The concept of "property" is really losing its meaning in terms of patents. Patents have now evolved in patenting concepts. Concepts are clearly not a form of property.
For example, you can patent a "bottle opener" of a specific design however you should not be able to patent the concept of "bottle opener". So it you invent a bottle opener and someone else invents another style of bottle opener you should not be able to claim infringement. (Competitors also spend lots of time and money developing products.)
Additionally, just because you invent something, does not mean that you are entitled to any compensation. It depends on a several factors. The most obvious one, is there even a market for your product? Even if there is a market for your product better alternatives to your product may exist. You have no intrinsic right prevent a competitor from entering a market a selling a competing product.
The free market is based on competition. If you spend a lot of money developing something and it flops to bad.
I am used to the term "intellectual property" and use it all the time. But we live in a world where we slice and dice the meaning of words. The word "property" clearly creates the wrong impression. It is also a word that is being used to create the image that the content producers are valiantly attempting to protect their so-called "property" when in fact they are depriving the users of the content of their property right to that content. So if we have to choose a designation, I will go with "Intellectual Monopoly".
Excellent summary. Unfortunately, your comments are quite true. One company where the Sales and Marketing Department has "destroyed" good products has been Intuit. Intuit is all about making the next sale. Even if you own the product you are barraged by pitches to buy buy buy. Meanwhile the product itself languishes.
Seems to me that we made a lot of advances before the concept of patent was "created". Fire is one, bows, arrows, and the business plan of the tribe hunting and gathering as an organized unit.
To say that without a patent system we would be in the dark ages is ridiculous.
You wrote "do you think I would waste my money on inventory if I knew someone else could copy it and be in the market the next day?". Well, capitalism is about competition not monopolies. If you invent something and it can be copied easily and you can't derive any revenue from it - to bad. Think of it as an altruistic act that benefits society, and by the way thanks for helping to promote progress in the science and arts. Society might even give you a plaque for your public service.
Re: How Much Harm Do Bad Patents Do To The Economy
The premise that the quest for $$$ drives research is not exactly correct. A lot of research is funded by the government and undertaken by Universities. One of the big impetuses behind scientific progress has, in fact, been research to fight wars. The concept that patents and copyright are a vital ingredient for innovation is overrated.
That reminds me of a particularly rancid incident where I work. We will be migrating to a new time card system. We were given a power point "training" presentation. The so-called "training" was nothing more than an advertisement by the consulting firm bragging about their product. Where was the barf bag!
As many of the posters have pointed out, over saturation of a message leads to it being ignored. Unfortunately, like a drug addict looking for their next fix, the only concept the sales department seems to understand - we need an ever greater marketing effort.
In "Minority Report" (the movie) as our hero Anderton as he walks around public places the billboards read his identity and give him personalized ads.
Competition will help. It would allow people to switch if the company doesn't provide good service.
A residual concern, even with increased competition,-- how is the consumer to know if he or she is being screwed by the ISP????? I know that I don't have the technical expertise to make that determination. Since the anecdotal evidence is rising that corporation (such as Comcast) are doing stealth actions to manipulate the flow of packets, I am left with a feeling of mistrust. To avoid the hammer of regulation, I would hope that companies (such as Comcast) could take a more proactive ethical approach.
Since there would be probably be a threshold level for what can or can not be filtered by the ISPs, the RIAA could get into the business of "selling" filtering opportunities to the small artists who are under the threshold to assure that their content is "protected". Capitalism at its best.
For the sake of argument, lets assume that filtering is a legal mandate.
If John Doe (a member of the general public) finds some content he does not like or content he believes he owns is being illegally shared on the internet, will he be able to demand that the ISP filter this data?
Furthermore how would the ISP even know if the entity demanding the use of a filter has a "legitimate" right to have that data filtered?
Obviously this will also raise the issue of "equality" since the ISP can not possibly satiate everyone's desire for protective filtering. To paraphrase Orwell some content owners will be more equal than others. The small artist probably won't get filtering protection and will starve but the RIAA will get it and the RIAA managers will enjoy their Hawaiian vacation homes.
I finally got around to reading the article. After reading it, it occurred to me that we have a highly structured argument that favors the concept that the RIAA and MPPA are "victims".
We seem to be overlooking two analytical points in this debate. 1) the public domain and 2) the evolution of the copyright.
1. There is a possibility that some of the content that is being shared is in the public domain. To share content in the public domain would be legal. However, this possibility seems to receive little press so we never hear of legal file sharing uses.
2. Copyright law has evolved to give enhanced "protection" to the content producers. Under the original 1790 copyright law the maximum period for copyright was 28 years. That means that everything before 1980 would now be in the public domain and could be shared if the law had not been changed. So we have a situation where something that was legal yesterday (in a sense) is now illegal.
It is now illegal because the content producers had congress pass a self serving law that protects their interests. So for me the question degenerates not to the issue of file sharing being illegal or legal, but to the fact that we have an unjust law that should be repealed to restore our rights.
