Let's say a potter makes a unique design and then other companies make the exact same design, same colors, everything. And let's say there is no trademark on either piece, so that isn't an issue. Would people expect the copiers to say they made identical copies, or is the design up for grabs?
Let's say someone snaps a photo, and then someone else goes and makes the same photo -- same pose, same lighting, same filters, etc. Is the second person supposed to credit the first photographer with the idea?
With 3D printing, exact replicas are coming.
People can copy lots of stuff and do. In most cases it is just for their personal use, but if there are no copyright laws, I don't expect to see everyone carefully attributing what they copy to those who first create it.
I'm not putting a value judgement on this. I just think as technology facilitates copying, it will be done.
I don't see Coulton a victim in this any more than I see anyone who has had his or her work copied without attribution a victim. It is what it is.
The anti-copyright folks like to point to fashion where copying is rampant. The design houses are expected to come out with new stuff all the time and let go of whatever they did last year. So maybe that's what someone like Coulton needs to do. Once you put it out there, it isn't yours. You've got to move on to the new stuff. The reason this hasn't been the case with songs is that there is copyright so once you write it or record it, you get to financially benefit for decades. But let's assume that goes away and the thinking switches from create it and own it, to create it and let it go. An entirely different way to perceive creations and it probably will happen as copyright disappears and the lines between one creator and another blur. One person writes the song. Another arranges it differently. Yet another records it in a manner which may or may not be identical to the first two. Will people trace the history of the song? Will they care?
You're raising the same issues that a lot of creatives have raised (e.g., someone will take my idea and I won't get credit, someone will take my idea and I won't get paid).
And usually when they do, at least some people tell them:
(1) their ideas probably weren't all that original anyway, and/or
(2) the exposure is good for them, and/or
(3) if someone else has figured out how to make money from their ideas maybe they can learn something from the clever people who know how to monetize.
I'm pretty sure that copyright will lose its effectiveness sooner or later. And I think that sooner or later everyone will be copying everyone else and not necessarily giving credit. In some cases they might not want to, in some cases they may not know whom credit, and in some cases it's just too much hassle to credit every contributor for everything they use or borrow.
I think Coulton has run into what other creatives have or will run into and perhaps he didn't think it would happen to him.
As a person, Johnathan Coulton probably would have been fine with them just CREDITING him. Shit, how hard would it have been to add ONE line in the credits that mentioned his name?
You realize, though, don't you, that as content becomes widely available for anyone to use as they wish without having to worry about legal ramifications or paying royalties, there is going to be a lot of copying and reuse without necessarily the proper credit. In fact, once something gets passed around enough, there's a good chance most people won't even know who the originator was nor will they care. The idea that you'll get credit if someone uses your idea with little or no modification is nice, but once all that content is freely flying around, I'm not sure people will bother to check. It's like folk songs in the public domain. They have been around for years, people perform them as is or modify them, etc. It becomes open source music.
If someone wants to mimic another person's work (as might be said to be the case with Glee), what's the harm, especially if lots of people start doing it? As people have pointed on Techdirt all the time, music is a collective effort. Does anyone really own it?
I think if you are going to push the copyright liberation boundaries, you have to expect this and live with it. Isn't the preferred response supposed to be for Coulton to thank Glee for exposing its fans to his music? Why bother to shame Fox?
Basically, the point is not what should be, but that there are mechanisms in place if the public feels someone has been wronged.
But was he wronged? As copyright falls away, I'm not sure people will necessarily take great pains to credit the history of what they borrow, copy, or incorporate.
I have been vocal about my concern about the data collection that private companies have been doing. But here's yet another article which suggests to me that there is an opportunity for private companies to collect data and provide it to those who want it, free from interference by politicians.
If private companies can gather data on gun use, it is something they can sell. Better they do it than no one does it.
Here's a really good example of privatizing gun control
How Tech Could Help Joe Biden Win the Gun Fight: "Case in point: A firm called ShotSpotter, a leader in the gunshot detection field, is actively using acoustic sensors placed at intervals throughout a given neighborhood to record the sound of gunfire. Then, using computers, it can triangulate the sound to pinpoint the sources of those blasts on a map."
