for a living, instead of your constant feed of others peoples dribble.
If we wanted to know what Glen Moody is saying, we'll go and freaking look.
Mike, are you capable of developing your OWN idea's and constructs ? you're own independent thought ?
Or, your own research ?
WHY NOT ?
sounds like you are doing exactly the same thing Mike, that is conflating Interlectual property directly with copyright.
and you damn well know that is not the case.
Where are all you examples (except comments) that show that copyright limits IP ?
You will never apply your 'theory' or bias to issues such as 'idea's' used by the military for example.
Military equipment and developments by it's nature does not lend itself to copyright protection. (enemy is hardly going to care about breaking that law as well).
So what happens in the military to protect their Intellectual property ?
Thats right, you guessed it, they keep it a VERY HIGH SECRET.
All copyright does is protect that SPECIFIC things, that specific practical application of that idea. (such as a patent).
You cannot patent 'an idea' you have to specifically patent a specific method of achieving some specific goal.
Of course, Mike you fully understand this, but why then do you not tell the truth ?
1. you are either fully aware that you are not telling the truth about the real issues, and you are just interested in building false strawmen (or)
2. You are really as unaware of the reality of IP, Patents and copyright, and in that case why do you claim you have experience and expertise in these fields?
I think you also need to get a bigger list of more emotive 'buzzwords' and standard responses and phrases that you trot out on every occasion regarding the same subject.
(then refer back to yourself as support for your 'argument').
Similarly, with patents, protection is supposed to be applied to inventions,
Yes, thats right Mike, at least you understood that, now you just have to grasp that an idea and an invention are not the same thing.
Innovation and invention are also not the same thing.
Then you can try to grasp that if someone invents "television" that it in any way stops other people from also inventing television using THEIR OWN IDEA's.
If you think every invention and patent stops anyone else from development a BETTER method to apply that 'idea' (that has been developed into A practical method). By using ANOTHER practical method that that method does not have the right to also apply for and receive a patent.
It also does not mean that the IP of the original method was or has to be employed in the new method for achieving the final goal (of a practical device or function) that performs a specific task, using the method that is the subject of the copyright of the IP or the patent, or the military secret, or the commercail secret.
Say you have the idea that you think you can make icecream, you build a machine, and you put in the ingredients and out comes icecream.
You can go and patent that METHOD of making icecream, you cannot go to the patent office and patent "making icecream".
This is FUNDAMENTAL to IP concepts (and LAW).
How on earth Mike, can you be so ignorant of those basic facts, unless you are not ignorant, if that is the case why do you lie ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Always the same response - where is YOUR originality Mike ? This is Glen Moodys
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Always the same response - where is YOUR originality Mike ? This is Glen Moodys
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Always the same response - where is YOUR originality Mike ? This is Glen Moodys
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Always the same response - where is YOUR originality Mike ? This is Glen Moodys
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Always the same response - where is YOUR originality Mike ? This is Glen Moodys
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ideas Do Matter, But ....
We are urged to "throw out the baby with the bath water".
This shows a complete ignorance of the reason the founding fathers put a provision for IP in the US Constitution, and assumes they were wrong in doing so.
If anyone were willing to listen (like saying, "is there intelligent life here"?), anyone with an understanding of this could explain why IP could be a major good... I realize that is asking for intelligent discussion, silly me!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ideas Do Matter, But ....
As for ignorance of the reasons why the founding fathers put IP in the Constitution, I think it's pretty clear why they put IP in the Constitution: "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;" Much of the arguments on this blog specifically call out what seems to be pretty clear by now that IP is unnecessary and that it is more harmful than helpful as far as the progress of science and useful arts is concerned. So, no, the founders weren't wrong to allow IP to promote progress. (Progress is good and if IP helped, maybe it would be a good idea) Congress is wrong to keep using IP to attempt promote progress because IP hinders progress.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ideas Do Matter, But ....
