Like so often, there are two sides to this argument: an ethical/moral one and an economic one. The economic one is the only one that should count.
Copyrights/patents/etc are useful tools to create financial incentives for developing products and services which require a lot of investment but are easy to copy (like drugs) once developed. If there's a reason to assume that something which is useful for society would not have been developed without a protection, protection must apply. In all other cases it must not!
Had Elvis Presley sung his songs even without a decades-long copyright protection? You can bet! In fact, any individual who enters the music industry doesn't do this for the money. It's an unlikely by-product. It makes a tiny minority filthy rich and keeps most of the artists at the breadline. Everyone, except for this tiny minority of lucky artists and their corporate allies would be better off if the work wasn't protected, because the songs would be sung anyway (and this last part is the important one!).
What would have happened if Albert Einstein had protected the theory of general relativity? Well, the ”ownership” of this idea had been transferred to somebody else at his death and we, now, would probably pay this guy or company whenever we use the GPS. (GPS doesn't work without considering the time-delays induced by the gravity of Earth.) Of course, Einstein would never have thought of an idea that absurd.
The problem with intellectual property, like so often in economics, is people who apply other moral arguments than the one that we try to maximize the benefit for society as a whole; like trying to apply some kind of 'justice' for big corporations. But if the product would have been developed even without paying some individuals billions, society shouldn't!
Once again: Look at the economics and try to maximize the benefit of society as a whole. Don't look at bogus arguments about justice and ownership. They may sound convincing at first but they can be twisted any way you like. Try to maximize the economic benefit of the whole society and think of justice, ethics and morality only when necessary to achieve this goal!
Last but not least: The laws on the books right now in most western countries are antiquated. They need to be revised. Unfortunately the opposite is happening in the corporate-interests-driven US at the moment; see my last post. I'm really losing more and more respect for the political system over there. Which is one more reason for a politically strong and united Europe. We may soon be the only major power on this planet which is not run by millionaires and their interest groups.
---
PS: Since the political conservative side is so often in favour of strong IP laws: think of it as government intervention into the free market; the goverment giving orders to free people to not do something - even though it may be in the interest of society as a whole. And the reason is a moral judgement by government employees who work together with large corporations.
Because that's what copyright law is. It should be used only when it is clearly for the benefit of society as a whole, and in all other cases the free market should be free, not regulated.
Patents is what allows pharmaceutical companies to spend billions on drugs, not copyright. And patents expire, rather fast. That's why generic drugs are not completely identical, they can only copy the patented substance but not the otherwise protected formulation.
ReplyDeleteYou're using patents and copyright interchangeable in your post.
A couple of clarifications. First off Mark Rubio (conservative US senator from Florida) has taken his name off the proposed US law. Conservatives do NOT support the language in the current bill. It was written by Hollywood lobyists.
ReplyDeleteAs for copyright protection on intellectual property this is a MUST have. You rail against coporations and the rich. But real copyright protections help the little guy. A singer writes or performs a great song. Sony hears it and has their star perform the song. Sony and their singer get the money and the poor little guy gets nothing. Do you really support that? Without intellectual copyright laws that would be the norm.
And your analogy of gravity was just wierd. Newton first proposed gravity. Einstein exanded on it with space-time. And neither gravity or space-time is intellectual property. But what if Einstein wrote a book and some large publisher copied the book almost word for word and made all the money? Is this OK.
Sorry but you missed the mark on this post by a wide margin. The US law is flawed and wrong. It is a BAD bill. But the concept of intellectual property and the right to protect it is fundamental.
You are right, Kring. But it's really the same idea. The government shouldn't protect the interests of any specific group of people, but the interests of the whole of society.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that you can't watch many youtube videos in Germany is a consequnce of protecting the interests of a small group of people because these videos and their songs would have been produced even if this copyright didn't exist. Everybody but a small group of people would be better off if this regulation wouldn't exist.
The same applies to e.g. smartphone patents.
Goodmongo, if the examples you provide would lead to people not writing the book or not creating the song, we would need some kind of copyright. Otherwise we shouldn't.
ReplyDeleteShould books be protected for this reason? Yes - but only to the extend necessary to guarantee that they are written!
There is no need to regulate the free market in a way that people suddenly receive money from other people for something they would have done anyway. It doesn't help with innovation and distorts the market.
