Why Copyright & Patent Laws Go Against How We Create
from the in-ten-minutes dept
We've written about Kirby Ferguson many times before. The filmmaker behind the absolutely awesome Everything Is A Remix series of videos, has just posted a 10 minute TED talk he recently did, which you absolutely should watch. It very simply explains how the nature of both creativity and innovation revolves around building on the works of others, but that both copyright and patent laws are based on the exact opposite belief -- that creativity and innovation springs wholly new from one's head, and thus deserves some form of property rights. Whatever you do, find 10 minutes to watch this video:
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: bob dylan, copyright, culture, everything is a remix, inventions, kirby ferguson, patents, remix, steve jobs
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
(I stole that.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wha?
I beg your pardon?
The lawsuit business is a happenin' industry with an extremely bright present and a brilliant future!
You should check your facts before posting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
We aren't advancing very quickly if all we are doing is duplicating yesterday.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I am sorry, can you please point me any animated feature movie that Disney duplicated? You know, took frames from, took the character art from, etc?
Can you show me where they took stories that were NOT in the public domain?
Waiting... don't hurt yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The public domain(legal copying of other's works) gave them the building blocks to create their classic movies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kimba_the_White_Lion#The_Lion_King_controversy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So you're admitting that Walt Disney copied from the works of others? That the ideas for his movies did *not* spring forth entirely from his own mind?
What are you, some low-life pirate apologist?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What are you, some low-life pirate apologist?"
it's so hard to deal with narrow minded children.
There is a big difference between "inspired from" and "copy of". We are all inspired by what we have seen, heard, and experienced in life. However, there is a difference between using a finished product as part of your own, compared to just being inspired by it.
If you cannot understand the basic concept, it's pretty hard to move forward.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Public Domain for me but not for thee!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Stop and think of what you wrote for a moment. They took characters, stories and God knows what more from the public domain to make their stuff. Samples from the public domain.
At least try not to embarrass yourself with obvious bs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not being sarcastic, I don't think it's ever happened.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"Wow, great public domain works to serve as building blocs for the creation of our movies and related works!"
"We can't let MIckey mouse become public domain, that would kill the creation of new works based on mickey mouse!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
B-Boys
3rd Bass
and on
and on
"We aren't advancing very quickly if all we are doing is duplicating yesterday."
Greetards cant see past their own nose.
"We are advancing very quickly if we are allowed to duplicate and BUILD UPON yesterday."
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Sampling is not the same as copying when you are making a new work, even if that work is made up from the composite pieces of prior works. This is the definition of building upon culture, and it is a tragedy that this is no longer considered simple fair use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That's a load of horseshit. All that the media conglomerates do is make "new" works from samples. Look at Disney, everything they sell is blatant sampling that has been remixed. Everything, and I mean everything, is made up from everything that came before. The very act of creation relies on this very fact. If there was no prior to draw from, there would be no new art.
This whole idea of property, in general (not just IP), is a common mental illness that too many people suffer from. The truth is, you can purchase and acquire all the natural wealth of the world; but once you're gone (and by extension, when we're all gone), it all goes back to where it came from. You buy nothing, you own nothing, everything is borrowed until such a time that you must give it back to the earth. So why are you putting so much effort and attachment into acquisition when it nets you nothing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
See, you started with a valid point about the absurdity of copyright maximism and then went into communist DERP.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Marx stalin mao che che che being a commie is alright to be
YOU ARE A COMMIE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
STFU and GTFO.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I will say that just because you won't have something after death does not mean you have no reason to value it in life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As long as you're willing to add your own point of view, to debate, to offer a new piece of insight, then you're welcome here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
OMG, is that you, mom?
Seriously, that sounds exactly what my 84 year old mother sounds like, whenever anyone disagrees with her. She belongs to an era when being a commie was the single worst thing you could possibly be, and the single worst thing you could ever call someone. Of course, her generation also shrank from the dreaded "F" bomb, a word the rest of us toss around pretty much daily these days. Things change.
I think being a "corporatist" is gonna be the next "commie." They are much, much more dangerous to our American way of life at this point than the silly, ol' commies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Marx stalin mao che che che being a commie is alright to be
YOU ARE A COMMIE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
See, you started with a valid point about the absurdity of copyright maximism and then went into communist DERP.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It's neither.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Beastie Boys 1986 album "License to Ill"
Beastie Boys 1989 album "Paul's Boutique"
The Defense rests its case.
Next!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Just call it a "bobstorm"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another concept that fails in the light of reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"What's with "the progress"? These [words] make no sense in the sentence"... makes perfect sense also.
What's your point?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As an example, imagine how much more would have been invented/created if every startup company didn't have to worry about being sued out of existence by companies who exist for no other reason but to destroy startups via patent trolling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The Internet.
