Mike Masnick's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week

from the yeah,-you-read-that-right dept

Sat, Nov 26th 2011 12:00pm — Mike Masnick

Okay, so every week we have someone do a "favorites of the week" post, but I've never had the chance to do one myself. So... I picked the shortest week of the year to do it myself. I'm not going to point to any of my own posts (that's cheating!), but I will say that I put a lot of time and effort into my comprehensive post on why SOPA and PROTECT IP are bad bills, so if you haven't read them... feel free to check it out. However, here are some other posts this week I really liked:

Neelie Kroes pointing out that copyright is working against its intended purpose in some cases (by Glyn). I had the pleasure of meeting Kroes a few months ago when she was touring Silicon Valley talking to entrepreneurs and others in the industry. While I don't agree with all of her policy ideas, she (1) clearly understood some key issues and (2) was very willing to listen and discuss more detailed ideas. It was one of a very few meetings I've had with politicians where I didn't come out of it frustrated. Nice to see that she's continuing to do good things.
Nicolas Sarkozy going the other direction and saying that if we don't have stronger copyright laws "there would be no form of creation." We've been scolded in the past by copyright system supporters for daring to say that anyone ever claimed without copyright there would be no creation, but there's Sarkozy doing exactly that. Kinda funny that as infringement has grown and copyright has been ignored, there's been a massive explosion in creation. Reality apparently has no place in this discussion for some.
Research from a company connected to Hollywood claims that piracy is a growing problem, but refuses to share any of the details or methodology (by Zachary). Given how frequently such studies have been debunked once the details are clear, it's not hard to put two and two together and suggest that there's nothing much of value in the report... unless you're an old studio wishing to hoodwink the press or politicians.
The Tootsie Roll/Footzyroll trademark fight almost entirely for Tim G's middle paragraph. More like that, please.
The look at how cracking down on P2P software only resulted in increased file sharing, by Glyn. An important point that we've tried to make in the past, but good to see more evidence to support that.
The story of Supergiant Games connecting with a pair of fans in love by recording clips for the groom to use to surprise his bride at the wedding, by Tim G. Always love stories of companies willing to go that extra mile to connect with fans in unique and creative ways.
Kellogg's not just backing down on its silly trademark bullying with a Mayan archaeology group over its use of a toucan, but apparently putting a real effort behind supporting the group (by Tim C). Too often we see bullies who won't back down, or if they do, do so with a quiet apology. Kellogg's seems to have realized it made a big mistake here, and gives every indication that they've learned a lesson and are taking things seriously.

And there you go... my favorite posts of the week. Hope everyone enjoyed some Turkey or Turkey-like meals a couple days ago. I'll be back tomorrow with the weekly comment review...

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

83 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

The eejit (profile), 26 Nov 2011 @ 11:44am

Mike, you're always going on about how you love to connect with fans, but did you really think that this is going to make your TechDirtbag Freetarding thieves broadbrush themselves in a positive light, you disingenuous slimeball?

/doingitrite?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Atkray (profile), 26 Nov 2011 @ 1:30pm
  
  Re:
  I can't remember if this is your first attempt, if so not too bad but you made a classic noob mistake. You used "Mike" instead of pirate mikey or lobbyist mikey.(note you shouldn't capitalize names of people you are insulting).
  
  Additionally, I was expecting something about how low TechDirt has fallen now that Mike can no longer get any Kool-Aid drinkers to post on weekends.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 26 Nov 2011 @ 2:13pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Plus something about how Mike is only patting himself on the back more by choosing his favorite posts and how that's somehow not connecting with the community and giving them reason to buy and how he still managed to link to on of his own posts which is somehow a self promotion. Because you know some troll is likely to say something stupid like that.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 26 Nov 2011 @ 3:01pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      one *
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
The eejit (profile), 26 Nov 2011 @ 11:45am

*A-HEM*

Now that that's out of the way, it's amazing how often mankind can be actively encouraged to shoot itself in the foot for the sake of a few more imaginary trust-based stuff made of paper, isn't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Nov 2011 @ 12:05pm

Ever watched the show Shark Tank?

I'd love to know how you can reconcile the economic and business realities demonstrated on that show with the meme that copyright/patents/trademarks are not integral to business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Marcus Carab (profile), 26 Nov 2011 @ 12:24pm
  
  Re:
  one might argue that the obsession with using intellectual property as a revenue-generating bludgeon is exactly the problem. Instead of all those entrepreneurs struggling to create something technically novel in order to get the patents they need for both defensive and offensive purposes, we could have people doing what they really want to do and what will benefit the world and the free market the most: working to bring useful products and services to market, with success depending on the quality of your implementation not the supposed "originality" of your idea.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 26 Nov 2011 @ 12:56pm
    
    Re: Re:
    So what's in it for the innovator?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Liz (profile), 26 Nov 2011 @ 1:10pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      The innovator has to keep innovating to stay relevant. It's a point of pride to be the one to say, "See this piece of crap? I made it better! And I'm the first to do it!"
      
