I'll remember to use that line when I try to push an idea to market. I will tell them to work for free, because it doesn't cost money, it only cost resources.
But I will concede and agree with you, a communist state is not a good idea, but also absolute ownership on IP is not a good idea either.
There is no absolute ownership. Patents are for a VERY limited time, copyright is for a limited time as well. They are generally very narrow in context. As I said before, you know that copyright isn't over broad when you go to a major bookstore and see tens of thousands of different books for sale, often multiple books on the same subjects.
Since there is no absolute ownership of IP, the rest of your argument is moot.
If it was a parody, which I truly doubt. I more looks like an attempt to defame a person, and put words in their mouth. The speech is effectively slanderous, and is likely to create confusion amongst people who would see it.
I am not defending ADM (I think they are aggressive jerks in many ways) but this is not the method to get back at them. As I said in another post:
"I would say the person who posted the video (who is probably working very hard to stay anonymous) will be lucky if they don't get a very fat legal spike up their butts."
ADM owns the video, and all the rights that go with it. The only exceptions would be the standard run of fair use items (which are still really a defense, essentially admitting violation "but....").
ADM posted the video online. Merely copying the video is not illegal.
For your personal consumption, yes. For use as part of a news story, yes. To use in other ways, well, now it depends.
The redubbed video could not have been mistaken as something ADM had produced. Nor did it exploit any market ADM had in mind for the video when it produced the orignal video.
You see, that is where you hit a problem. First, we don't have the dubbed video to make that distinction. However, I can say from looking at what the content was of the dubbed message, it's intent was to exactly mimic the original speaker, and to create confusion. There was no "tee-hee" as Kevin Smith would call it.
It's Mike's old "moron in a hurry" thing. If the average person, without knowing the details, might be mislead by the dubbed video, then it is likely not a parody.
I have no doubt that ADM sent a takedown notice because the video reflected poorly on the company.
Actually, I suspect they used DMCA because it was expedient to stop what would appear to be a misleading and slanderous video from making the rounds. Humor is humor, but putting hateful and nasty words into someone else mouth and making it like they said them isn't funny, it is mean, nasty, and slanderous.
I would say the person who posted the video (who is probably working very hard to stay anonymous) will be lucky if they don't get a very fat legal spike up their butts.
So your whole post is entertaining, but I think you start from the wrong point. It is difficult to see the parody in any of this, and yes, ADM owns the video and can control much of what happens with it.
Re: Re: Re: *sigh* :( Basic Copyright Law 101...FAIL
Bono still has his CD when you are done. Nothing was stolen. Stealing/theft DEPRIVE someone of something. Bono still has his CD when you are done. Loss of a potential sale that might not ever have occurred is not stealing. Bono still has his CD when you are done.
Do you or do you not have something you don't have the rights to?
Could you sit in front of Bono and explain to him how it isn't stealing, how you aren't getting something for nothing, how it isn't hurting him at all? Do you think that he might not pop you one for being so foolish?
(now, onto the insults)
RD, please get the fuck off your high horse. I don't work in the movie or music business, I am not getting paid to post here, I am not earning income from some "masters". GET THE FUCK OVER IT ALREADY ASSHOLE!
Is taking a worldwide music business and entertainment system that employs tens of thousands of people and brings joy to a large part of the population apart, and replacing it with garage bands, bar bands, and a selection of no-name and regional acts... is that a win?
It's like parking your Mercedes to drive your yugo. Where is the advantage? Why would you consider it an improvement?
If the process with "obviously better", everyone would be lining up to join the party. The reality is that it isn't "obviously better", rather it is "obviously worse". The economics don't work. The scale isn't right. It is just non-functional.
You get all WORKED UP IN UPPER CASE, but you ignore the basic reality: You cannot explain why this is better, except to try to vilify "the man" and spew anti-corporate rhetoric. Please, address the simple question: WHY IS THIS BETTER?
The answer is that this isn't an advancement, it's a major step backwards. Perhaps it will lead to steps forward later, but for the moment, we are trading gold for lead.
Again, profits alone are not the sole reason people do things, there is necessity, conflict, cooperation, recognition and other factors that stimulate that.
I didn't suggest that the inventors themselves are doing it for money. My entire point is that development costs money, a well fitted bio lab might cost millions to build and outfit, and millions more to operate, and the people who put that money on the table want to make their money back and more. Someone is paying the bills, this isn't happening for free.