I have had too many subscription music sites bore me. Now we will get to pay for one that comes complete with commercials for artists merchandise. How very Big Business is that?
This new project has put together a great team. So it will be interesting to see how it does.
And if it doesn't succeed, I'm sure people will say that music licensing is the issue.
However, I think Sandra has hit upon the bigger problem (other than the fact that I don't think any music startup should get involved with anything that requires licensing). People have a limited amount of money. They still like music, but that doesn't necessarily translate into them wanting to spend money on music. Maybe they'll go to a few shows. But how many t-shirts will they buy?
I love the tiny house movement because it focuses on living in small spaces. And if you live in a small space, you have very little storage room. You just can't own a lot of things. And while you might still be able to purchase digital items and non-digital experiences, if you are living in a small space, you're probably also focusing on economical living in general. That means not spending more on anything that you don't need to spend.
Yes, there is a demographic who will plunk down serious money to go to music festivals, so there are music fans with money. But there are also a lot of music fans without enough money to be able to pay for anything but their non-music bills each month.
How big is that music audience with money? And those with money are also being approach via places like Kickstarter. So the hard core fan might be going there rather than through Topspin.
Capitalism needs to be questioned as its great flaw is perpetual growth in the quantity and of products in a world where production is automated, markets are starting to saturate, and population may be starting to stabilise.
That's the sort of economic reading I've been doing for the last few years.
Fix the patent system or be charged with manslaughter and human rights violations. There.
You think we could use the same argument to get universal health care in the US? I'd love to see an economic system totally committed to keeping its citizens healthy.
Antibiotics present an interesting problem. On the one hand we want them to be inexpensive and available when needed, but on the other hand, we don't want them to be used too much.
That combination might make them a rather unappealing product for for-profit companies. Why develop an inexpensive product that won't be used?
Patents, like copyright, are an anti commons approach, further a data sharing but loosely couple approach more typical of libertarians if often highly effective.
The commons folks also want to eliminate IP laws, but their goals are different than libertarians. One movement supports capitalism and the other questions it (at least in its current form).
I'll add that the very idea of "selling" medicine might be the wrong one to begin with. If people need antibiotics, particularly to prevent epidemics, then those drugs need to get properly distributed whether or not there is a profit for the discoverers or the businesses that make them.
So a system that depends on for-profit companies doing the research and manufacturing of drugs might be the wrong model.
Stephan Kinsella is a libertarian and it is possible that global health care, like global warming, works better using a commons approach than a libertarian approach.
What one person/country does in the global system can have ramifications for everyone else, so a system based on everyone acting individually may not solve the problem.
The effectiveness of antibiotics depends on people only using them when appropriate and in the proper fashion. When people abuse them, we get superbugs that then become more dangerous for others, too. So finding solutions may require finding ways of curtailing people's freedom to use whatever medicine they want whenever they want to.
... I think that the approach itself does stimulate evolution of stronger and stronger bacteria.
That seems to be the biggest issue. Antibiotics are over-prescribed and I don't think that has anything to do with the patent system. If anything, having more generics that everyone can cheaply put into animal feed and give everyone for whatever illness would likely accelerate the problem.
Also, the quote from the report says this:
The connection highlights a global market failure to incentivize front-end investment in antibiotic development through the promise of longer-term commercial reward, a failure which also applies to drugs to fight malaria and vaccines for pandemic influenza.
I'm not sure that eliminating patents addresses "the failure to incentivize front-end investment in antibiotic development through the promise of longer-term commercial reward."
I'm not suggesting that medical patents are good. I'm just pointing out that the report is says the reward system for scientific research is wrong, not that patents themselves were bad.
Most of the "small" government folks actually want to increase military spending, so the government should be pretty well protected against whatever citizen revolution there is supposed to be. And most of those who threaten revolution aren't likely to give up their jobs, walk away from their homes and families, and put their lives on the line anyway.
Whenever the issue of government and privacy comes up, I point out that we also need to address private companies and the data they collect.
I was doing a bit of research on the topic and today plugged in the right combination of words to find this story, which was covered by quite a few different media outlets. Was it ever touched upon in Techdirt?