      The talented ones get a good reputation, more recognition and business. They become the "go to guy" for the latest and greatest.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 26 Nov 2011 @ 1:33pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Can you shelter, feed and cloth yourself on your own or you depend on other to build your shelter, to grow your food and to make your clothes?
      
      By benefiting society you benefit yourself.
      
      So what is in it for the innovator? A better society.
      
      We are not doing that, costs are going up, there is no much work to go around in the current system and resources keep getting scarcer, so it is time to rethink how we do things, it is time to create a society where individuals can become more independent of others so they can pursue what they like and we need to find a way of doing it without money.
      
      This is the challenge for the future generations. To find a way where everyone is comfortable and have the minimum to survive. People need to find ways to continue to create wealth or in other words working with or without money, the only thing important is work, money is not.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 26 Nov 2011 @ 2:18pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      That's why I want IP abolished, it's all about the alleged 'inventor/innovator' (or, more realistically, the useless lawyers). It's not about what's in the best interest of society anymore and it's no longer about promoting the progress. The founding fathers made clear that the purpose of IP should be to serve a social benefit and that no one is entitled to a monopoly privilege but IP maximists have perverted their intent into something entirely different. ABOLISH IP!!! I do not want these laws to exist anymore because they are no longer about what's socially beneficial and even IP maximists seem to admit this.
      
      If an inventor/innovator (useless lawyer) doesn't like it, she doesn't have to 'invent', he can find other jobs instead. Others will invent and innovate better without these allegedly innovative lawyers.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 26 Nov 2011 @ 5:41pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You're amusing.
        
        Your scenario has been attempted before. It was called the U.S.S.R.
        
        It doesn't work.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 26 Nov 2011 @ 6:19pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        .. You know what? I'm just going to leave this here while you discuss Communism, where the government decides to interfere with the market (gee, wonder what happens...):
        
        A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have. - Gerald Ford
        
        I wonder what others feel about copyright...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        A Guy (profile), 26 Nov 2011 @ 6:42pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Actually, in the USSR their was one model for everything. One diswasher, one dryer, one microwave, and one brand of toothpaste.
        
        The USSR's position on IP law was the government owns it all and will decide what is made and when.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Nov 2011 @ 7:28pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Saying that all innovation belongs to the collective is communism.
        
        Sorry.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        A Guy (profile), 26 Nov 2011 @ 7:35pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No, saying the means of production belongs to everyone is communism.
        
        Ideas belonging to everyone is the hallmark of a free society.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Richard (profile), 28 Nov 2011 @ 2:33am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Saying that all innovation belongs to the collective is communism.
        
        Maybe - But the USSR was not communism - what you describe is the free software movement - which is a successful model.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 26 Nov 2011 @ 10:45pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Your scenario has been attempted before. It was called the U.S.S.R.
        
        How so? What the AC was describing sounds like a free market. A system of gov't granted monopolies sound a hell of a lot more like what happened in the USSR.
        
        And, are you really suggesting that "to promote the progress" is a communist ideal? You might want to brush up on the Constitution.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Nov 2011 @ 11:14pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It is your belief that all innovation should be the property of the collective.
        
        That is without any question a communistic way of viewing IP.
        
        I wonder if the Congressmen you are trying to lobby are aware of what your beliefs are.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        A Guy (profile), 27 Nov 2011 @ 12:10am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Pure hyperbole.
        
        The belief that you shouldn't saddle the market with unnecessary, harmful, regulation is the opposite of communism.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        el_segfaulto (profile), 27 Nov 2011 @ 12:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And what the Devil is the matter with benefiting the "collective" (Borg notwithstanding)? Your myopic worldview is sad and cynical, not to mention pathetically self-serving. IP is not a fundamental right, it is a compromise that gives innovators a temporary monopoly in return for enriching society (AKA the collective). Thank Cthulu that people like myself outnumber small-minded twits like you or the internet and computer science itself would be in a sorry state.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rose M. Welch (profile), 27 Nov 2011 @ 1:05am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It is your belief that all innovation should be the property of the collective.
        