By the way Cuba has a economic embargo by the U.S. that really hurts them and still they have hospitals with the same level of quality as the U.S. explain that away please.
I think that pretty much answers you outright. As much as Cuba has bright lights in a few areas, they still run many of their cars on cooking oil, and many of their citizens live in abject poverty... in a socialist state. Most of them aren't innovating, they are just trying to get enough to eat and not get locked up for trying.
Most innovation in human history has been driven at least at first by curiosity - money usually comes along later - and my point is that the mechanisms we have devised (supposedly) to facilitate money making have an awkward habit of getting in the way.
If you want to look far enough back, that is the case, but in modern times, that is no longer the case.
Curiosity is nice, it is even a requirement to have the desire to go look for something, but without the tools to go looking (such as in bio) you might as well stay home. We are no longer in a situation where grand discoveries are made for a few dollars and pot of coffee. The bio stuff is eating untold millions of dollars a year.
Essentially, mankind has picked all the the low hanging fruit from the discovery tree, and now you need better tools and a lot more effort to snatch the fruit higher up the tree.
He turned them down because he didn't want to give up control.
There are some people doing that, but most of them end up getting wiped out by other who develop around them and make their great idea moot.
It isn't about the money for the inventors themselves, but because it is more and more expensive to do thing, it is about money for someone. They want to get some sort of return for their money, and a warm feeling about advancing mankind another inch isn't going to cut it.
Actually, it isn't the big end of china where you can see the biggest difference, as much as the small end. The number of "mom and pop" stores is increasing rapidly, small independent workers running their own companies is increasing, and so on. That brings in a bigger network of suppliers, transport, distribution, production... it's all the ways that China is moving forward (and where places like Cuba fall behind).
Even at the big end, the government doesn't own everything. Rather, rules in place assure that Chinese companies are the significant partner in any operation that an outside company might want to be part of. Investments into China are at an all time high and growing, such that the government is actually taking steps to cool the economy.
You don't need a bigger carrot you only need a small one to entice companies, they will be fighting for it even for tinny little scraps and that is the beauty of greed it turns intelligent people into idiots
yup, but it you remove the entire profit motive (or make the profits risky, see Cuba or Venezuela), people will tend to stay out of the business. If the only advancements in science and technology are made because some individual inventor felt like tinkering, progress would effectively stop. Money is the lube, profit motive is what makes that money available to lube, which pays scientists and inventors to actually do the work.
The result of the research should be public to anyone to use and not patentable as music also should not have copyrights and artists should return to live gigs.
It gets us back to the same thing, you elimiinate the profit motive, you eliminate entrepreneurship, and you replace it with a socialistic state.
Sorry, Cuba and Russia have both proven that doesn't work worth a crap, and China is proving that moving towards a profit motivated society advances things faster than a command economy does.
So what you are saying is that socialism is the answer? All research and developments should be funded by the government for the public's good, and the resulting products should be given away?
What you pointed to was a theory, a concept, from a man who appears to be advocating the limiting of private property. That would be called socialism by most. Is that what you want to say?
Re: Lets fix terrorism with the entertainment industry ideology.
Actually, if a travel agent is found to be knowingly selling tickets to terrorists, they would be charged with conspiracy and locked up for a very long time.
The biggest problem is that when it comes to obscenity, Little's content is pretty much a slam dunk. We aren't talking about straight porn here, his stuff includes choking, vomiting, urination, domination, and degradation. His stage name is Max Hardcore, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Hardcore
Let's just say that the government picked content that is likely to be found obscene by a jury of little old ladies and bible thumpers in almost any part of the US. Putting the case into one of the most conservative counties in the US just sort of sealed the deal.
There will always be exceptions to the case, but most people (in western cultures) are motivated by or have a need for money. Money allows us to do whatever we like (example, posting on chat boards instead of wearing a suit and saying "yes boss"), money frees us.
If you have spent time and money to develop something, and you have no way to turn it back into money, that may stop you from being able to move on to the next thing.
Think of it as supply and demand. The new developments and patents are a supply. Without a product to turn them into, there is no demand. Without demand, the supply has no price. But when Higgs came along, each of those patents now had some value. However, as there wasn't a lineup of people trying to get them, it is down to "what will you pay"?
