Thus, "Law" in this context is a government enforced construct, presumably works in theory to benefits society (ant it may), but has yet to be proven not to benefit society and then be struck down by a politician or judge.
Business models are no different than morality in that they are both subjective, man-made social constructs. If you break the constructs, beat the system. In some languages, there is no word for "steal."
Let's pretend that one group has gone out and planted trillions of plants, and populated the ocean with trillions of times more oxygen converting plankton, algae, etc. This organization now owns all plant life, and now, all oxygen that these plants is therefore owned by that group. A law is passed that says all air (assuming it is clean) is now owned by that group, and anyone that breathes it without paying is stealing it. The money goes to the people who planted the plants. This group also introduces a standard of morality: paying for the air you breath is good and moral. Not paying is bad, immoral, unethical "stealing."
This is the same quandary we are talking about right here. Man-made, digital technology or IP is just like the near-infinite good nature has created, like oxygen, for people to breathe. Society is better of for not allowing the scenario above to take place.
Let's make a couple of assumptions for the sake of this argument that you don't need to tell me. Digital copied are not necessary for human survival, air is necessary - this is understood. But, in this argument, you can substitute digital copies with anything else that can be copied infinitely with zero or near-zero cost such as: ideas, chemical structures used in pharmaceuticals, designs, etc. In other words, think of the things that countries like China "pirates" in order to survive.
With the "good vs. bad" argument, you could just as easily say that patents and copyright are neither good nor bad, but market externalities that monopolists have figured out how to use, and the use of the consequences may be for good or bad. Therefore, we are defining "good" as things that benefit the majority at the expense of the minority, and "bad" as things that benefit the minority at the expense of the majority.
We should define stealing as the taking of a scares good or the means to produce a scares good. Stealing is NOT borrowing ideas, using the nature of a near-infinite device (digital technology, the human mind, plants that produce oxygen, etc) to make a copy or transmit an idea. This is violation of a norm, a violation belief, not violation of economic theory.
Everything is subjected what is the popular belief. Some ideas are so radical that they defy popular belief. These beliefs are popularized by those who will benefit by those that believe. Guess what? The world is round, it is not the center of the solar system, and you can't turn lead into gold. And, it is possible to have a business model with free built-in. This is just history repeating itself, except today you don't get burned at the stake.
“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world. The unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ~George Bernard Shaw, political activist and Noble Prize Winner
When people are given the choice of convenience or sustainability, they chose convenience. Mercantilists/monopolists have figured out how subvert Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs (physiological needs are the most basic on the pyramid, at the bottom). This is a dangerous prospect. If you don't believe me, look at the state of the world today. The powerful have sold that idea to us that it is better to buy a all of our fish than to learn to catch some fish, buy others Or perhaps the ability to choose has just been stolen out from under people by the powerful.
While monopolistsic capitalism has benefits for the few, laissez-faire capitalism would balance out the marketplace of ideas.
Ideas are worthless and one should not be able to own them. You have to demonstrate that you can or to actually execute on them (make something, make something happen), and that makes you worth something to someone somewhere.
Maybe this set of values has a name already. If it does, let me know what it is.
I can see nothing more important than sustainability via your own means to obtain food and water without having to deal with laws meant to capitalize on ones exclusively means of self-reliance.
Promoting the progress of science in this nation (through the patent system) has produced one of the highest standard-of-living rates in the world.
Yes, for the US (and other super powers) and at the expense of other countries who's governments agreed making payments to US rights holders via WIPO.
The gap between rich and poor is hundreds of times greater in every "infringing nation" than in the U.S. Honestly, how many poor people do you know are affected by the patent system?
All the more reason for them too keep infringing, for their own survival, so they are not indebted to any colonialists.
I don't know any personally being a well-off person living in the US, but I know that Brazilians took to the streets in support of open source software since it is free, and will not drain their financial resources needlessly to someone like Microsoft (for the powering of computers for government infrastructures).
Also in South America, water rights were corporateized (in the same spirit as a patent: monopoly), making it illegal for people to collect rain water.
In countries that ignore IP, the poor have the opportunity to save enough money to by a computer, and internet connection, and a CD/DVD recorder or a printer to sell pirated CDs, DVDs and books on the streets. Do you think the poor give a f*** about IP of a super power when they just want something to eat?
There is even a Creative Commons licenses that allows for this legally, call the Developing Nations License that will allow my IP to help poor people in impoverished countries by selling physical copies of my digital, infinitely available IP.
How the developing US violated IP to become a powe
As mentioned in the comments earlier, Hollywood was born of the film maker William Fox (now known as Fox, the 4th TV network) not wanting to pay royalties on the camera/film process invented by Thomas Edison (source).