As a copyright and patent lawyer (I refuse to use the term "IP" seriously.), you should know that these two systems were meant to promote the progress by providing incentive to authors for the opportunity (as opposed to a mandate) of exclusive rights to profit from works for a limited time. Look at copyright today and tell me that it provides incentive to create more works (which would promote the progress) rather than to use their copyright to produce fewer works, but squeeze every work to its maximum potential profit. That is not what copyright and patent is for. Copyright and patent encourages people to hoard ideas and inventions for the express opportunity to use it as leverage for profit while contributing as little additional labor as possible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ideas Do Matter, But ....
Disney is often used as the example, and the truth is that the Mickey Mouse brand, content, videos, shows, and even original movies are still valuable, and the public still values them enough to pay to see them. With a valid and ongoing brand, it is easy to imagine the brand harm that could be done by people corrupting the original works if they were in the public domain.
In a similar fashion, consider TV programs and syndication. Many modern TV products are not profitable in and of themselves as an original work. They only because financial viable when they reach the second or third round on syndication. Many shows never make it. The incentive is there to encourage new works, and to encourage people to take risks. Without financial viablity, there would be little desire to move forward with the initial product.
We also have to look at the public's valuation of the products. With people paying money for cable channels that have classic TV shows on them, buying box sets, and even still buying the proverbial t-shirts, it is clear that the works have enough value that they could be abused if dumping too quickly into the public domain.
Patents last for such a short time in reality. I mean, Viagra is already expired patent in Brazil, and will expire in the US next year. That is just a blink of the eye in bigger picture. It's come and it's gone.
Copyright doesn't allow people to hoard ideas. It is somewhat distressing to see a copyright lawyer who can't understand the concepts in play.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ideas Do Matter, But ....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ideas Do Matter, But ....
Well not every modern TV product deserves to be profitable. Intellectual property law does (or at least should) not guarantee that any copyrighted work is profitable; it guarantees that for a limited time, only the originator has the opportunity to profit. If it doesn't make a profit, that's probably because either it sucks or it wasn't managed well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ideas Do Matter, But ....
Disney is often used as the example, and the truth is that the Mickey Mouse brand, content, videos, shows, and even original movies are still valuable, and the public still values them enough to pay to see them."
So are the arts and sciences that allow people to learn. Galileo's work influenced Newton, who later influenced Einstein. Ironically, Einstein learned a decent amount in a patent office, but he was a rebellious kid. And Newton was VERY upset with Leibniz during the Calculus wars. Society benefitted not from locking up the ideas expressed by any of these men, but the discussions, theories, and principles they lay in the arts and sciences. Essentially, what copyright does is lock up those ideas to one or two people even after death. That's not right at all.
"With a valid and ongoing brand, it is easy to imagine the brand harm that could be done by people corrupting the original works if they were in the public domain."
BS. Undoubtedly so. Disney would still make works based off of Mickey Mouse. But there would be MORE of the work. Also, Walt Disney himself got the idea for Steamboat Mickey from somewhere else. Ironic that Disney is allowed to use fair use, but no one else without their ungodly amounts of money can do so. That's where the problem lies.
"Many modern TV products are not profitable in and of themselves as an original work"
Do you realize how much Joss Whedon's works are still valued? Please get a better argument.
"Many shows never make it."
Unless you can prove that, you're full of it. Especially when HBO's shows have been getting a lot better with Camelot, Game of Thrones and a number of other shows among their movies. Distribution is where everything is faltering, not syndication. The incentive for people to ship a show overseas where it makes even more money has been altered by the internet. It's why Hulu only works in the US. The *smart* thing to do is set up a global service and monetize the access in various ways. But no one is looking into it enough yet.
"With people paying money for cable channels that have classic TV shows on them, buying box sets, and even still buying the proverbial t-shirts, it is clear that the works have enough value that they could be abused if dumping too quickly into the public domain."