Good post. One trend in the copyright/patent debate has been the aggrandizement of rights by the copyright/patent holder. They have successfully hid behind the mantra that they need to protect their rights. What has not be adequately discussed is that the consumers rights to use their legally acquired content is being eroded. They are being stripped of their property rights. Or to put it another way, the copyright/patent holders are stealing (theft) from the consumer.
I hope that you will provide a historical look at this trend.
This is another sore point that points to the absurdity of the current patent/copyright law. Researchers have started to claim that they have patents on genes! Additionally, some doctors who have developed a "cure" for an illness are now claiming that they own the cure. If I remember, the particular illness in question was caused by a natural vitamin deficiency so the cure was to provide the natural vitamin that you can buy over-the-counter in your drugstore, yet the medical professional who "discovered" this was evidently claiming copyright/patent ownership.
Fair use is not theft, so we will have to disagree.
Here is my counter slippery slope example:
If I buy a book I can read it at anytime, I can read it anywhere assuming that I have light and when I am done, I can sell/give it away.
Copyright owners are now asserting that I do not have a right to view content at any time, they assert that time shifting is illegal. Content owners say that I can't watch a DVD bought in the US in Europe. Content owners now claim that I don't have a right a sell/give away my legally acquired content. These are all a diminution of my historic rights to use the product as I wish.
Copyright used to be limited to a limited period of time and to limited content when originally established as long. Now it has expanded in time and scope before it falls into the public domain. While this isn't technically theft by the content producer, it does represent a aggrandizement by the content owners to claim rights that they did not posses and to further increase draconian restrictions on the consumer.
Also how do you address the fact that content producers now claim that they have a "right" to trespass onto your computer to make a unilateral declaration on whether you are violation of their draconian restriction. Remember the Sony rootkit debacle???
These are all deprivations of the consumers fair use, hence theft of the consumers property. Theft can be a two way street.
Given that => "It is plainly too EASY to copy these things."
In theory, we live in a "Free Market" system. There is no guarantee that you as a creator of content can derive revenue from your product. If technology makes reproduction essentially a zero cost operation that's the way it goes. Welcome to capitalism.
While the creator of content may assert property ownership, we are also missing a critical point in this copyright analysis. That is that the copyright owner has an alleged right to "protect" his/her content by increasingly depriving the consumer of his/her right to fair use. This is a violation of due process. The copyright holder does not have the right to deprive the consumer of fair use. This theft of the Consumers property rights.
The examples posted by Mike point to how "slippery slope" this discussion has become. When we have these slippery slope discussions it is a clear reflection that the concepts of patents and copyright are opaque and broken and are in need of revision.
If he should get elected, there would be a voice of opposition in Congress. True, as one person he may be easily out-voted but he would also be in a position to force the issues to be debated in a more open manner. This would provide the public with better disclosure of the issues involved. The media may even improve on its reporting of how consumers are getting screwed.
On the post: If Intellectual Property Is Neither Intellectual, Nor Property, What Is It?
Re: Property
For example, you can patent a "bottle opener" of a specific design however you should not be able to patent the concept of "bottle opener". So it you invent a bottle opener and someone else invents another style of bottle opener you should not be able to claim infringement. (Competitors also spend lots of time and money developing products.)
Additionally, just because you invent something, does not mean that you are entitled to any compensation. It depends on a several factors. The most obvious one, is there even a market for your product? Even if there is a market for your product better alternatives to your product may exist. You have no intrinsic right prevent a competitor from entering a market a selling a competing product.
The free market is based on competition. If you spend a lot of money developing something and it flops to bad.
On the post: If Intellectual Property Is Neither Intellectual, Nor Property, What Is It?
Intellectual Monopoly +1 vote
On the post: You Succeed By Executing Well, Not By Gathering Patents
Re: This is not always true
On the post: How Much Harm Do Bad Patents Do To The Economy?
Tecnological Advance Doesn't Need Patents
To say that without a patent system we would be in the dark ages is ridiculous.
You wrote "do you think I would waste my money on inventory if I knew someone else could copy it and be in the market the next day?". Well, capitalism is about competition not monopolies. If you invent something and it can be copied easily and you can't derive any revenue from it - to bad. Think of it as an altruistic act that benefits society, and by the way thanks for helping to promote progress in the science and arts. Society might even give you a plaque for your public service.
On the post: How Much Harm Do Bad Patents Do To The Economy?
Re: How Much Harm Do Bad Patents Do To The Economy
On the post: The Search For The Elusive Captive Audience Means No More Contemplation?
Re: School kids are the captive audience
On the post: The Search For The Elusive Captive Audience Means No More Contemplation?
Marketing as a Drug Additction
In "Minority Report" (the movie) as our hero Anderton as he walks around public places the billboards read his identity and give him personalized ads.