It is incredibly unlikely that two patent holders, both with dead patents that will expire in time, would just sit on them and let them grow mouldy rather than enter into a deal to turn them into a profit center. I know some would, but then again, some people paint their houses purple or pink. Exceptions do not craft the rules.
To be honest, Higgs always had a third choice, which would be to go ahead, with the knowledge that he might get called out and dragged to court. In the mean time, he can take the profits and invest in his next good idea, spring boarding off the locked up patents into new areas that aren't patented. That is one of those cases where the speed of the courts (very slow) and the speed of discovery of violation (potentially also slow) is in his economic advantage.
Lantern manufacturers complained about Edison's light bulb
Wagon manufacturers complained about the horseless carriage
Cylinder manufacturers complained about vinyl records
Vinyl Record manufacturers complained about 8-track and then cassette.
Cassette manufacturers complained about compact disks
Compact disk manufacturers are complaining about memory cards
The recording industry has been complaining about the peoples ability to record on all forms of medium all along.
Here's the funny part: You wrote it all, and missed the point.
Was the light bulb better than a lantern? Yes. It's pretty obvious, although lanterns are still used today in certain cases.
Was the horseless carriage better than a wagon? Yup. Although wagons are still useful in some ways today.
Were vinyl records better than the cylinder? Yup, easy to store, to carry, etc. Winner.
I could go on.
Is ripping down a worldwide music industry and replacing it with bar bands and local acts better? I think the jury is out on this one. The point is that there is no clear advantage to the systems being suggested, and in fact, they are entirely dependant on gutting the old system by removing the market price from the content. Without that, the bar bands would stay bar bands, because the system in and of itself isn't better.
Progress means progress, not just change for the sake of change.
On the post: How Patents Harm Biotech Innovation
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Patents.
I'll remember to use that line when I try to push an idea to market. I will tell them to work for free, because it doesn't cost money, it only cost resources.
But I will concede and agree with you, a communist state is not a good idea, but also absolute ownership on IP is not a good idea either.
There is no absolute ownership. Patents are for a VERY limited time, copyright is for a limited time as well. They are generally very narrow in context. As I said before, you know that copyright isn't over broad when you go to a major bookstore and see tens of thousands of different books for sale, often multiple books on the same subjects.
Since there is no absolute ownership of IP, the rest of your argument is moot.
On the post: ADM Says Video Mocking Them Is Copyright Infringement; Abuses Copyright Law To Stifle Free Speech
Re: Re: Re: parody
I am not defending ADM (I think they are aggressive jerks in many ways) but this is not the method to get back at them. As I said in another post:
"I would say the person who posted the video (who is probably working very hard to stay anonymous) will be lucky if they don't get a very fat legal spike up their butts."
On the post: ADM Says Video Mocking Them Is Copyright Infringement; Abuses Copyright Law To Stifle Free Speech
Re:
ADM owns the video, and all the rights that go with it. The only exceptions would be the standard run of fair use items (which are still really a defense, essentially admitting violation "but....").
ADM posted the video online. Merely copying the video is not illegal.
For your personal consumption, yes. For use as part of a news story, yes. To use in other ways, well, now it depends.
The redubbed video could not have been mistaken as something ADM had produced. Nor did it exploit any market ADM had in mind for the video when it produced the orignal video.
You see, that is where you hit a problem. First, we don't have the dubbed video to make that distinction. However, I can say from looking at what the content was of the dubbed message, it's intent was to exactly mimic the original speaker, and to create confusion. There was no "tee-hee" as Kevin Smith would call it.
It's Mike's old "moron in a hurry" thing. If the average person, without knowing the details, might be mislead by the dubbed video, then it is likely not a parody.
I have no doubt that ADM sent a takedown notice because the video reflected poorly on the company.
Actually, I suspect they used DMCA because it was expedient to stop what would appear to be a misleading and slanderous video from making the rounds. Humor is humor, but putting hateful and nasty words into someone else mouth and making it like they said them isn't funny, it is mean, nasty, and slanderous.
I would say the person who posted the video (who is probably working very hard to stay anonymous) will be lucky if they don't get a very fat legal spike up their butts.
So your whole post is entertaining, but I think you start from the wrong point. It is difficult to see the parody in any of this, and yes, ADM owns the video and can control much of what happens with it.
On the post: No, Copyright Has Never Been About Protecting Labor
Re: yes, you STILL fail...