I'm really absolutely serious when I say that, in this instance, government and regulations are the problem and not the solution. And this, really, isn't something I say often ;)
> But it's really the same idea.
ReplyDeleteIt's not. Not in the slightest.
Real patents (not trivial US patents) require you to invent something that is "patent worthy". Some of those inventions would happen anyway, some wouldn't. The pharmaceutical industry couldn't pay the clinic testing without patents.
Copyright, on the other side, doesn't require you to do anything "copyright worthy". Whatever you write or sing is automatically copyrighted. You can't even avoid it!
That's a huge difference.
> youtube videos in Germany
GEMA is the reason for that or the German law which empowers the GEMA. It has nothing to do with copyright.
You can read the Wikipedia in Germany without problems even thought everything that's written is automatically copyrighted and VG Wort doesn't try to shut down Wikipedia (as far as I know).
> The same applies to e.g. smartphone patents.
You're probably referring to "trivial patents" which is one of US' weapon in their economic warfare. Again, the problem are not the patents. The problem is the US law that allows trivial patents (and the EU that allows them to get away with it).
You miss a crucial point here. It takes money and usually lots of it to publish a book or to get a song out to the masses. The deck is already stacked against the unknown.
ReplyDeleteWhat happens if that writer goes to an agent or publisher and submits their Word document book. Its a great book but the publisher steals the book and since they have the money publishes it. The book is out (according to you) but the person who spent the time and brain cells gets nothing out of it. As a consumer maybe you don't care but I sure would.
Same can be said for music. The unknown singer posts a song on Youtube trying to get recognized. A big name sees it and steals it. They make the money. You get your wish in having the song available but the unknown singer only gets the shaft.
If I use my hands and make a do-dad or gadget I can protect it with a patent. But if I use my brain and come up with a great play, song, story, movie then according to you the big corporation or government should get to do whatever they want with it. Property is property whether physical or intellectual. The government and business should not be able to take it from the creator of it without compensating the person for it.
I seems we are talking past each other here. I'm not for removal of IP protection or unlimited copying of songs.
ReplyDeleteAll I say is
If there's a reason to assume that something which is useful for society would not have been developed without a [] protection, [] protection must apply. In all other cases it must not!
And this is what patents, copyright, GEMA and whatever have in common: this idea applies to all of them.
The only reason for the government to not allow citizens to copy ideas/information must be the greater economic benefit of the whole of society. If the removal of a law/regulation/etc would make the whole of society worse off, because the idea wouldn't have been created/distributed without it, that's a strong reason to introduce some kind of incentive (like a copy-protection).
In all other cases regulation is wrong. Do you challenge this assertion?
Then the trick comes down to who defines "useful for society" and how they define it. Vest the power of that decision in the wrong people and give them powers to enforce it, and you're screwed.
ReplyDeleteWhat if we had an agreed upon threshold,say a multiple of 3. You can make profits of three times the cost of innovation before it becomes unprotected. This would still drive innovation, give the creator incentive to profit and create, but not hinder society from advancing in the long term. It could be an accounting nightmare though...
ReplyDeleteTrue, Tesh, but we would make a giant leap forward if we agreed on this simple idea.
ReplyDeleteTake for example the fact that songs are owned by companies even after the artist is dead. This is pretty ridiculous because the fact that somebody else gets money for the songs your write is a pretty bad incentive for you to write songs - especially if this protections goes on for many, many decades.
At the same time earnings from copyright could be capped. If you can earn (e.g.) $1mio per song that should be a pretty good incentive to write any song, really. No need to protect the song even after $1mio has been earned. The only thing this money achieves is that it makes one guy/corporation richer at the cost
of everybody else.
If government intervention in the free market leads to a group of people suddenly making billions - even though without regulation they would make next to no money - people should be very skeptical, in my opinion.
The main point is really that we need to have this discussion in the terms of economic benefit for the whole of society and not in the terms the corporations like to use which are "justice", "ethics", "property" etc.
"You miss a crucial point here. It takes money and usually lots of it to publish a book or to get a song out to the masses. The deck is already stacked against the unknown."
ReplyDeleteIf you had posted this comment just ten years ago, I would have agreed. Publishing music or books is now fast, easy and cheap and people can and do make money putting their works online if they do it right.