Benjamin Franklin pirated Charles Dickens without licensing or payment of royalties (source) and others in the US probably also re-published books without compensation of the authors until the Bern Convention.
Cable TV was born by the unauthorized re-transmitting antenna signals (source).
Read Free Culture's chapter on Piracy for more info. These are just a few examples. There are more out there. Feel free to add them in these comments.
Anthony is wrong unless is is a monopolist himself
Anthony,
Still creeping out of the industrial revolution? You think the lack of competition (competition: something that I know you know is the driver of innovation in something such as software, fashion, business models) created by monopolies granted trough patents of methods in the design of machinery helped to decrease the span of the industrial era? You are sorely mistaken. Competition, and the borrowing of ideas and methods to use against your competitors drives innovations, and shortens the life cycles of technologies. Imagine if there was only one company that was able to use ICs or disc drives? Sure, you could have licensing schemes, but what about the poor innovator with the bright idea? Without such innovators contributions, we are all worse off. Please counter this argument.
The countries you mention all have emergent economies that will pass the US becuase they ignore some IP. We try to keep them down with IP, but it is a battle not worth fighting. Yeah, our accusations on China that they are "infringers" is really putting a damper on their economy for the advancement of western economies, isn't it? Please explain how the failure to make other people play our game benefits us. Low wages is more of a human rights issue, and in the west, we are more progressive in this area becuase we have freedom of speech.
IP means we would not have won WWII? I am guessing you think we one becuase we had superior technology that the enemy could not use becuase they respected our IP. If this is your reasoning, it is ridiculous. Do you think anyone gives a damn for the respect the enemy's IP? Hell, the enemies in WWII were using and paying for the technology of IBM. The west profited from this and still won.
The reason the internet exists is becuase of free and open standards, not IP. The internet is one big copy machine, made to withstand a nuclear attack. This same invincibility makes it impossible to win a war against certain types of uses that IP law enforced business models will eventually bed destroyed by unless they change.
And my single point in my last comment was that Mike makes a convincing argument that IP monopoly no longer "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts," it promotes the rich at the expense of the poor. We are to assume that Progress of Science means improving the lives of the poor, not continuing to line the pockets of filthy rich. How do you define the Progress of Science? Tell me if you think the Progress of Science mean creating more debt for the poor.
Regarding a "global model that the rest of the world is trying to catch up to," tell me non-geeks on countries in countries in South America took to the streets in protest to support for open source software? Tell me why the people of countries that are resiting joining WIPO becuase of the enforcement of monopolistic laws in their country? The poor of NO country wants their government to have more restrictive IP laws.
Believing that monopolies and protection of IP guarantees capitalism is like believing you can keep a volcano from erupting by throwing a virgin into it. Some commenter here are so afraid that it wont work that they think the ideas are "preposterous."
IP protection is a religious faith, and just as dangerous! When you tell a Christian there is no God, and failure to follow God means that you will go to hell, they will come up with all kinds of arguments, but not a shred of proof. Of course, some of the faithful will profit on the believe by using this social control. Techdirt provides the proof that IP monopolies are not worth the trouble.
We are at a point now where information flows so freely that we no longer need IP monopolies. When you argue against the elimination of IP, you have or think you have something to gain from it. Only the fittest deserve to survive (and hopefully the fittest are not the ones who argue successfully for more and stronger IP monopolies).
IP monopoly makes the rich richer and the poor poorer!
Netflix has an affiliate program. TrialPay verifies that the customer has signed up and paid for a new Netflix account, a scarce commodity (since physical discs are involved, hard costs in mailing the disc), Netflix gives TrialPay $40 for this customer signing up, then TrialPay releases the infinite good, the software, to the customer.
Netflix is not playing TrialPay for the software. They are paying TrialPay for getting a new customer. Netflix could care less what TrialPay's tactics are for getting Netflix a new customer.
This just goes to show you that even Sony BMG thinks that CDs are so cheap to make they are worthless. That is, unless THEY are the ones making money from them and not someone else.
So, they are stretching their view of copyright as the their exclusive right to profit from their own trash. If the CDs went to a plastics recycling center, what would they say? Someone would be making a profit from the plastic discs they made, but they would not be competing in the CD marketplace, so they would not care.
There is such a point when enforcing laws delivers no tangible befits for most of society. You you AC's suggesting that we enforce laws at costs, even when they impinge on civil liberties and freedom? This leads to lack of respect for all laws, a possibly greater threat to society.
The new definition of "free" is DRM-free as well as free-as-in-beer. The restrictions on printing and the availability for a limited time are just other versions of DRM.
It is true that it is cheaper to buy books than it is to print them. Against Intellectual Monopoly by Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine is a free to download/print/read book I was looking into printing at Kinkos, but it is going to cost $43 when the book will probably cost $25 in stores and $20 from Amazon when it comes out (thanks to someone who linked to it in the comments from a post a couple of months ago).