And what role did patents and copyrights play in development of The Internet?
The basic infrastructure, being funded by the government(s), was placed and remains in the public domain.
The concept and implementation of the World-Wide Web was never patented and the W3C had and has a policy which refuses adoption of any standard unless any requisite patents are licensed on a royalty-free basis.
Furthermore, nearly all implementations of web servers and browsers were either licensed permissively, shareware, or free for noncommercial, academic, or testing purposes. Source code was commonly made available.
In short, the greatest invention of the last 30 years (if not the last 3000) was neither inspired by nor relied upon patents or copyrights. Quite the opposite, the creators of the Internet often had to explicitly circumvent the extant IP regimes in order to see it developed and adopted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The fact that the past 30 years there has been more technological evolution than in the past 100 or 1000 years has nothing to do with the existence of patents. It's a completely different phenomena that's also called the Law of Accelerated Returns, that says things are moving ever faster. So in the next 10 years we'll be moving faster than in the last 10, then in the next after that even faster, and so on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The fact that the past 30 years there has been more technological evolution than in the past 100 or 1000 years has nothing to do with the existence of patents. It's a completely different phenomena that's also called the Law of Accelerated Returns, that says things are moving ever faster. So in the next 10 years we'll be moving faster than in the last 10, then in the next after that even faster, and so on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fixating on the wrong part of the last 30 years
Otherwise you might be stuck with MS-DOS.
Ownership of invention necessarily slows down progress. Apple has done a good job of banning some of it's modern rivals already. If they get what they want, it will be 20 years before Samsung et al can move things forward again.
Trying to fixate on the last 30 years ignores the fact that patents have been greatly expanded in the last 10.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fixating on the wrong part of the last 30 years
More properly, it's the failure of Xerox, not Apple. Or, to be really picky about it, the very first multi-panel window-based GUI was made in the mid-'50s by the US Air Force before even Xerox, named SAGE.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fixating on the wrong part of the last 30 years
Thanks for bringing up SAGE, was unaware of that and I love learning nerdy things
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fixating on the wrong part of the last 30 years
THE MORE I KNOW
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Fixating on the wrong part of the last 30 years
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Patents are intended to give the inventor control of their invention for a period of time so they make a profit from it and cover their expenses, but after that time (in the past it was 15 years max) it is supposed to go into the public domain so others may grow and expand upon that idea and use it other inventions. It is the end price of the legal protection a patent offers, fostering further innovation. A patent is not supposed to be granted for obvious ideas or ideas that are not new to the field they are in. "design" patents like Apple's for a rectangle with a screen to replace a pad of paper do not meet the test and yet are being issued, they are in direct opposition to the purpose of patents. The "last 30 years" have actually been the fruits of the decades before that, all the way back to a 1925 Canadian patent for a transistor design that was never built but was later studied by the Bell labs bunch that invented the first working one in the 1940's. Under some of the patent law and treaty garbage going on these days, the extensions and various weirdness being allowed and encouraged by patent troll companies that invent nothing except more legal fees, one of them could have bought this Canadian patent for a few bucks and used it as leverage against Bell Labs to squeeze them. The simple existence of such a patent today discourages research work of the type they were doing then. Patents are a balance between encouraging inventors and fostering innovation through information sharing, the patent trolls are unbalancing the system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
golf clap
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: golf clap
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: golf clap
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: golf clap
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The neandethals were better problem solvers than us but we were better comunicators. We could build on the ideas of others, coordinate and cooperate on a level nothing else on the planet could match. There's only so much good a genius mind can do when it can't share the concepts it creates. We humans aren't special because we're intelligent, we're special because we comunicate. Every single new development in comunications has had a massive culture and social shift to accompany it.
There are few great discoveries we have made that are the work of single mind and fewer still not based on the discoveries that have come before it. Few inventions are independant of the inventions before it. Everything we have achieved as species is not because we are an intelligent people, no it's because we build on everything that came before.
Anything that penalizes building on what we already have penalizes progress.
Anything that stifles comunication in any way is unacceptable because to comunicate is to be human.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Homo sapien DUMB
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
— Wit, The Way of Kings, Brandon Sanderson
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Inside Opinion
With regard to copyright, the test for infringement is substantial similarity. Obviously direct copying is substantially similar. Aside from fair use, there are many things which are pretty much ignored as far as copying goes. These "scenes a faire" as they are called in copyright law, are elements typical to a particular form of art that are expected and permissible to borrow in light of the specific genre. For example, star-crossed lovers in a musical or certain chords in certain genres of music. Given that wiggle room one can build off the creation of others and create non-infringing art. BONUS: Independent creation of the same thing is not infringement.
