I just find it difficult to believe that we could elimitate "defensive" IP only. (I assume that by defensive IP you mean IP used to destroy competitors) However, IP is designed to work by stopping competition so you can collect monopoly rents on a particular technology. So, I find it hard to believe that we can somehow let companies use IP and not let them use it in such a way as to destroy competition. (Not to mention that their enormous lobbying power can be used to bypass any safety mechanism that would have been put it place.)
As for ignorance of the reasons why the founding fathers put IP in the Constitution, I think it's pretty clear why they put IP in the Constitution: "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;" Much of the arguments on this blog specifically call out what seems to be pretty clear by now that IP is unnecessary and that it is more harmful than helpful as far as the progress of science and useful arts is concerned. So, no, the founders weren't wrong to allow IP to promote progress. (Progress is good and if IP helped, maybe it would be a good idea) Congress is wrong to keep using IP to attempt promote progress because IP hinders progress.
I'm wondering about the legality of creating a site that looks like it commits copyright infringement but actually does not. (Let's say by offering CC songs for download with garish "FREE TORRENTS" banners) Add ads, then get someone to tip off ICE. Then do it again, and again. Then, publish the long list of websites with which you hooked ICE into looking stupid. It could be called ICE fishing.
She tried to trick him by creating a fake Facebook account and he guessed it and had an affidavit, then lied about planting a GPS on her car. I can't imagine why they divorced. Those people must have had an idyllic marriage.
While I fundamentally disagree with this whole mess, (And copyright in general) I can see why transformative use cannot be enough. Otherwise, I could potentially transform the work away from the original, then take the new work and transform it back to the original. Yes, a judge could catch that, but things could get very fuzzy and I tend to like bright lines.
Give me a keyboard with a terminal any day over these silly "interfaces." I'm partially joking, but only partially. I think gestures are far from being as good an interface as keyboards.
Well, they surely will never be designed with medical uses in mind if we ban their use in medical uses.
A lot of smart scientists, doctors, engineers and politicians forget about what econ students learn in econ 101 (it usually doesn't stick until econ 400 to be fair): Incentives matter. This leads to many results which feel counter-intuitive to many people because it is so different from their everyday life. In your every day life, if a leg of a table is too short, you put something underneath it and your problem is solved. On the other hand, if you left the table alone, the leg would keep being shorter. In the economy, if a product is not ready for medical use and you wait, people will want to make money by making the device more reliable and eventually it will be ready for medical use. However, if you ban its use, well, nobody will want to improve on it. These feedback mechanisms which are second nature to economists often escape otherwise brilliant people just because they are not used to such systems. The result is bans on all "general computing devices" in medical systems resulting in cost increases and forgone innovations.
I think that while there are some good points being made here, we should be a bit more careful about claims such as comparing the rate of innovation in different sectors. Both the delimitations of sectors and the measurement of rates of innovation is very arbitrary. For instance: An on-board computer that catches you falling asleep in your car. Is that car industry, computer industry, transportation industry, safety industry, consumer cars industry? How many "innovation points" is it worth? Just play with the parameters enough and without leaving the realm of honest answers, you can provide evidence for anything you want.
However, it is most definitely true that the FDA is limiting the speed and quality of innovation in the medical industry. I think overall, this is a problem that partisans of regulation often forget: Innovation comes faster than you think and mostly in ways you cannot even imagine. Your regulatory entity will inevitably be unprepared for those innovations and make a mess of things either by being completely bypassed or by getting in the way.
I have a good one for you: [This joke is no longer available due to a copyright claim under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Remember, copying is stealing.]
I remember once complaining about my rates being raised by Geico on Twitter. It felt very arbitrary and I was quite annoyed by it. Within hours, a Geico rep had messaged me to give me a succinct explanation and apologize for the inconvenience. They didn't solve the underlying issue that I wanted to give them less money, but it definitely made me feel better about their company.
I think the answer to Miss Pariser's question is a simple "yes." Had those songs entered in the public domain 20-30 years ago, the artists and the labels would today be tremendously rich instead of being unbelievably rich. Somehow, I don't find that a distressing thought.
If by Communist, you mean: Slightly left of Attila the Hun, then yes, all were communists. If by communists you mean in agreement with the ideologies of Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin etc, then you don't know what you are talking about.
That's not really accurate. The lights being on is a fixed cost for the store to remain open. The air conditioning is much more accurate. If an extra person enters the store, they will emit body heat that will make the air conditioning have to work harder and thereby consume more electricity which will result in a higher electric bill than had that customer not come in. For those of you who think this is a ridiculously insignificant cost, I will point you to the fact that this cost is 100s of times higher than the cost of an extra stream in terms of bandwidth and server load. (Probably mostly IO ops) So, you see: walking in a store and benefiting from air conditioning without buying is tantamount to mass murder.