        So... You haven't read the Constitution, then, huh? Lemme quote it for you:
        
        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.
        
        You see that 'limited time'? That means that all innovation is the property of the collective, whether you like it or not, except for during that limited time. When this was written it was 7 years.
        
        Communism, my ass.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Nov 2011 @ 4:03am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I really prefer we not bring your ass into this discussion.
        
        Using the life expectancy of 1776, and zero increase in copyright length since, that would make copyright length today between 15-16 years.
        
        However in Communism any innovation immediately belongs to the collective. That is the behavior and beliefs we see from your ilk.
        
        Unquestionably communistic.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Nov 2011 @ 4:51am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Are you naturally retarded, or do you just play one on the Internet?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Nov 2011 @ 8:22am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        This is why IP maxmists are losing public support. Their arguments suck and they keep on using the same old bad arguments over and over. They think this will somehow help them gain support.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Nov 2011 @ 8:14am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Communism requires government. IP abolition does not. Two different things.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Nov 2011 @ 9:11am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        IP abolition requires no government?
        
        Ok, what country is there with no IP?
        
        And what country has banned IP and has no government?
        
        You're just making this up as you go along, aren't you?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Nov 2011 @ 9:46am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No, you just suck at parsing sentences.
        
        "IP abolition does not [require government]"
        
        is not the same as
        
        "IP abolition requires no government"
        
        Parent AC's point is that without a government, there is no one to enforce the IP monopoly.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Nov 2011 @ 11:05am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        What country did you see can stop individuals from sharing data or manufacturing anything they want?
        
        Communists tried they all failed.
        And so IP law will fail too.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Nov 2011 @ 11:03am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Where did you take the "life expectancy" parameter?
        
        There are no parameters, and as I recall the discussions of the time where more like "Monopolies are evil, but a necessary evil for content creators of the useful arts(meaning science) that should not extend the absolutely necessary time to accomplish the goal of incentivizing and not a minute more".
        
        So using nothing it should have been 7 years which is pretty close to the bell curve showing the rise and fall of something with rare exceptions.
        
        Further life + 95 years is not incentivizing progress is incentivizing parasitic behavior, is the same problem that communists had they centralized the decisions and on part had the power to dictate to others what to do and how to do it and we all know how that ended, which is very similar to IP laws, there should be no laws limiting markets in this regard.
        
        But of course you are not an honest person, because if you were you would not be so intellectually dishonest.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rose M. Welch (profile), 27 Nov 2011 @ 8:15pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Using the life expectancy of 1776, and zero increase in copyright length since, that would make copyright length today between 15-16 years.
        
        That length of time sounds very reasonable, especially compared to the hundred-plus years that this comment is covered.
        
        However in Communism any innovation immediately belongs to the collective.
        
        In our republic, any innovation immediately belongs to the collective, which is why we're able to decide who gets the limited use rights for a limited period of time.
        
        Communistic, my Aunt Frieda's left testicle.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Richard (profile), 28 Nov 2011 @ 2:42am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        However in Communism any innovation immediately belongs to the collective. That is the behavior and beliefs we see from your ilk.
        
        Unquestionably communistic.
        
        Maybe - but there is nothing wrong with communism. The problem is that people assume that regimes that claim(ed) to be communist actually are/were.
        
        The regimes you detest were not really communist - they followed a particular branch of communist theory called bolshevism - the belief that communism could be best implemented by a single large organisation that controlled everything. In practice they were unable to implement communism by that means and relapsed very quickly into a form of authoritarian government tha had almost nothing to do with the ideals of communism.
        
        In so doing they gave communism the bad name that enables you to use it as a term of abuse for anyone whose ideals are more altruistic than your own. Kindly learn the real history of the subject before you use the word again.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Nov 2011 @ 8:20am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts"
        
        The founding fathers were communist :)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Nov 2011 @ 1:48am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It is my experience that most people who spout "communism" online have no idea what it is, instead just declaring anything they don't agree with as "communism."
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 27 Nov 2011 @ 2:36pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It is your belief that all innovation should be the property of the collective.
        
        I don't believe that at all. What gives you that idea?
        
        Look, if I own a chair, and you own a copy of the chair, does that mean we collectively own the chair? Of course not. It mean that each of us own our own chair.
        
        That is without any question a communistic way of viewing IP.
        
        You can't be that clueless.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Nov 2011 @ 4:39pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I would think using a chair as an example in this discussion would be considered clueless.
        
        Or more likely, intellectually dishonest, which you have a long record of being.
        
        Your stance is simple: upon creation, an innovation or work becomes the property of the collective.
        