On the post: Jonathan Coulton Publicly Shames Fox For Copying His Arrangement In Glee
The exact replicas are coming
Let's say someone snaps a photo, and then someone else goes and makes the same photo -- same pose, same lighting, same filters, etc. Is the second person supposed to credit the first photographer with the idea?
With 3D printing, exact replicas are coming.
People can copy lots of stuff and do. In most cases it is just for their personal use, but if there are no copyright laws, I don't expect to see everyone carefully attributing what they copy to those who first create it.
I'm not putting a value judgement on this. I just think as technology facilitates copying, it will be done.
I don't see Coulton a victim in this any more than I see anyone who has had his or her work copied without attribution a victim. It is what it is.
The anti-copyright folks like to point to fashion where copying is rampant. The design houses are expected to come out with new stuff all the time and let go of whatever they did last year. So maybe that's what someone like Coulton needs to do. Once you put it out there, it isn't yours. You've got to move on to the new stuff. The reason this hasn't been the case with songs is that there is copyright so once you write it or record it, you get to financially benefit for decades. But let's assume that goes away and the thinking switches from create it and own it, to create it and let it go. An entirely different way to perceive creations and it probably will happen as copyright disappears and the lines between one creator and another blur. One person writes the song. Another arranges it differently. Yet another records it in a manner which may or may not be identical to the first two. Will people trace the history of the song? Will they care?
On the post: Jonathan Coulton Publicly Shames Fox For Copying His Arrangement In Glee
Re: Throw out the law
And usually when they do, at least some people tell them:
(1) their ideas probably weren't all that original anyway, and/or
(2) the exposure is good for them, and/or
(3) if someone else has figured out how to make money from their ideas maybe they can learn something from the clever people who know how to monetize.
I'm pretty sure that copyright will lose its effectiveness sooner or later. And I think that sooner or later everyone will be copying everyone else and not necessarily giving credit. In some cases they might not want to, in some cases they may not know whom credit, and in some cases it's just too much hassle to credit every contributor for everything they use or borrow.
I think Coulton has run into what other creatives have or will run into and perhaps he didn't think it would happen to him.
On the post: Jonathan Coulton Publicly Shames Fox For Copying His Arrangement In Glee
Re: Re:
You realize, though, don't you, that as content becomes widely available for anyone to use as they wish without having to worry about legal ramifications or paying royalties, there is going to be a lot of copying and reuse without necessarily the proper credit. In fact, once something gets passed around enough, there's a good chance most people won't even know who the originator was nor will they care. The idea that you'll get credit if someone uses your idea with little or no modification is nice, but once all that content is freely flying around, I'm not sure people will bother to check. It's like folk songs in the public domain. They have been around for years, people perform them as is or modify them, etc. It becomes open source music.
If someone wants to mimic another person's work (as might be said to be the case with Glee), what's the harm, especially if lots of people start doing it? As people have pointed on Techdirt all the time, music is a collective effort. Does anyone really own it?
I think if you are going to push the copyright liberation boundaries, you have to expect this and live with it. Isn't the preferred response supposed to be for Coulton to thank Glee for exposing its fans to his music? Why bother to shame Fox?
On the post: Jonathan Coulton Publicly Shames Fox For Copying His Arrangement In Glee
Re: Re:
But was he wronged? As copyright falls away, I'm not sure people will necessarily take great pains to credit the history of what they borrow, copy, or incorporate.
On the post: Blowback From Publication Of Gun Owner Data Continues -- Threats, Lawsuits And Rejected FOIA Requests
An opportunity for private companies
If private companies can gather data on gun use, it is something they can sell. Better they do it than no one does it.
Lack Of Up-To-Date Research Complicates Gun Debate : It's All Politics : NPR
On the post: Blowback From Publication Of Gun Owner Data Continues -- Threats, Lawsuits And Rejected FOIA Requests
Here's a really good example of privatizing gun control
On the post: World Economic Forum Warns That Patents Are Making Us Lose The Race Against Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria
To put this into perspective
World Economic Forum's Events Risk - Business Insider
On the post: A Music Streaming Service That Builds In CwF+RtB? Built By Trent Reznor And Ian Rogers? Sign Me Up
Re: Daisy
This new project has put together a great team. So it will be interesting to see how it does.
And if it doesn't succeed, I'm sure people will say that music licensing is the issue.