Nils, all of your argument seems to be based on the idea that we should always try to be maximizing the benefit to society as a whole and I disagree with that. I believe individuals should have rights and protections which might not be beneficial to society as a whole. I agree that copyright laws should be toned down in many cases. Actually I would be in favor of shortening the life span of copyrights.
ReplyDelete@Scott, publishing a book (say e-book) is cheap. Getting noticed through advertisement so it sells is expensive and hard. If no one knows your book exists you might as well have never printed it. And getting your book into a physical bookstore takes connections/money.
ReplyDelete@Nils, companies buy the rights to songs and own the rights after the person dies. They pay a big amount for this right. I think it takes 99 years (could be wrong on this) before the copyright goes away.
The reason for this is radio stations play the song and get money via advertising. They then pay a small royalty to the owner of the song rights. There is NOTHING wrong with forcing a company to share their profits with the creator of the song if they are going to profit from its use. People can use the song all they want as long as they don't PROFIT from it.
And I do challenge your assertion because movies, books, songs, games etc really don't have a societal benefit. And what gets me is you think you are protecting society or forcing the coporations to give it to society. But all you are doing is giving the rights to the corporations and keeping the money in their hands.
As for property that is a foundation of a socialist society vs. non. To those according to their needs never worked and never will work. The right to own personal property is a linchpin in a free society. Without that the government or those connected end up being rulers over the rest of us.
@Wander, I can respect this point of view as honest. I even agree that there may be scenarios where the (high) benefit of a few may outweight the (little) benefit of the many. But I can't imagine one connected with patents / copyrights / etc at this moment.
ReplyDeleteGenerally, I believe that society profits if as many people as possible have as much access to patterns i.e. (information, things you can get without taking them away from somebody else) as possible. The only reason to regulate this freedom is if the patterns weren't accessible without this regulation, in the first place.
@Goodmongo:
And I do challenge your assertion because movies, books, songs, games etc really don't have a societal benefit.
I'd leave that for the market to decide, really. If there's a demand there is a benefit, in my opinion.
---
There is NOTHING wrong with forcing a company to share their profits with the creator of the song if they are going to profit from its use. People can use the song all they want as long as they don't PROFIT from it.
If that's the law in the US then that's great. Here in Germany I am not allowed give away my MP3s for free.
---
And what gets me is you think you are protecting society or forcing the coporations to give it to society. But all you are doing is giving the rights to the corporations and keeping the money in their hands.
I don't force anyone. I propose to remove regulations that prevent people from doing things they otherwise could do. As for how this gives rights to corps and keeps money in their hands I don't understand ...
Maybe you can elaborate (without using tooo many words :) ?
---
The right to own personal property is a linchpin in a free society.
Careful, does this even apply if the property is created by the government and wouldn't even exist in a tradeable form without government intervention, in the first place?
---
Another way to word my opinion is this: All other things equal, a world in which more people have access to a pattern is preferable to a world in which less peole have this access. If you want to regulate this in a way that some people lose access, you need good reasons.
The access to the pattern, or the pattern itself, not existing in the absence of the regulation is a good reason; greed is a bad one.
And what gets me is you think you are protecting society or forcing the coporations to give it to society. But all you are doing is giving the rights to the corporations and keeping the money in their hands.
ReplyDeleteI don't force anyone. I propose to remove regulations that prevent people from doing things they otherwise could do. As for how this gives rights to corps and keeps money in their hands I don't understand ...
Maybe you can elaborate (without using tooo many words :) ?
Ah I see the difference. It's the different laws in Germany vs. the US. In the US the owner can do what they want with thier property. The laws prevent others (including the government) from stealing or benefitting from other peoples work. They don't prohibit you the owner from displaying or even giving it away.
Actually I am pretty sure that even in the US you are not allowed to upload your songs to other peoples' computers. Not even if you do it for free ..
ReplyDeleteNor are you allowed to download them - even if the owner allows you to.
The same applies to movies, etc. You may own these things, but essentially the only thing you are allowed to do with it, is listen/watch it.
Nils, buying a record is not the same as owning it. In the US I can share my CD/movie with anyone I want. I bought one copy and that one copy can go to me or to any person I give it to.
ReplyDeleteIt does not grant me the right to give it away to the rest of the US population. I can play the song at a party and 1000 people can hear it as long as I don't charge admission or profit from it.
What you want is a form of piracy. Your friend buys the song and you get it it for free, resulting in two copies.