        Give me examples of you *not* believing in this communistic principle, as I can give thousands of examples of you complaining about the basic precepts that surround copyright/trademarks/patents and how they protect the rights of the innovator and creator.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 27 Nov 2011 @ 5:55pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Your stance is simple: upon creation, an innovation or work becomes the property of the collective.
        
        No, your argument is intellectually dishonest and misleading.
        
        Give me examples of you *not* believing in this communistic principle, as I can give thousands of examples of you complaining about the basic precepts that surround copyright/trademarks/patents and how they protect the rights of the innovator and creator
        
        You're full of it... Copyright law has not protected innovators or creators in the last 100 years. I'll even argue that the public has gained little societal benefit from copyright enforcement, which is still a government mandated monopoly. Where is your proof that copyright has increased knowledge and learning or protected the innovators and/or creators?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Nov 2011 @ 6:08pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You're full of it... Copyright law has not protected innovators or creators in the last 100 years.
        lol. you're an idiot.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 27 Nov 2011 @ 9:45pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Nice to know you've never heard about the Berne Convention.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 27 Nov 2011 @ 9:53pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I would think using a chair as an example in this discussion would be considered clueless.
        
        You would think that only if you were clueless.
        
        Or more likely, intellectually dishonest, which you have a long record of being.
        
        Ah, ad hom. So convincing. I am intellectually honest to a fault. Being intellectually dishonest would not serve me well as my readers would call me out on it.
        
        Your stance is simple: upon creation, an innovation or work becomes the property of the collective.
        
        That's not my stance, never been my stance, and never will be my stance. Why must you lie? Are you really so desperate that you now need to make things up?
        
        I do not believe that anything should ever become "property of the collective." I am a strong believer in both property rights and the free market. You, on the other hand, appear to be a believer in centralized gov't granted monopolies. I have trouble understanding how my view is somehow more "communist" than yours.
        
        Give me examples of you *not* believing in this communistic principle, as I can give thousands of examples of you complaining about the basic precepts that surround copyright/trademarks/patents and how they protect the rights of the innovator and creator.
        
        Your confusion should not allow you to falsely put words in my mouth. You seem to confuse *actual* property rights with artificial monopoly rights. And, because of that, you appear to falsely believe that my belief in real property means "for the collective." I have never argued that any idea, innovation or content belongs to "the collective."
        
        Since I have never suggested that I'd say that pretty much every post on Techdirt goes against that idea. As for your claim that you can give me thousands of examples of me "complaining" about copyright/trademarks/patents, that's absolutely true. But complaining about systems that do more harm than good is me complaining about artificial gov't monopoly grants, not arguing that anything belongs to the collective.
        
        I'm not sure what made you make such a leap, but I assure you that it is wholly inaccurate.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Nov 2011 @ 8:15am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Communism is a result of government action. IP abolition requires no government. If anything, IP is closer to communism being that IP requires government intervention.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Techdirtbag, 27 Nov 2011 @ 11:28am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "So what's in it for the innovator?"
      All the greedtards seem to believe you should get a lifetime free ride for one idea, and if anything come close to that idea, then they extort money from those who ARE actually working hard and producing something. Sorry to break it to you, the only freetards out there are the ones that use patents to avoid actually working hard. THEY want a free ride. THEY dont want to innovate. THEY dont want to work hard. THEY are the true freetards that leech off of society.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- A Guy (profile), 26 Nov 2011 @ 1:23pm
  
  Re:
  I've never seen shark tank, but no IP laws or IP law as it stands today is a false choice.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 26 Nov 2011 @ 2:37pm
  
  Re:
  Ever watched the show Shark Tank?
  
  Yes. It's like watching a trainwreck. My advice to anyone who goes on that show: use it for marketing, but never, ever, take money from anyone on that show. The deals they negotiate are awful for the entrepreneur, and no one should ever agree to an investment after 5 minutes with an investor. Do you agree to marry your wife after a 5 minute date?
  
  I'd love to know how you can reconcile the economic and business realities demonstrated on that show with the meme that copyright/patents/trademarks are not integral to business.
  
  The only one who seems to really focus on IP stuff is Kevin O'Leary -- the show's certifiable "jerk." He makes for good TV, but his business acumen is suspect. You should look up his history. The show touts the fact that he sold The Learning Company to Mattel for almost $4 billion. What they leave out is that this acquisition was later called "one of the worst acquisitions in corporate history" resulted in a big payout to shareholders, and the unit that was bought for nearly $4 billion was sold off two years later for about $27 million. Yes. $4 billion to $27 million in about 2 years. All because Mattel didn't know what it was buying.
  
  http://securities.stanford.edu/news-archive/2002/20021206_Settlement05_Goldman.htm
  
  O'L eary is good at hype and bluster -- and pulled an amazing sales job on Mattel. But building long lasting, sustainable businesses? I'm not so sure I'd trust him.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Karl (profile), 26 Nov 2011 @ 2:46pm
    
    Re: Re:
    He makes for good TV, but his business acumen is suspect.
    