Great point! What happens if all of the sudden there is a massive trend in college students that get their own wine or beer processing kits and use them in their dorms? Anheuser-Busch or Seagram is going to buy legislation requiring that universities pay for free booze because of bootlegging?
I think what Mike gets credit for is drawing relevance between the ideas in the book Zero to the monpolisitc business models that companies try to replicate with internet, and then helping to popularize the idea in the tech blogosphere. But then again, this is not the point of the post. It is that the idea, no matter where it came from, is spreading, and that others are contributing, using different/better explanations.
On the post: The Economics Of Free Isn't Good Or Bad -- It's Simply What Happens
Re: Re: Social science
On the post: The Economics Of Free Isn't Good Or Bad -- It's Simply What Happens
On the post: The Economics Of Free Isn't Good Or Bad -- It's Simply What Happens
This is the same quandary we are talking about right here. Man-made, digital technology or IP is just like the near-infinite good nature has created, like oxygen, for people to breathe. Society is better of for not allowing the scenario above to take place.
Let's make a couple of assumptions for the sake of this argument that you don't need to tell me. Digital copied are not necessary for human survival, air is necessary - this is understood. But, in this argument, you can substitute digital copies with anything else that can be copied infinitely with zero or near-zero cost such as: ideas, chemical structures used in pharmaceuticals, designs, etc. In other words, think of the things that countries like China "pirates" in order to survive.
With the "good vs. bad" argument, you could just as easily say that patents and copyright are neither good nor bad, but market externalities that monopolists have figured out how to use, and the use of the consequences may be for good or bad. Therefore, we are defining "good" as things that benefit the majority at the expense of the minority, and "bad" as things that benefit the minority at the expense of the majority.
We should define stealing as the taking of a scares good or the means to produce a scares good. Stealing is NOT borrowing ideas, using the nature of a near-infinite device (digital technology, the human mind, plants that produce oxygen, etc) to make a copy or transmit an idea. This is violation of a norm, a violation belief, not violation of economic theory.
Everything is subjected what is the popular belief. Some ideas are so radical that they defy popular belief. These beliefs are popularized by those who will benefit by those that believe. Guess what? The world is round, it is not the center of the solar system, and you can't turn lead into gold. And, it is possible to have a business model with free built-in. This is just history repeating itself, except today you don't get burned at the stake.
“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world. The unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ~George Bernard Shaw, political activist and Noble Prize Winner
On the post: Dear ABC, You Don't Compete With TiVo By Making A Product Worse
On the post: Dear ABC, You Don't Compete With TiVo By Making A Product Worse
On the post: On The Constitutional Reasons Behind Copyright And Patents
re: mjr1007, give some examples
While monopolistsic capitalism has benefits for the few, laissez-faire capitalism would balance out the marketplace of ideas.
Ideas are worthless and one should not be able to own them. You have to demonstrate that you can or to actually execute on them (make something, make something happen), and that makes you worth something to someone somewhere.
Maybe this set of values has a name already. If it does, let me know what it is.
On the post: On The Constitutional Reasons Behind Copyright And Patents
On the post: On The Constitutional Reasons Behind Copyright And Patents
how IP monopoly makes the poor poorer
Yes, for the US (and other super powers) and at the expense of other countries who's governments agreed making payments to US rights holders via WIPO.
The gap between rich and poor is hundreds of times greater in every "infringing nation" than in the U.S. Honestly, how many poor people do you know are affected by the patent system?
All the more reason for them too keep infringing, for their own survival, so they are not indebted to any colonialists.
I don't know any personally being a well-off person living in the US, but I know that Brazilians took to the streets in support of open source software since it is free, and will not drain their financial resources needlessly to someone like Microsoft (for the powering of computers for government infrastructures).
Also in South America, water rights were corporateized (in the same spirit as a patent: monopoly), making it illegal for people to collect rain water.
Right here in the US, Monsanto has sued poor farmers using the decentest of seeds that had patented.
In countries that ignore IP, the poor have the opportunity to save enough money to by a computer, and internet connection, and a CD/DVD recorder or a printer to sell pirated CDs, DVDs and books on the streets. Do you think the poor give a f*** about IP of a super power when they just want something to eat?
There is even a Creative Commons licenses that allows for this legally, call the Developing Nations License that will allow my IP to help poor people in impoverished countries by selling physical copies of my digital, infinitely available IP.
On the post: On The Constitutional Reasons Behind Copyright And Patents
How the developing US violated IP to become a powe
Benjamin Franklin pirated Charles Dickens without licensing or payment of royalties (source) and others in the US probably also re-published books without compensation of the authors until the Bern Convention.