Pay attention because this has already been discussed. People are cutting out broadband at an expanding rate and going with internet only service. People are going to watch what they want to watch and distribution is only going to expand from here. The internet will have little regard for copyright laws because they're more a relic (at this time) to the need for a gatekeeper system in the 20th century. There ARE other ways to make money, and it's mainly by setting up a natural scarcity (not artificial such as regionalization) that lets people like you or your service without any arbitrary limits.
"Patents last for such a short time in reality."
14 years is NOT short.
"Copyright doesn't allow people to hoard ideas. It is somewhat distressing to see a copyright lawyer who can't understand the concepts in play."
This is quite laughable. If you have yet to see all of the ways that copyright DOES in fact stop progress (Napster, video streaming in the US, etc) then you should stick around and read some of the older articles. It's quite eye opening.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Ideas Do Matter, But ....
And where did disney get most of his material??
PUBLIC DOMAIN.
Find out who wrote..
Cinderella.
Sleeping beauty..
And all the rest from his time.
YES, he even CHANGED them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Ideas Do Matter, But ....
Why do people constantly cite "Steamboat Mickey" as a spin off of "Steamboat Willie" that couldn't happen now? Please Google "Steamboat Itchy" and watch a very deliberate derivative work based on the Disney short. In fact, The Simpsons have spoofed and parodied several Disney properties. The Itchy & Scratchy Land episode alone is full of it. So this idea that no one can build on Disney's ideas has been proven false by The Simpsons. Not to mention Family Guy. South Park spoofed several properties in the Imagination Land episode or whatever it was called.
I just find it funny that people specifically point out this particular Disney short as some sort of sign that IP law is broken even though it has legally been used for derivative works. It's almost like you guys just read something somewhere and then start spouting it again without actually researching any of your opinions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
*sigh* Rebuttal time.
You do realize that under Michael Eisner, Disney became such a hated name that it helped to create Pixar as we know it today?
You also realize their "vault" idea, where they lock away their works, bringing them out every 20 years with an "update" is only possible because of copyright preventing anyone else from making their own modifications?
How about their suing a guy that worked for them? Link
Oh wait, there's plenty of inner problems I could get into, such as the similarity of Kimba and Simba. Maybe, just maybe, I know a thing or two about Disney and their copyright crusade. I know a little about Disney's hypocrisy in using other materials and not compensating the authors (Brothers Grimm, Tezuka, etc). Perhaps, it's better to stop passing judgement and be conducive to the debate instead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ideas Do Matter, But ....
I'd say that the key word here is "parodied". Parody is explicitly protected under fair use in the US. If they tried creating an original, non-parody property that borrowed some ideas from Steamboat, I'd expect the lawyers to come down quite heavily.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ideas Do Matter, But ....
Just because a work is still finding an audience willing to pay for it, does not justify holding it back from defaulting to the public domain. You are not entitled to keep things from the public domain just because it can still make you money. That's not the purpose of copyright. It is not contingent on how much you make or if there is still profit to be had. If you want to make more money, make more art and inventions. That creates new copyrights/patents and new opportunity. That's the point of patent and copyright. To stay profitable as an author or inventor, you need to keep writing more works or creating new inventions/innovations.
Let me make this clear. Copyright and patent takes away that which belongs to the public (i.e. everyone). You are granted this temporary privilege with the expectation that you will create new and improved works from the ones we are letting you use to build on. You are given the opportunity to make a profit from your innovations for a limited time to give you an incentive to create/discover these new creations/inventions. When a sufficient amount of time has passed that would be reasonably long enough to exploit the new works for your profit, the results created from the commonwealth of knowledge that is the public domain will reclaim those works and you must innovate further to continue earning a profit from your works.
They are not your ideas, they are everyone's ideas. The labor is yours, but we give you a chance to make money from your labor so that it will convince you to provide us with new innovations. Copyright is not a mandate that you should be paid for your work. There are other ways you can demand payment for your labor. Labor has never needed special laws to guarantee you are paid for it. To create something and demand payment for its use until the day you die is nothing short of parasitic. Nobody's labor is worth a perpetual income.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ideas Do Matter, But ....
Which has bugger all to do with their copyright status.