    Ha. The same thing happened with the BBC version. Rachel Elnaugh, one of the early "dragons," agreed to leave the show after her main business, Red Letter Days, went bankrupt.
    
    Those who can't do, teach; those who can't teach, go on TV.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 26 Nov 2011 @ 5:47pm
    
    Re: Re:
    It is telling that you focus on some issues about the show that you wanted to focus on, rather than the ones you were asked about.
    
    Whether it is shark tank or any other entrepreneurial scenario, how can you pretend copyright/patents/trademarks are not crucial tools for profitable business ventures?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Jay (profile), 26 Nov 2011 @ 6:22pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Whether it is shark tank or any other entrepreneurial scenario, how can you pretend copyright/patents/trademarks are not crucial tools for profitable business ventures
      
      Because they're not crucial tools that businesses need. They exist as myths that gatekeepers use to hinder a business from being profitable in the long run.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 26 Nov 2011 @ 7:31pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It must be nice to make silly grand statements that have no historical precedent and then pretend that they are true.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        A Guy (profile), 26 Nov 2011 @ 7:38pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You don't know much about history do you?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Samuel Abram (profile), 26 Nov 2011 @ 8:09pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You said this:
        
        It must be nice to make silly grand statements that have no historical precedent and then pretend that they are true.
        
        in reply to this:
        
        [Copyright, Patents, and Trademarks are] not crucial tools that businesses need. They exist as myths that gatekeepers use to hinder a business from being profitable in the long run.
        
        I say: "Yes and No". I think so-called intellectual property in the past served as catalysts for businesses rather than fundamentals. After all, didn't George Romero make a lot of money on "Night of the Living Dead" despite never copyrighting it?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        A Guy (profile), 26 Nov 2011 @ 8:18pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The United States rose to power in no small part due to its ability to throw out British IP laws. China is rising to power due in no small part due to it completely ignoring IP laws.
        
        There are many, many other examples of the new powers rising above the old due to their ability to reorder their economy without political and economic gatekeepers in place to stop them.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        A Guy (profile), 26 Nov 2011 @ 8:44pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I do NOT advocate the complete repeal of IP laws. Trademark law in particular is implemented well. However, there are massive problems in our current implementation of patent law. Copyright could also use a tweak.
        
        Too many lawyers attracted to any industry outside of criminal justice is a clue you are doing it wrong.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 26 Nov 2011 @ 9:28pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It must be nice to make silly grand statements that have no historical precedent and then pretend that they are true.
        
        You've been warned.
        *cracks knuckles*
        
        5 filesharing panics before the internet
        
        Books - Economic history of copyright in Europe and the US:
        
        It is generally proposed that, in the absence of private or public forms of exclusion, prices will tend to be driven down to the low or zero marginal costs and the original producer would be unable to recover the initial investment.
        
        Part of the debate about copyright exists because it is still not clear whether state enforcement is necessary to enable owners to gain returns, or whether the producers of copyrightable products respond significantly to financial incentives. Producers of these public goods might still be able to appropriate returns without copyright laws or in the face of widespread infringement, through such strategies as encryption, cartelization, the provision of complementary products, private monitoring and enforcement, market segmentation, network externalities, first mover effects and product differentiation. Patronage, taxation, subsidies, or public provision, might also comprise alternatives to copyright protection. In some instances "authors" (broadly defined) might be more concerned about nonfinancial rewards such as enhanced reputations or more extensive diffusion.
        
        Now, let's look at the US since we've gotten the introductions out of the way, shall we?
        
        Effects of Copyright Piracy
        
        The United States stood out in contrast to countries such as France, where Louis Napoleon's Decree of 1852 prohibited counterfeiting of both foreign and domestic works. Other countries which were affected by American piracy retaliated by refusing to recognize American copyrights. Despite the lobbying of numerous authors and celebrities on both sides of the Atlantic, the American copyright statutes did not allow for copyright protection of foreign works for fully one century. As a result, American publishers and producers freely pirated foreign literature, art, and drama.
        
        ...
        