Cable TV was born by the unauthorized re-transmitting antenna signals (source).
Read Free Culture's chapter on Piracy for more info. These are just a few examples. There are more out there. Feel free to add them in these comments.
On the post: On The Constitutional Reasons Behind Copyright And Patents
Anthony is wrong unless is is a monopolist himself
Still creeping out of the industrial revolution? You think the lack of competition (competition: something that I know you know is the driver of innovation in something such as software, fashion, business models) created by monopolies granted trough patents of methods in the design of machinery helped to decrease the span of the industrial era? You are sorely mistaken. Competition, and the borrowing of ideas and methods to use against your competitors drives innovations, and shortens the life cycles of technologies. Imagine if there was only one company that was able to use ICs or disc drives? Sure, you could have licensing schemes, but what about the poor innovator with the bright idea? Without such innovators contributions, we are all worse off. Please counter this argument.
The countries you mention all have emergent economies that will pass the US becuase they ignore some IP. We try to keep them down with IP, but it is a battle not worth fighting. Yeah, our accusations on China that they are "infringers" is really putting a damper on their economy for the advancement of western economies, isn't it? Please explain how the failure to make other people play our game benefits us. Low wages is more of a human rights issue, and in the west, we are more progressive in this area becuase we have freedom of speech.
IP means we would not have won WWII? I am guessing you think we one becuase we had superior technology that the enemy could not use becuase they respected our IP. If this is your reasoning, it is ridiculous. Do you think anyone gives a damn for the respect the enemy's IP? Hell, the enemies in WWII were using and paying for the technology of IBM. The west profited from this and still won.
The reason the internet exists is becuase of free and open standards, not IP. The internet is one big copy machine, made to withstand a nuclear attack. This same invincibility makes it impossible to win a war against certain types of uses that IP law enforced business models will eventually bed destroyed by unless they change.
And my single point in my last comment was that Mike makes a convincing argument that IP monopoly no longer "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts," it promotes the rich at the expense of the poor. We are to assume that Progress of Science means improving the lives of the poor, not continuing to line the pockets of filthy rich. How do you define the Progress of Science? Tell me if you think the Progress of Science mean creating more debt for the poor.
Regarding a "global model that the rest of the world is trying to catch up to," tell me non-geeks on countries in countries in South America took to the streets in protest to support for open source software? Tell me why the people of countries that are resiting joining WIPO becuase of the enforcement of monopolistic laws in their country? The poor of NO country wants their government to have more restrictive IP laws.
On the post: On The Constitutional Reasons Behind Copyright And Patents
IP protection is a religious faith, and just as dangerous! When you tell a Christian there is no God, and failure to follow God means that you will go to hell, they will come up with all kinds of arguments, but not a shred of proof. Of course, some of the faithful will profit on the believe by using this social control. Techdirt provides the proof that IP monopolies are not worth the trouble.
We are at a point now where information flows so freely that we no longer need IP monopolies. When you argue against the elimination of IP, you have or think you have something to gain from it. Only the fittest deserve to survive (and hopefully the fittest are not the ones who argue successfully for more and stronger IP monopolies).
IP monopoly makes the rich richer and the poor poorer!
On the post: On The Constitutional Reasons Behind Copyright And Patents
Re: source?
On the post: Why We Should All Want Politicians Who Plagiarize
On the post: Why We Should All Want Politicians Who Plagiarize
On the post: Another Business Model That Leverages 'Free'
Netflix is not playing TrialPay for the software. They are paying TrialPay for getting a new customer. Netflix could care less what TrialPay's tactics are for getting Netflix a new customer.
On the post: Is Selling A CD You Found In The Trash Copyright Infringement?
So, they are stretching their view of copyright as the their exclusive right to profit from their own trash. If the CDs went to a plastics recycling center, what would they say? Someone would be making a profit from the plastic discs they made, but they would not be competing in the CD marketplace, so they would not care.
On the post: Bush Administration Spending More Taxpayer Money On Intellectual Property Prosecutions
On the post: Publishers Jumping On The Free Book Bandwagon (Somewhat, But Not Fully)
the new definition of free
It is true that it is cheaper to buy books than it is to print them. Against Intellectual Monopoly by Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine is a free to download/print/read book I was looking into printing at Kinkos, but it is going to cost $43 when the book will probably cost $25 in stores and $20 from Amazon when it comes out (thanks to someone who linked to it in the comments from a post a couple of months ago).
Also newly available to to freely download/print/read is The Medici Effect by Frans Johansson.
And finally, Neil Gaiman is deciding which of his books he should release as a free downlod.
On the post: House Approves Bill To Require Universities To Offer Students Music Services
@11
On the post: Kevin Kelly's Eight Key Scarcities
Next >>