With regard to patent it is interesting to note that a person can patent a novel, non-obvious improvement on an existing invention and gain exclusive right over everyone, including the inventor of the non-improved invention. This usually results in a license from either the original inventor or the improver and the inventor/society win. In other words, if you think you've got a good idea, do a patent search and then do better.
I think it is ignorant to say that intellectual property law stifles creativity in general. There are many criticisms to the system but the general purpose is to promote disclosure rather than secrecy. If people have a guarantee of exclusivity, then they will produce with the knowledge they will be compensated and the public benefits from their creations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wrong, but it does tend to strike a responsive chord with persons unfamiliar with the underlying basis of both copyright and patent law. Neither may be relied upon to secure rights in ideas per se. Copyright requires original expression, with such expression in the US being subject to certain built in first Amendment limitations. Patent law requires a new, useful, and non-obvious invention that is measured against the prior art. The speaker makes nary a mention of these crucial and governing limitations, and to this extent he misleads his audiences.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
more dissembling by Masnick
Not all competition is fair. When the courts permit a larger competitor to use an invention without the inventor's permission, it's like having a duel where your challenger has your gun and all the bullets. Think again...or just think!
It’s about property rights. They should not only be for the rich and powerful. Show me a country with weak or ineffective property rights and I’ll show you a weak economy and high unemployment.
Masnick and his monkeys have an unreported conflict of interest-
https://www.insightcommunity.com/cases.php?n=10&pg=1
They sell blog filler and "insights" to major corporations including MS, HP, IBM etc. who just happen to be some of the world’s most frequent patent suit defendants. Obviously, he has failed to report his conflicts as any reputable reporter would. But then Masnick and his monkeys are not reporters. They are patent system saboteurs receiving funding from huge corporate infringers. They cannot be trusted and have no credibility. All they know about patents is they don’t have any.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: more dissembling by Masnick
But then, any comparason between physical goods and ideas is going to be absurd.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ferguson is wrong, fits right in with Masnik
Assembled in a unique and non-obvious way to solve one or more problems they are not in any way inevitable.
The very best patents once understood are compellingly obvious IN HINDSIGHT ONLY.
As I have for Masnik I took a quick look on google.com/patents for Mr. Ferguson, and like Masnik, "Kirby Ferguson" doesn't have any patents or any idea what it takes to invent anything besides the B.S. he spouts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Harvard professor making a great point in a great way
Revisiting laws that choke creativity
http://www.legaco.org/blog/revisiting-laws-choke-creativity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is there a phrase known as Patent Abuse?
I know that there is always an abuse of a system and how people get around the systems, but for a company (art company that teaches a basic drawing method) to just use this to intimidate others that might make a better product or give the public other choices, for example there are more than one brand of watercolors on the market.
I do understand someone wanting to protect their hard work and make a profit from it before it goes into public domain, but to keep applying for patent pending to keep others away when the patent has been rejected and with a final rejected.
So, what methods do the U.S. Patent Office have against this kind of usages. Last question when a patent is rejected when do that company have to stop using "we have a patent pending." Also, how long does it take a drawing methods of art from (Like a book on step-by-step how to draw a pattern) application to go through the patent process.
Last, is it common for company to keep submit patent that keep getting reject over and over and do you know off the top of your head the highest number of a company patent was rejected. (I am not asking for that company name).
Thanks
And if anyone can answer my questions I do appreciate it or if not can you share where I can get these answers from.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is there a phrase known as Patent Abuse?
A patent's duration lasts from the day it was filed, so it is no use to delay the issuance because while it is pending it is unenforceable.
A patent is no longer pending when it is no longer being examined. That is, when they run out of money for filing request for continued examinations. Like I said, however, the clock is ticking from the moment it is on file so it is best to get it issued.
The time for prosecution for just about anything is about 2 years. 1 year for them to even get to it, and another of back and forth with the examiner.
Before the law was changed to count the term of the patent from filing, rather than issuance, one attorney and inventor kept a patent in prosecution for 39 years waiting for technology to catch up. Then they made millions of dollars off of it when it finally issued. For this reason, patent's terms last from filing rather than issuance.
All of this is in the MPEP at the USPTO website. Albeit difficult to browse, you can find just about any answer in there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And no one would patent/copyright it
Would it still be an idea?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good Question Anonymous Coward
Don't get me wrong I am not putting myself down, but my intelligent come shining through if I have to defend someone or something that is too weak to defend itself. My husband tell me why can you do what you do for others for yourself.
Also, I have learned knowing the truth or fact (facts can change) is more important then being right, however I have also learned that the truth is in the eye of the beholder . . . . .
Have a great day!
Penandink777
[ link to this | view in chronology ]