I asked you a simple question, which you keep avoiding answering:
"Do you or do you not have something you don't have the rights to?"
It is a simple question.
You are the one all up in me for not answering, yet you can't even address the simplest issue them all.
So which is it big boy?
On the post: How Patents Harm Biotech Innovation
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
See http://www.therealcuba.com/Poverty.htm
On the post: No, Copyright Has Never Been About Protecting Labor
Re: Re: Re: *sigh* :( Basic Copyright Law 101...FAIL
Do you or do you not have something you don't have the rights to?
Could you sit in front of Bono and explain to him how it isn't stealing, how you aren't getting something for nothing, how it isn't hurting him at all? Do you think that he might not pop you one for being so foolish?
(now, onto the insults)
RD, please get the fuck off your high horse. I don't work in the movie or music business, I am not getting paid to post here, I am not earning income from some "masters". GET THE FUCK OVER IT ALREADY ASSHOLE!
On the post: No, Copyright Has Never Been About Protecting Labor
Re:
On the post: No, Copyright Has Never Been About Protecting Labor
Re: Re: Re: ok...so by YOUR OWN REASONING..
Is taking a worldwide music business and entertainment system that employs tens of thousands of people and brings joy to a large part of the population apart, and replacing it with garage bands, bar bands, and a selection of no-name and regional acts... is that a win?
It's like parking your Mercedes to drive your yugo. Where is the advantage? Why would you consider it an improvement?
If the process with "obviously better", everyone would be lining up to join the party. The reality is that it isn't "obviously better", rather it is "obviously worse". The economics don't work. The scale isn't right. It is just non-functional.
You get all WORKED UP IN UPPER CASE, but you ignore the basic reality: You cannot explain why this is better, except to try to vilify "the man" and spew anti-corporate rhetoric. Please, address the simple question: WHY IS THIS BETTER?
The answer is that this isn't an advancement, it's a major step backwards. Perhaps it will lead to steps forward later, but for the moment, we are trading gold for lead.
On the post: How Patents Harm Biotech Innovation
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Patents.
I didn't suggest that the inventors themselves are doing it for money. My entire point is that development costs money, a well fitted bio lab might cost millions to build and outfit, and millions more to operate, and the people who put that money on the table want to make their money back and more. Someone is paying the bills, this isn't happening for free.
By the way Cuba has a economic embargo by the U.S. that really hurts them and still they have hospitals with the same level of quality as the U.S. explain that away please.
http://www.therealcuba.com/Poverty.htm
I think that pretty much answers you outright. As much as Cuba has bright lights in a few areas, they still run many of their cars on cooking oil, and many of their citizens live in abject poverty... in a socialist state. Most of them aren't innovating, they are just trying to get enough to eat and not get locked up for trying.
On the post: How Patents Harm Biotech Innovation
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you want to look far enough back, that is the case, but in modern times, that is no longer the case.
Curiosity is nice, it is even a requirement to have the desire to go look for something, but without the tools to go looking (such as in bio) you might as well stay home. We are no longer in a situation where grand discoveries are made for a few dollars and pot of coffee. The bio stuff is eating untold millions of dollars a year.
Essentially, mankind has picked all the the low hanging fruit from the discovery tree, and now you need better tools and a lot more effort to snatch the fruit higher up the tree.
He turned them down because he didn't want to give up control.
There are some people doing that, but most of them end up getting wiped out by other who develop around them and make their great idea moot.
It isn't about the money for the inventors themselves, but because it is more and more expensive to do thing, it is about money for someone. They want to get some sort of return for their money, and a warm feeling about advancing mankind another inch isn't going to cut it.
On the post: How Patents Harm Biotech Innovation
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Patents.
Even at the big end, the government doesn't own everything. Rather, rules in place assure that Chinese companies are the significant partner in any operation that an outside company might want to be part of. Investments into China are at an all time high and growing, such that the government is actually taking steps to cool the economy.
You don't need a bigger carrot you only need a small one to entice companies, they will be fighting for it even for tinny little scraps and that is the beauty of greed it turns intelligent people into idiots
yup, but it you remove the entire profit motive (or make the profits risky, see Cuba or Venezuela), people will tend to stay out of the business. If the only advancements in science and technology are made because some individual inventor felt like tinkering, progress would effectively stop. Money is the lube, profit motive is what makes that money available to lube, which pays scientists and inventors to actually do the work.