However, I think Sandra has hit upon the bigger problem (other than the fact that I don't think any music startup should get involved with anything that requires licensing). People have a limited amount of money. They still like music, but that doesn't necessarily translate into them wanting to spend money on music. Maybe they'll go to a few shows. But how many t-shirts will they buy?
I love the tiny house movement because it focuses on living in small spaces. And if you live in a small space, you have very little storage room. You just can't own a lot of things. And while you might still be able to purchase digital items and non-digital experiences, if you are living in a small space, you're probably also focusing on economical living in general. That means not spending more on anything that you don't need to spend.
Yes, there is a demographic who will plunk down serious money to go to music festivals, so there are music fans with money. But there are also a lot of music fans without enough money to be able to pay for anything but their non-music bills each month.
How big is that music audience with money? And those with money are also being approach via places like Kickstarter. So the hard core fan might be going there rather than through Topspin.
On the post: World Economic Forum Warns That Patents Are Making Us Lose The Race Against Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria
Re: Re: Re: The commons and health
It might come to that: as a form of population control, as a way to eliminate income inequality, and as a form of terrorism.
On the post: World Economic Forum Warns That Patents Are Making Us Lose The Race Against Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria
Re: Re: Re: Re: The commons and health
That's the sort of economic reading I've been doing for the last few years.
On the post: World Economic Forum Warns That Patents Are Making Us Lose The Race Against Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria
Re: Fix it or else
You think we could use the same argument to get universal health care in the US? I'd love to see an economic system totally committed to keeping its citizens healthy.
On the post: World Economic Forum Warns That Patents Are Making Us Lose The Race Against Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria
Re: Re: Re: Re:
An article published a couple of days ago.
Health Care and Pursuit of Profit Make a Poor Mix - NYTimes.com
On the post: World Economic Forum Warns That Patents Are Making Us Lose The Race Against Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria
Re: The commons and health
That combination might make them a rather unappealing product for for-profit companies. Why develop an inexpensive product that won't be used?
On the post: World Economic Forum Warns That Patents Are Making Us Lose The Race Against Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria
Re: Re: The commons and health
The commons folks also want to eliminate IP laws, but their goals are different than libertarians. One movement supports capitalism and the other questions it (at least in its current form).
On the post: World Economic Forum Warns That Patents Are Making Us Lose The Race Against Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria
Re: The commons and health
So a system that depends on for-profit companies doing the research and manufacturing of drugs might be the wrong model.
On the post: World Economic Forum Warns That Patents Are Making Us Lose The Race Against Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria
The commons and health
What one person/country does in the global system can have ramifications for everyone else, so a system based on everyone acting individually may not solve the problem.
The effectiveness of antibiotics depends on people only using them when appropriate and in the proper fashion. When people abuse them, we get superbugs that then become more dangerous for others, too. So finding solutions may require finding ways of curtailing people's freedom to use whatever medicine they want whenever they want to.
On the post: World Economic Forum Warns That Patents Are Making Us Lose The Race Against Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria
Re: Re:
That seems to be the biggest issue. Antibiotics are over-prescribed and I don't think that has anything to do with the patent system. If anything, having more generics that everyone can cheaply put into animal feed and give everyone for whatever illness would likely accelerate the problem.
Also, the quote from the report says this:
The connection highlights a global market failure to incentivize front-end investment in antibiotic development through the promise of longer-term commercial reward, a failure which also applies to drugs to fight malaria and vaccines for pandemic influenza.
I'm not sure that eliminating patents addresses "the failure to incentivize front-end investment in antibiotic development through the promise of longer-term commercial reward."
I'm not suggesting that medical patents are good. I'm just pointing out that the report is says the reward system for scientific research is wrong, not that patents themselves were bad.
On the post: White House Refuses To Be Transparent About Positions On Transparency
Re: Re:
On the post: Yes, You've Got Something To Hide
Did Techdirt ever address this?
I was doing a bit of research on the topic and today plugged in the right combination of words to find this story, which was covered by quite a few different media outlets. Was it ever touched upon in Techdirt?
Court Upholds Google-NSA Relationship Secrecy | Threat Level | Wired.com
On the post: Yes, You've Got Something To Hide
Re: It's built into the system now
Next >>