        What were the effects of piracy? First, did the American industry suffer from cheaper foreign books being dumped on the domestic market? This does not seem to have been the case. After controlling for the type of work, the cost of the work, and other variables, the prices of American books were lower than prices of foreign books. American book prices may have been lower to reflect lower perceived quality or other factors that caused imperfect substitutability between foreign and local products. As might be expected, prices were not exogenously and arbitrarily fixed, but varied in accordance with a publisher�s estimation of market factors such as the degree of competition and the responsiveness of demand to determinants. The reading public appears to have gained from the lack of copyright, which increased access to the superior products of more developed markets in Europe, and in the long run this likely improved both the demand and supply of domestic science and literature.
        
        Movies - Pirates are the industry's best customers:
        
        The GfK source says that the study shows �If you download films, you have an increased interest in the cinema�, which only highlights how stupid it would be for the authorities to carry out their implied threat of prosecuting Kino.to users.
        
        Music - Hadopi cuts off nose to spite face
        
        HADOPI is betting that warnings will be enough to push the percentage of file sharers down�a view the survey says is also shared by 33% of filesharers. That�s not an illogical assumption, and time will tell if it�s right. But the evidence suggests that there are lots of ways this bet could go wrong, even if HADOPI survives the inevitable judicial scrutiny in France and at the EU level (and growing political opposition). If piracy is a sampling and discovery tool for high spenders, then suppressing piracy could depress legal sales. If�as I�ll argue at more length in a subsequent post�we�re in a mostly zero-sum market in which consumers are maxed out on discretionary media expenditures, then enforcement won�t significantly expand but at best just cannibalize one media sector for another.
        
        Games - Gabe Newell's consistent stance:
        
        "We think there is a fundamental misconception about piracy," Newell said. "Piracy is almost always a service problem and not a pricing problem. For example, if a pirate offers a product anywhere in the world, 24/7, purchasable from the convenience of your personal computer, and the legal provider says the product is region-locked, will come to your country three months after the U.S. release and can only be purchased at a brick and mortar store, then the pirate's service is more valuable.
        
        So, AC, you're not only wrong about past experience with piracy, but you're wrong about the service issue that piracy solves. Care to change your argument or do you stand thoroughly debunked based on just a smidgen of data that proves you wrong?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Fucktard, 26 Nov 2011 @ 9:34pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        oh ya well ur gay
        
        i hpoe hitler pees in ur buthole
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        JMT (profile), 27 Nov 2011 @ 1:38pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "If piracy is a sampling and discovery tool for high spenders, then suppressing piracy could depress legal sales. If�as I�ll argue at more length in a subsequent post�we�re in a mostly zero-sum market in which consumers are maxed out on discretionary media expenditures, then enforcement won�t significantly expand but at best just cannibalize one media sector for another." [Emphasis mine]
        
        This can't be repeated often enough. Even in a piracy-free fantasy land I won't have any more money so I won't be spending any more on content. I already spend all I'm willing and able to spend on entertainment, so any efforts to prevent me from accessing unauthorised content is money down the drain. Give me a reason to purchase more, i.e. better content and/or lower prices, and I will. Don't, and I won't. This is not an "attitude of entitlement" as some will accuse, it's just a simple economic reality.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Richard (profile), 28 Nov 2011 @ 2:51am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It must be nice to make silly grand statements that have no historical precedent and then pretend that they are true.
        
        OK Here's one from the Wikipedia article on Frank Whittle:
        
        "Still at Cambridge, Whittle could ill afford the �5 renewal fee for his jet engine patent when it became due in January 1935, and because the Air Ministry refused to pay it the patent was allowed to lapse. Shortly afterwards, in May, he received mail from Rolf Dudley-Williams, who had been with him at Cranwell in the 1920s and Felixstowe in 1930. Williams arranged a meeting with Whittle, himself, and another now-retired RAF serviceman, James Collingwood Tinling. The two proposed a partnership that allowed them to act on Whittle's behalf to gather public financing so that development could go ahead.[3]"
        
        So, if patents are so vital to the financing of tech based business ventures how come Whittle was able to get funding for his ideas after he let the patent lapse??
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Mike Masnick (profile), 26 Nov 2011 @ 10:41pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      It is telling that you focus on some issues about the show that you wanted to focus on, rather than the ones you were asked about.
      
      You asked about the show. I told you about it. If you think it's, in any way, representative of the process by which startups get funding, you are sadly deluded. It's a TV show.
      
      Whether it is shark tank or any other entrepreneurial scenario, how can you pretend copyright/patents/trademarks are not crucial tools for profitable business ventures?
      