The ture OWNER is the creator or the one having the rights to the song/movie. You are just a user of it. You are not an owner. All you bought was the right to use the song for your own pleasure. You can transfer that right to one other individual but not to a whole world.
This is how it works in the US.
And, surprisingly, that's how it works in Europe ;)
ReplyDeleteAnd my point remains: We need regulation that ensures that the song is produced and accessable by the wider public. If there is not enough financial incentive for this, we should create this incentive. Copyright laws are a good way to create these incentives for several reasons.
However, we shouldn't create more regulation than necessary to achieve this goal. And in my opinion, right now, we have much more regulation than is necessary.
What we absolutely shouldn't do is start to talk about it in terms of ownership, property, justice or even theft. These are the terms of some interest groups who want to make more money with these products by lobbying for as much regulation as possible.
Yes, you are basically licensed to use the Song/Movie/Software. You can use it because you bought a "license" to use. You don't actually own the IP so you can't profit.
ReplyDeleteNils, its not the government's decision who gets to access this material. If I create the most exhilerating song known to man and I don't want to share it with anyone, thats my choice. I can't profit from it unless I share it with society anyway.
The reason why these people/corporations can make so much money off of this is not the products themselves....its the marketing. They have invested money to create an environment where people's musical interests are not extremely diverse when compared to the whole realm of music. People (especially youth) tend to like things (like media, fashion, etc...) because other people in their peer groups are using it. Hell, most adults do this too. People feel warm and fuzzy when they are part of a group and have things in common.
Most of their money is made off of Marketing when you really think about it long and hard. If people bought music for its quality do you think Justin Beiber would have ever become famous? C'mon now....
Bah, you're not thinking radically enough, how are you supposed to get good discussion going if it's going to be all "me too" with just one or two subpoints debated!? :)
ReplyDeleteLet's see... I guess i'll start with this inflammatory line:
Intellectual property as it stands is theft aimed to deprive population from free dissemination of facts and ideas.
Really, the original idea was mostly to protect business of people close to court/lawmakers. It hasn't changed in spirit much since then, if at all. Everything else is collateral effects.
"Free" and "protected" never works together. It's one or another, their goals are contradictory. As the saying goes, "those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither" - and yes, i consider it entirely applicable to Intellectual Property laws.
It is also government-imposed tax on free market, and in fact one of main reasons free market doesn't work for Intellectual Properties!
> If people bought music for its quality do you think Justin Beiber would have ever become famous? C'mon now....
ReplyDeleteThey obviously would! :)
There is a fair share of child/adolescent prodigies from ages past, regardless of any laws, and before marketing was so prevalent as today.
And not all of them were "quality" in every way - but they were enjoyable to their audience, and so still successful.
@Nils, obviously thinking about protecting society interests is socialism! Just thinking about society as a whole obviously makes you left-leaning! Right wing/protestant ethics is all about "people fending for themselves", and "good for society" miraclously coming out of that!
ReplyDeleteFree market has no care about society if it doesn't produce IMMEDIATE AND EVIDENT market pressure! And even then market would prefer to fight whatever is evident (public outrage, riots, lawsuits) instead of fighting problems which caused them - not to mention that free market is often unable to fix those at all.
Maybe you'll also find this fact interesting - in Russia, law allows you to reverse-engineer AND/OR modify any program you legally bought. There are restrictions on what you can do with results of that reverse-engineering, obviously, but doing it is ALWAYS allowed, and trumps any EULA.
ReplyDeleteFirst off Mark Rubio (conservative US senator from Florida) has taken his name off the proposed US law. Conservatives do NOT support the language in the current bill. It was written by Hollywood lobyists.
ReplyDeleteRubio supported the language of the bill (specifically PIPA) from May 26th, 2011 to... today. The bill was introduced May 12th, 2011. By any available measure, he was for the bill before he was against it. Specifically, he was for the bill before there were highly public protests against it.
In the US I can share my CD/movie with anyone I want.
Increasingly this is not the case. See also: used videogames.
On principal, there is no difference between buying a used game from Gamestop, and downloading it off the internet - in both cases the creators get no share of the profits of the sale. What is the difference? What is the difference between a book I download for free, and the one I get from the library, or from a garage sale? I can't imagine much money makes it way back to the artist from libraries.