"With a valid and ongoing brand, it is easy to imagine the brand harm that could be done by people corrupting the original works if they were in the public domain."
Therefore, they should enforce the brand, which has bugger all to do with copyright, again. Also, if you think that Disney's brands are not already remixed, reused and parodied to breaking point already, I have a bridge to sell you...
"Many shows never make it."
Most of the good ones do unless they're badly marketed or cancelled before they've gained an audience (Firefly). Why is a life+70 years protection necessary to make money from TV shows? Sounds like a poor business plan to me if they can't make money in the first 20 years or so...
"With people paying money for cable channels that have classic TV shows on them, buying box sets, and even still buying the proverbial t-shirts, it is clear that the works have enough value that they could be abused if dumping too quickly into the public domain."
Here's the thing: people still buy those things for public domain works. The only thing that changes is that instead of being the only people who are able to do so, others can jump in and offer the same product. The originators of the product can still retain the brand, any associated trademarks, any exclusive unreleased footage and access to the original scripts, advertising, etc. that were used. They just can't control the product directly. Meanwhile, products that weren't successful aren't doomed to be erased from history because nobody has financial incentive to restore the works that are either deemed uncommercial by the copyright holder, or for whom the copyright holder cannot be located (orphan works).
"I mean, Viagra is already expired patent in Brazil, and will expire in the US next year"
...and presumably the manufacturers have made a handsome sum of money in the time where they held the monopoly. They can continue to manufacture and sell Viagra in the Brazilian market, they just aren't the sole providers any more. This will most likely drive prices down and perhaps enable others to improve the product, but the manufacturers will still have the rights to the trademarked brand name and thus sell at a premium as the "trusted" and "original" brand.
Where's the problem here, again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ideas Do Matter, But ....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ideas Do Matter, But ....
he said pegging
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
but the Flag...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: but the Flag...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: but the Flag...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: but the Flag...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright a THOUGHT..
Where software companies THINK that they can create something NEW.
Copyright of software and Scripts.
The thought that 1 person will come up with an IDEA, that another can/will not find on their OWN, is strange.
Yes, its nice to see what others had done, and USE/CHANGE/AUGMENT there idea in a game.
IN THE OLD DAYS,
we had a few programmers that jumped from group to group, to make games for the Different OS's.. They made abit of money even.
Then there were the hacks(not hackers) that decompiled the code to see how things were done, and improved THEIR OWN programming skills.
You could tell whom had made certain designs/scripts..
1 group would make a good looking interface or driver, and it spread around. Showing that the idea was good.
NOW you cant even copy TRIBES 2.. because of a copyright for the scripting. And there are FEW games that will let you have 64 players, AIR/LAND vehicles, and dont LAG..
"WE HAD THE IDEA FIRST, and you cant HAVE IT"...is not a good idea.
Even NOW there is a ton of tech other there, that HASNT been used. And the corps wont give it to you.
Even MS, has stopped letting the HARDWARE advance beyond a point. As, intel wanted to goto Multi processed(multi CPU, Multi Pass-thru,...) hardware long ago.
The auto industry has bought up MANY ideas and concepts, from long ago, and never Registered them. HOLDING them until they NEED them. As copyright STARTS after its registered, NOT from creation.
The concept of MAKE the market, then MAKE the device/product has been around awhile. But, how many nations have the CORPS restricting products. In the USA they do. There are a few products available in other nations you WILL not have access to.
Even cable and Sat services do it. They REALLY dont want you to copy the programs, so they make it HARDER and HARDER. We used to have VHS with a built-in tuner to record shows form other channels.. NOW you cant tune to the channel, unless its on the BOX supplied, and playing.
There is also TECH out there NOW. that would run 2-3 fiber optic lines to your home and supply:
Power
HEAT
INTERNET
PHONE
TV(500+ channels)
Add to it...
Wireless phone server for both CELL and HOME use..
Access to CELL to others...
Full wireless to anyone in 200-300 feet..
And how many corps HATE this combination/joining of all these services.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]