      Nothing to pretend. They simply ARE NOT crucial tools. Are they used by some? Sure. Do a few short-sighted investors think they're important? Yes. But that doesn't mean much. There are always some bad investors. As I've told many entrepreneurs, taking investments from someone who overvalues patents is likely to end badly. I tend to trust investors like Fred Wilson, Brad Burnham, Brad Feld and others who have pointed out how patents have done much more harm to their investments over the years. And those guys have invested in a ton of the hottest startups around.
      
      Trust me, what happens on an extremely contrived reality TV show is not what happens on Sand Hill. It's why one recent study showed 80% of engineers are against software patents. They're not a crucial tool. They're a massive nuisance.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Karl (profile), 26 Nov 2011 @ 2:38pm
  
  Re:
  Ever watched the show Shark Tank?
  
  Let me get this straight... you're basing your business knowledge on a reality TV show, and not on the opinion of an actual businessman, who essentially "swims with sharks" for a living? Okay, then.
  
  Also, it's interesting that you should mention "Shark Tank," since it is based on a BBC program called "Dragon's Den," which was itself based on a Japanese show called "Tiger of Money." Not exactly a poster child for originality, is it?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 26 Nov 2011 @ 3:41pm
    
    Re: Re:
    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nigel (profile), 26 Nov 2011 @ 12:12pm

No one gives a shit about the completely contrived show that is shark tank. You got anything else? In the meantime, how do we reconcile your ignorance? Its nice to see you clowns have techdirt on speed dial though.

Nigel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 26 Nov 2011 @ 12:57pm
  
  Re:
  The show isn't contrived at all.
  
  But your response certainly was.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 26 Nov 2011 @ 11:21pm
    
    Re: Re:
    It's a 'reality tv show,' hence it is contrived. Do you honestly think that what happens on those shows just happens?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 Nov 2011 @ 9:50am
    
    Re: Re:
    "I know you are but what am I?"
    
    - Parent
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Karl (profile), 26 Nov 2011 @ 2:39pm

Thanksgiving
Since nobody else said it: Happy Thanksgiving! And welcome back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 26 Nov 2011 @ 3:28pm
  
  Re: Thanksgiving
  Happy Thanksgiving? What about Merry Christmas!!!! (I know it's early, but commercial America doesn't seem to think so).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Rose M. Welch (profile), 27 Nov 2011 @ 1:10am
    
    Re: Re: Thanksgiving
    It's Turkey Day for me, since I don't wanna give thanks for anything to do with pilgrim/Native American interaction.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
  
  Anonymous Coward, 26 Nov 2011 @ 6:13pm
  
  Re: Thanksgiving
  Since nobody else said it: Happy Thanksgiving! And welcome back.
  
  Why don't you just go toss his salad, you lickspittle.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - xenomancer (profile), 27 Nov 2011 @ 1:31am
    
    Re: Re: Thanksgiving
    Who the hell has a tossed salad at the Thanksgiving dinner table? That is just a craven excuse to promote the vegan agenda of dominating the world by the slow introduction of anemia.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nigel Lew (profile), 26 Nov 2011 @ 6:24pm

"how can you pretend copyright/patents/trademarks are not crucial tools for profitable business ventures?"

We don't pretend, we are fighting against it and make that very clear. The laws are a hot mess.

I will give you a hint. We are fighting, as well, for your ability to be an anonymous, pussy.(sorry ladies, if we have any)

Nigel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Nov 2011 @ 7:01pm

Congratulations on being widely read. I've run into several articles that pull straight from your thread mentioned on this topic.

Yeah, most did credit you with the source, if not the link embedded in with their write ups.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kollektiv truzhenikov SSSR, 27 Nov 2011 @ 6:12am

Re: the Collective
Innovation is a process, so how can anyone own it? Only physical products embodying innovation can have owners! But then, an IP-less private-property system is pretty much sufficient - just don't sell your early products cheaply. ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 27 Nov 2011 @ 2:33pm

WTF?
All this discussion, and yet nothing about the awesomeness that was my one great graph?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jay (profile), 27 Nov 2011 @ 5:48pm
  
  Re: WTF?
  What one great graph?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- A Guy (profile), 27 Nov 2011 @ 7:37pm
  
  Re: WTF?
  Nice graph.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rose M. Welch (profile), 28 Nov 2011 @ 5:54am
  
  Re: WTF?
  I didn't look at it, because it wasn't in prose. :P
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2011 @ 1:52am

As for your claim that you can give me thousands of examples of me "complaining" about copyright/trademarks/patents, that's absolutely true. But complaining about systems that do more harm than good is me complaining about artificial gov't monopoly grants, not arguing that anything belongs to the collective.