The endgame for the anti-piracy movement is for there to be a monetary transaction for every user experience of the content. Your friend cannot come over and play your game; you friend cannot borrow the DVD; you cannot play your songs within earshot of other non-paying individuals; nothing is owned, everything is licensed. We already see the future in MMOs regarding account sharing... just extrapolate from there.
These companies would if they could. And they're trying. They are trying so hard.
@Azuriel: "What is the difference between a book I download for free, and the one I get from the library, or from a garage sale?"
ReplyDeleteIn the case of the physical item, if you have it, they do not. This is why industry attempts to conflate piracy and theft is so stupid; piracy does not deprive anyone of what they have while theft does.
@Shalcker, free market does not mean you get it for free. Free market means that if 100 people are willing to pay $1 for it and you are not then you either do without or pay the $1. To claim free and protected are not the same means you are using the wrong definition of free. Your "free" is defined as zero cost or the right to steal it.
ReplyDeleteYou need to do a little research on the 60's teen idols and all the markting hype they used. The venues were different but not the marketing. Same for the 50's (Elvis and Parker) or even Sinatra where his manage was in the crowd and payed a women to faint so it would cause others to faint. All marketing.
@Azuriel, The US courts have consistently ruled the single use of the license by the person that bought it. See all your examples that are legal has a common theme, one user transfers the rights to one other user. But you want one user to give the rights to many users. Can't believe your don't see that as a problem.
"Getting noticed through advertisement so it sells is expensive and hard. If no one knows your book exists you might as well have never printed it. And getting your book into a physical bookstore takes connections/money."
ReplyDeleteNot nearly as difficult as you would think. I'm not speaking from speculation but from research and participation as a consumer in the booming business of e-books and self-publishing. Promoting a book requires nothing more or less than time, visibility and appeal for the potential reader. There are plenty of ways to get free publicity on the web, especially if the work itself is quality. Some authors are more successful than others, whether due to length of time on the web, quality of work, marketing savvy or social networks with other authors that help promote each others' work.
Also, getting a physical copy into a bookstore need not be a goal at all. It is truly the expensive and hard part, as there is tremendous risk and waste for all parties involved. Most published books either just barely make back their publishing costs or end up as a loss. Publishers have to rely on a handful of big sellers to stay afloat, and people generally don't get rich in the publishing business.
As I stated before, ten years ago your assertion would have been perfectly valid. Now, traditional publishing models are looking more and more antiquated. The notion of self-publishing, at one time considered to be something only hacks and suckers did, is now mainstream.
@Scott, we can debate how easy/hard it is to self market. But the point remains that as the writer you are the person that should get at least some of the compensation.
ReplyDeleteTo allow one person to download your book then give it away to 1000 friends or post it on a sharing site means the writer gets squat. The book is the intellectual property of the writer. Not the masses. If they want to read the book they need to buy it.
I'm still waiting to hear how this book should be free to society? That really does smack of socialism. I believe in the "fruits of your labor" approach.
This post is just "economics of IP law" 101, but the point can't bear being repeated enough. You are absolutely right to highlight how corporations try to bring moral arguments to bear when talking about something which is a privelege granted to them by the state for the benefit of society.
ReplyDeletePerhaps the clearest example of how rights holders try to do this is in the language they use. All of the language they use to describe piracy and IP rights is incorrect. Copyright is not property, it is a privelege granted by the state. Piracy is not theft (criminal misappropriation of property), it is copyright infringement (civil breach of a licence condition or statutory right).
And also, because copyright is NOT property, you don't get one of the key rights that attach to actual property which is an absolute right of exclusion. You don't get to restrict second hand sales, you don't get to charge people for repeat uses of something they purchased, you don't get to prevent fair use, you don't get to restrict format or time shifting and you DON't (or, unfortunatley given recent extensions, shouldn't) have a right to get a return in perpetuity. Copyright is (or is supposed to be) a limited right for the purposes of encouraging socially beneficial creation. period.
@Azuriel, The US courts have consistently ruled the single use of the license by the person that bought it. See all your examples that are legal has a common theme, one user transfers the rights to one other user. But you want one user to give the rights to many users. Can't believe your don't see that as a problem.
ReplyDeleteI don't see it as a problem because it is a distinction without a difference. What is the actual difference between uploading a game that 1000 people download, and that singular game passing through 1000 hands in the secondary market? Either way the artist gets nothing. Are we really quibbling over simultaneous use?