On the post: We Need A Broadband Competition Act, Not A Net Neutrality Act
Ethical Corporations
A residual concern, even with increased competition,-- how is the consumer to know if he or she is being screwed by the ISP????? I know that I don't have the technical expertise to make that determination. Since the anecdotal evidence is rising that corporation (such as Comcast) are doing stealth actions to manipulate the flow of packets, I am left with a feeling of mistrust. To avoid the hammer of regulation, I would hope that companies (such as Comcast) could take a more proactive ethical approach.
On the post: Can Someone Explain Why It Should Be An ISP's Responsibility To Deal With File Sharing?
A New Business Opportunity
On the post: Can Someone Explain Why It Should Be An ISP's Responsibility To Deal With File Sharing?
Who has the right to demand filtering?
If John Doe (a member of the general public) finds some content he does not like or content he believes he owns is being illegally shared on the internet, will he be able to demand that the ISP filter this data?
Furthermore how would the ISP even know if the entity demanding the use of a filter has a "legitimate" right to have that data filtered?
Obviously this will also raise the issue of "equality" since the ISP can not possibly satiate everyone's desire for protective filtering. To paraphrase Orwell some content owners will be more equal than others. The small artist probably won't get filtering protection and will starve but the RIAA will get it and the RIAA managers will enjoy their Hawaiian vacation homes.
On the post: Another Look At The 'Does File Sharing Equal Stealing?' Question
Jon Healy's article "File ‘sharing’ or ‘stea
We seem to be overlooking two analytical points in this debate. 1) the public domain and 2) the evolution of the copyright.
1. There is a possibility that some of the content that is being shared is in the public domain. To share content in the public domain would be legal. However, this possibility seems to receive little press so we never hear of legal file sharing uses.
2. Copyright law has evolved to give enhanced "protection" to the content producers. Under the original 1790 copyright law the maximum period for copyright was 28 years. That means that everything before 1980 would now be in the public domain and could be shared if the law had not been changed. So we have a situation where something that was legal yesterday (in a sense) is now illegal.
It is now illegal because the content producers had congress pass a self serving law that protects their interests. So for me the question degenerates not to the issue of file sharing being illegal or legal, but to the fact that we have an unjust law that should be repealed to restore our rights.
On the post: On The Constitutional Reasons Behind Copyright And Patents
Basis of Proof
On the post: On The Constitutional Reasons Behind Copyright And Patents
Shifting Landscape
I hope that you will provide a historical look at this trend.
On the post: Another Look At The 'Does File Sharing Equal Stealing?' Question
Technological Advancement
On the post: Another Look At The 'Does File Sharing Equal Stealing?' Question
Re: Well, if we come up with examples...
On the post: Another Look At The 'Does File Sharing Equal Stealing?' Question
Re: Well, if we come up with examples...
On the post: Another Look At The 'Does File Sharing Equal Stealing?' Question
Re: Re: Theft of the Consumers Property Rights
Here is my counter slippery slope example:
If I buy a book I can read it at anytime, I can read it anywhere assuming that I have light and when I am done, I can sell/give it away.
Copyright owners are now asserting that I do not have a right to view content at any time, they assert that time shifting is illegal. Content owners say that I can't watch a DVD bought in the US in Europe. Content owners now claim that I don't have a right a sell/give away my legally acquired content. These are all a diminution of my historic rights to use the product as I wish.
Copyright used to be limited to a limited period of time and to limited content when originally established as long. Now it has expanded in time and scope before it falls into the public domain. While this isn't technically theft by the content producer, it does represent a aggrandizement by the content owners to claim rights that they did not posses and to further increase draconian restrictions on the consumer.
Also how do you address the fact that content producers now claim that they have a "right" to trespass onto your computer to make a unilateral declaration on whether you are violation of their draconian restriction. Remember the Sony rootkit debacle???
These are all deprivations of the consumers fair use, hence theft of the consumers property. Theft can be a two way street.
On the post: Another Look At The 'Does File Sharing Equal Stealing?' Question
Theft of the Consumers Property Rights
In theory, we live in a "Free Market" system. There is no guarantee that you as a creator of content can derive revenue from your product. If technology makes reproduction essentially a zero cost operation that's the way it goes. Welcome to capitalism.
While the creator of content may assert property ownership, we are also missing a critical point in this copyright analysis. That is that the copyright owner has an alleged right to "protect" his/her content by increasingly depriving the consumer of his/her right to fair use. This is a violation of due process. The copyright holder does not have the right to deprive the consumer of fair use. This theft of the Consumers property rights.
The examples posted by Mike point to how "slippery slope" this discussion has become. When we have these slippery slope discussions it is a clear reflection that the concepts of patents and copyright are opaque and broken and are in need of revision.
On the post: Larry Lessig Officially Considers Run For Congress
Re: who is Larry Lessig
On the post: Larry Lessig Officially Considers Run For Congress
Lessig Should Run
Next >>