If this isn't the most classic, condensed example of Masnick talking out of both sides of his mouth, I don't know what is.

The entire point of copyright/trademarks/patents is so that innovations and creations do not end up immediately belonging to the collective upon inception.

LOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Richard (profile), 28 Nov 2011 @ 3:02am
  
  Re:
  
  The entire point of copyright/trademarks/patents is so that innovations and creations do not end up immediately belonging to the collective upon inception.
  
  They do not belong to the collective on inception. They don't belong to anyone because they can't be owned. They are naturally available to everyone who gets to hear about them from the time that they acquired the knowledge. So if you want to keep your ideas to yourself don't tell anyone - plenty of innvoations are treated that way - even in a world with patents that are supposed to encourage disclosure.
  
  Let's get this straight. You cannot "own" an idea. This is not a politcal argument or a slogan - it is a fact like the value of pi. If you disagree with it you are just being palin stupid.
  
  What (so called) IP law does is to create monopolies. Having a monopoly is not the same thing as owning something. Pretending that it is is just sloppy thinking.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Richard (profile), 28 Nov 2011 @ 3:03am
    
    Re: Re:
    palin stupid.
    
    I meant to write "plain stupid" - but then again....
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2011 @ 7:10am
    
    Re: Re:
    They do not belong to the collective on inception.
    
    Thanks to copyrights/trademarks/patents.
    
    They don't belong to anyone because they can't be owned.
    
    Copyrights/trademarks/patents allow people to control their creations/innovations.
    
    So if you want to keep your ideas to yourself don't tell anyone - plenty of innvoations are treated that way
    
    Oh that sounds like a great way to move society forward...
    
    Sorry, but that's exactly why copyrights/trademarks/patents exist: to promote progress without fear of being exploited by those less talented. IOW, leeches.
    
    Let's get this straight. You cannot "own" an idea.
    
    Where did I say you could? You're just using weasel words now.
    
    Having a monopoly is not the same thing as owning something. Pretending that it is is just sloppy thinking.
    
    And controlling something is not the same thing as a monopoly. Pretending that is just sloppy thinking.
    
    Learn the definition of monopoly.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Richard (profile), 28 Nov 2011 @ 1:46pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      They do not belong to the collective on inception.
      
      Thanks to copyrights/trademarks/patents.
      
      No - thanks to non-disclosure.
      
      Copyrights/trademarks/patents allow people to control their creations/innovations.
      But not to own them - and the control only extends as far as laws can be enforced.
      
      If I own a chair I can physically control it and stop others sitting on it. If I hold the copyright on a song I can't stop the postman from humming it on his rounds.
      
      So if you want to keep your ideas to yourself don't tell anyone - plenty of innvoations are treated that way
      
      Oh that sounds like a great way to move society forward...
      
      Yes - and it happens like that NOW, WITH the patent system.
      
      People only patent things when they are pretty sure that someone else will have (/already has had) the same idea.
      
      So the patent system fails - by your own admission.
      
      Sorry, but that's exactly why copyrights/trademarks/patents exist: to promote progress without fear of being exploited by those less talented. IOW, leeches.
      
      and it fails miserably. All it does is to provide another mechanism for the leeches to exploit the talented.
      
      And controlling something is not the same thing as a monopoly. Pretending that is just sloppy thinking.
      
      Learn the definition of monopoly.
      
      I rather think it is you who needs this education.
      
      From the free online dictionary.
      
      "1. Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service: "Monopoly frequently ... arises from government support or from collusive agreements among individuals" (Milton Friedman).
      2. Law A right granted by a government giving exclusive control over a specified commercial activity to a single party."
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 28 Nov 2011 @ 11:24am
  
  Re:
  The entire point of copyright/trademarks/patents is so that innovations and creations do not end up immediately belonging to the collective upon inception.
  
  Only an idiot would think that not having IP means "the collective" owns anything.
  
  Again: you own a chair. I own a copy of the same chair. Do we collectively own the chair? Of course not.
  
  Stop being an idiot.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2011 @ 11:56am
    
    Re: Re:
    If you can rephrase this statement to make some sense, along with addressing the statement originally made, we will then possibly reconsider the fact that you are the idiot here, big boy.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - A Guy (profile), 28 Nov 2011 @ 12:27pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Makes perfect sense to me. Crafting a new copy of a chair is not the same as stealing a chair.
      
      Crafting a new chair increases the wealth of chairs. Stealing a chair does not.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]