I can imagine a scenario where Pirate Bay sets things up so only 1 person can use a pirated file at a time, e.g. when you're listening to a song, only you have access to it until it ends, then it gets sent back to the pool to be used by someone else.
You mentioned earlier that it's legal to play a song for 1000 people at a party as long as you don't get money for it. Is it illegal to bring a tape recorder to said party? Is it illegal for me to record one of those songs while I'm there? At that point, are we really quibbling over... what, the recording quality between a tape recorder at the party and the CD-quality versions online? I can imagine a friend bringing studio-quality recording equipment to the party to record the song for me (in return for $0) so it sounds indistinguishable from the CD version. So... what now?
The traditional anti-piracy arguments all seem half-assed to me. Either it is illegal for my friend to come over to play Halo or it isn't. If it is legal, there should be no difference between him playing it at my house, me giving him the disk, or him downloading my copy of the game. The experience is already duplicated with no payment rendered to the artist in all those scenarios, so what the hell are we actually talking about?
"Is it illegal to bring a tape recorder to said party?"
ReplyDeleteIn most states the answer is YES. You need to inform the other people that you are recording them and get permission. But that varies by state.
"Is it illegal for me to record one of those songs while I'm there?"
Big time YES. have you never been to a concert? Don't you see the signs pointing out the law on recording it? Just because most of the time it isn't prosecuted oesn't mean it isn't illegal.
And you and others have a real block when it comes to understanding single use licenses. You are granted a license for single use at a time.
What would be legal in your example about Pirate bay is you listen to the song. You can't download it but can listen to it one person at a time. And Pirate Bay could NOT profit from this activity. Meet those two criteria and there are no legal issues.
@JJ you are so wrong and mixed up I won't even attempt to show you where.
Big time YES. have you never been to a concert? Don't you see the signs pointing out the law on recording it? Just because most of the time it isn't prosecuted oesn't mean it isn't illegal.
ReplyDeleteAre cell phones illegal at a concert? If I call my friend to tell him how awesome this concert is, and he hears the music over the phone, is that illegal? This is my problem. "Just because it's not prosecuted very often..." is my problem. An unenforceable law is asinine and should be nature's way of telling you something is wrong with your logic.
Single-use licenses exist, and I'm telling you they shouldn't. That they can't, and I see zero moral issue disregarding them. Otherwise having a friend over to play Halo is illegal, walking by a room with music playing is crime (whether my own or the people for allowing others to hear it), that completely normal social behavior is unenforceable criminal activity. Secondary game sales deprive artists of payment the same as piracy, and GameStop profits from it. Secondary music sales deprive artists of payment, and record store profit from it. Goddamn garage sales deprive artists of payment, and random people profit from it.
Show me a real, actual difference between those activities.
The patent system in modern Western countries is actually a very good example of a well working compromise between the needs of the many and the interests of the few.
ReplyDeleteAs Kring pointed out, patents expire very quickly in comparison to other forms of IP. Furthermore, the patent holder has to pay a rather significance annual maintenance fee to keep his patent in force - and that's on top of all the expenses required to obtain the patent in the first place. For this reason, many patents lapse even before reaching the final expiration date, becoming fair game for anyone.
Most importantly, after a patent application is filed, all information regarding the invention is published and released freely to the general public within 18 months. And from that point on, anyone in the world can use this information as a basis for their own research in order to create (and possibly patent) new and improved inventions - provided that they are sufficiently different from the original, of course...
This way, everyone benefits. The patent holder receives a (very) temporary monopoly that serves as an incentive to create and patent new stuff, the nation's budget is fattened by fees and the march of global scientific progress continues unabated.
What would have happened if Albert Einstein had protected the theory of general relativity?
Theories and ideas are not subject to patent or copyright protection.
Thanks for this information, Ephemeron.
DeleteCan you explain how the idea to use two fingers to control your smart phone can be protected - or the idea to integrate the haft of my coffer into its frame can be protected, but ideas cannot?
I mean, I'm sure somebody is arguing that this is not just an idea, but a 'technology' - or whatever. But this doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to me.
The idea that two fingers can be used to control a smart phone can't be protected. The method of controlling a smart phone with two fingers - that is, a specific technological procedure that allows me to achieve that particular result via certain technical means (for example, measuring surface resistance) - can be.