On the post: How Patents Harm Biotech Innovation
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Patents.
On the post: How Patents Harm Biotech Innovation
Re: anti mikes on the juice again
Too bad they are all wrong.
On the post: Appeals Court Says Internet Content Should Be Held To Standards Of Strictest Jurisdiction
Re: Pornography
By your logic, because minors are not allowed to drink, vote, or be in the army, those things should also be unconstitutional.
What you are doing is mixing a legal issue (age of consent) with an expression (pornography).
Just because you cannot drink at 20 but you can drink at 21 doesn't make drinking or producing liquor illogical.
To quote the python: "all wood burns, thus all that burns is wood". It's a fail.
On the post: How Patents Harm Biotech Innovation
Re: Re: Re: Patents.
It gets us back to the same thing, you elimiinate the profit motive, you eliminate entrepreneurship, and you replace it with a socialistic state.
Sorry, Cuba and Russia have both proven that doesn't work worth a crap, and China is proving that moving towards a profit motivated society advances things faster than a command economy does.
On the post: How Patents Harm Biotech Innovation
Re: Patents.
All those cost are helps a "gridlock economy"
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-gridlock-economy.htm
So what you are saying is that socialism is the answer? All research and developments should be funded by the government for the public's good, and the resulting products should be given away?
What you pointed to was a theory, a concept, from a man who appears to be advocating the limiting of private property. That would be called socialism by most. Is that what you want to say?
On the post: Copyright Industry Responds To iiNet Ruling By Asking For Gov't Bailout; Aussie Gov't 'Studying' It
Re: Lets fix terrorism with the entertainment industry ideology.
So your example is a "fail".
On the post: Appeals Court Says Internet Content Should Be Held To Standards Of Strictest Jurisdiction
Re: Off shoring our legal system?
Let's just say that the government picked content that is likely to be found obscene by a jury of little old ladies and bible thumpers in almost any part of the US. Putting the case into one of the most conservative counties in the US just sort of sealed the deal.
On the post: How Patents Harm Biotech Innovation
Re: Re: Re:
There will always be exceptions to the case, but most people (in western cultures) are motivated by or have a need for money. Money allows us to do whatever we like (example, posting on chat boards instead of wearing a suit and saying "yes boss"), money frees us.
If you have spent time and money to develop something, and you have no way to turn it back into money, that may stop you from being able to move on to the next thing.
Think of it as supply and demand. The new developments and patents are a supply. Without a product to turn them into, there is no demand. Without demand, the supply has no price. But when Higgs came along, each of those patents now had some value. However, as there wasn't a lineup of people trying to get them, it is down to "what will you pay"?
It is incredibly unlikely that two patent holders, both with dead patents that will expire in time, would just sit on them and let them grow mouldy rather than enter into a deal to turn them into a profit center. I know some would, but then again, some people paint their houses purple or pink. Exceptions do not craft the rules.
To be honest, Higgs always had a third choice, which would be to go ahead, with the knowledge that he might get called out and dragged to court. In the mean time, he can take the profits and invest in his next good idea, spring boarding off the locked up patents into new areas that aren't patented. That is one of those cases where the speed of the courts (very slow) and the speed of discovery of violation (potentially also slow) is in his economic advantage.
On the post: No, Copyright Has Never Been About Protecting Labor
Re:
Wagon manufacturers complained about the horseless carriage
Cylinder manufacturers complained about vinyl records
Vinyl Record manufacturers complained about 8-track and then cassette.
Cassette manufacturers complained about compact disks
Compact disk manufacturers are complaining about memory cards
The recording industry has been complaining about the peoples ability to record on all forms of medium all along.
Here's the funny part: You wrote it all, and missed the point.
Was the light bulb better than a lantern? Yes. It's pretty obvious, although lanterns are still used today in certain cases.
Was the horseless carriage better than a wagon? Yup. Although wagons are still useful in some ways today.
Were vinyl records better than the cylinder? Yup, easy to store, to carry, etc. Winner.
I could go on.
Is ripping down a worldwide music industry and replacing it with bar bands and local acts better? I think the jury is out on this one. The point is that there is no clear advantage to the systems being suggested, and in fact, they are entirely dependant on gutting the old system by removing the market price from the content. Without that, the bar bands would stay bar bands, because the system in and of itself isn't better.
Progress means progress, not just change for the sake of change.
Next >>