I know... The two are exactly the same. In both cases, you have a dedicated professional who attends to your friend's needs at the exclusion of actual members expending significant resources and tying up expensive equipment.
Wait, the bandwidth to carry a movie is practically free? Given that those services face this as a fact of life they have already baked those expenses into the service's pricing? Well I'll be damned...
I think this was indeed very disruptive. If I was visiting a national monument and uniformed goons suddenly started yelling, grabbed people, slammed them on the ground, took them prisoner and then kicked everyone out, I would indeed find this a powerful obstacle to my enjoyment of the place.
Wait, I just realized we may not be speaking about the same thing.
I think in this case it may be logical to sue. Think of it as a signaling device: Suing is expensive. But it is a whole lot more expensive for those who don't have a valid case. So Holmes can point at the lawsuit and say: "Look, if she was right, this lawsuit would mean pouring truckloads of money down the drain. No sane person would do that. So you can trust me on this. She was lying."
On the post: Ideas Do Matter, But That Has Nothing To Do With 'Intellectual Property'
Re: Ideas Do Matter, But ....
As for ignorance of the reasons why the founding fathers put IP in the Constitution, I think it's pretty clear why they put IP in the Constitution: "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;" Much of the arguments on this blog specifically call out what seems to be pretty clear by now that IP is unnecessary and that it is more harmful than helpful as far as the progress of science and useful arts is concerned. So, no, the founders weren't wrong to allow IP to promote progress. (Progress is good and if IP helped, maybe it would be a good idea) Congress is wrong to keep using IP to attempt promote progress because IP hinders progress.
On the post: ICE Declares 'Mission Accomplished' On Domain Seizures
On the post: Lies, Damned Lies And Facebook Evidence Get FBI Involved In Divorced Couple's Spat
On the post: Another Appropriation Artist Loses Copyright Lawsuit; Are We Nearing The End Of Appropriation Art?
On the post: DailyDirt: Telling Your Computer What To Do... Nicely?
On the post: FDA's Pharma-First Focus Driving Medical Device Tech Away From The US
Re: Re: Wrong problem?
On the post: FDA's Pharma-First Focus Driving Medical Device Tech Away From The US
Re: Re:
A lot of smart scientists, doctors, engineers and politicians forget about what econ students learn in econ 101 (it usually doesn't stick until econ 400 to be fair): Incentives matter. This leads to many results which feel counter-intuitive to many people because it is so different from their everyday life. In your every day life, if a leg of a table is too short, you put something underneath it and your problem is solved. On the other hand, if you left the table alone, the leg would keep being shorter. In the economy, if a product is not ready for medical use and you wait, people will want to make money by making the device more reliable and eventually it will be ready for medical use. However, if you ban its use, well, nobody will want to improve on it. These feedback mechanisms which are second nature to economists often escape otherwise brilliant people just because they are not used to such systems. The result is bans on all "general computing devices" in medical systems resulting in cost increases and forgone innovations.
On the post: FDA's Pharma-First Focus Driving Medical Device Tech Away From The US
However, it is most definitely true that the FDA is limiting the speed and quality of innovation in the medical industry. I think overall, this is a problem that partisans of regulation often forget: Innovation comes faster than you think and mostly in ways you cannot even imagine. Your regulatory entity will inevitably be unprepared for those innovations and make a mess of things either by being completely bypassed or by getting in the way.
On the post: Yes, Multiple People Come Up With The Same Joke; It's Not 'Stealing' And Not Even Copying
On the post: Miami Beach Police Tried To Destroy Video From Bystanders, Holding Them At Gunpoint
On the post: Vodafone India Threatens Upset Customer With Defamation For Complaining About Bad Service
On the post: Would It Really Be So Bad If The Beatles Were In The Public Domain?
On the post: French Radio And Television Newscasters Say 'Au Revoir' To Facebook And Twitter
On the post: Do A Little Dance, Make A Little Love...Get Bodyslammed Tonight (At The Jefferson Memorial)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: RIAA Wants To Put People In Jail For Sharing Their Music Subscription Login With Friends
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: RIAA Wants To Put People In Jail For Sharing Their Music Subscription Login With Friends
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: RIAA Wants To Put People In Jail For Sharing Their Music Subscription Login With Friends
Re: Re:
listening to music or watching a movie is having a cavity or needing car tow service
On the post: RIAA Wants To Put People In Jail For Sharing Their Music Subscription Login With Friends
Re:
Wait, the bandwidth to carry a movie is practically free? Given that those services face this as a fact of life they have already baked those expenses into the service's pricing? Well I'll be damned...
On the post: Do A Little Dance, Make A Little Love...Get Bodyslammed Tonight (At The Jefferson Memorial)
Re: Re: Re:
Wait, I just realized we may not be speaking about the same thing.
On the post: Courtney Love Sued Yet Again For Twitter-Based Defamation
Next >>