DeleteSo if someone else can invent a different way to control a phone with two fingers (for example, by tracking the fingers' heat signatures instead of measuring resistance), then it will be considered a different invention, even though it is based on the same idea.
Hope this helps.
In a way. The various news I remember reading said quite clearly that the patent was broad enought to *effectively* protect the entire idea. But I'm no expert.
DeleteTanks for your efforts!
@Azuriel, ever hear of the word "intent"? Taht is the key. You are throwing out red herring arguments. There is no intent to defraud or deprive the owner of royalties in someone over hearing something. But what you want to do is to rob the owenr of royalties. That is no better than a looter. After all they made more than enough on those TV's by now anyway right?
ReplyDelete@Ephemeron, you went WAY off base on the Einstein example. First off his papers and books WERE copyrighted. So that in itself disproves your claim. Second, it doesn't prevent the idea from being used you have to FOOTNOTE the source. A very common thing in acadamia.
Third, copyrights are used to protect royalty. Can I copy a book word for word and sell it myself? Are suggesting that anyone have that right?
Finally, patents last from 14 to 20 years depending on patent type. Also, some patents can be extended and a patnet can be renewed for full term by creating a slight change in the product. This is very common especially in the drug world.
So even if copyrights were for 20 years it still prevents you guys from playing that game or sharing it for 20 years. Now if you want to play WOW for free in 2025 be my guest.
Perhaps I didn't make my point clearly enough. I'll try to elaborate.
Delete1. Papers and books can be copyrighted. Ideas and theories contained within can't. Copyright protects the form, not the substance; the work of art/science/literature, not its abstract content.
For example, I'm not allowed to reprint Einstein's works without obtaining permission from his descendants and successors - but I can certainly write my own books and articles on Special Relativity. I can't reprint Harry Potter word for word, either, but I can write my own books about magic, tragic loss and the power of love and friendship.
2. Footnoting/quoting is a special exception covered by Article 10 of the Berne convention.
3. If I can introduce a "slight change" to my patent, and it is sufficient (i.e., novel, inventive and industrially applicable) to allow me to acquire a new patent after my current one expires, then this change is also sufficient to allow YOU (or, indeed, anyone else) to obtain a patent of your own RIGHT AWAY by introducing that change to my patent application. Which, I remind you, is very conveniently published for all to see...
(Then, if I'm particularly unlucky and you happen to be a patent troll, you will use your own patent to try and shut down my own business, or threaten to do so).
Furthermore, even if I *do* manage to obtain a new, "slightly changed" patent, the original one is still expired, so the invention contained therein can be used by anyone.
4. 20 years is a relatively short duration, compared to "author's entire lifespan plus 50/75 years".
Since you are allowed to write all the wizard books that you want, but can't copy Harry Potter what is the issue then?
DeleteAre you saying that on year 21 you should be allowed to copy Harry Potter word for word?
But the copyright laws go a little further. They also prohibit you from giving away other people's works. It seems that the young folks today want to get free stuff or to give their friends (all of them at the same time) something they bought. Copyright laws help protect the writer from that.
What gets me is that the vast majority of writers, musicians and so forth are basically poor people. They struggle for years and if they are lucky they get that one hit. But now comes along a group of people that want to take that away from them.
Bottom line is if you want to read it, play it or listen to it, then GO BUY IT.
What gets me is that the vast majority of writers, musicians and so forth are basically poor people. They struggle for years and if they are lucky they get that one hit. But now comes along a group of people that want to take that away from them.
DeleteThe very fact that the vast majority of writers, musicians and other artists are poor is a clear indication that existing copyright laws are *not* aimed at protecting their interests. On other hand, the fact that publishers, record companies and TV broadcasters tend to be very rich reveals who really benefits from the status quo.
@Ephemeron, talk about a non sequitur. The vast majority of writers et al. are poor becuase they haven't sold anything. That has no relationship to copyrights protecting the writer that ends up selling his hard work. Surely you knew this, or you were attempting to inseert a red herring into the discussion.
ReplyDeleteHere is a simple question. If someone is a writer and ends up creating a best seller, should that writer be protected from people giving away his work for free? Should that writer be compensated and have the right to earn royalties? I don't think anyone (except thieves) would say no.
So that leaves us with how long. And if you say shorter than the current copyright laws how do you defend that?