babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » right brain babble   » humanities & science   » is intellectual property a human right or wrong?

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: is intellectual property a human right or wrong?
Geneva
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3808

posted 07 January 2005 07:12 AM      Profile for Geneva     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
noted this story today, in French, about Bill Gates' comment in a web discussion group that diminishing intellectual property rights would be ""communist":
http://permanent.nouvelobs.com/multimedia/20050107.OBS5611.html

PROPRIETE INTELLECTUELLE
Bill Gates s'en prend aux "communistes"

NOUVELOBS.COM | 07.01.05
Coup de sang. Bill Gates, le co-fondateur de Microsoft, estime que les partisans d'un assouplissement de la législation protégeant la propriété intellectuelle sont un "nouveau type de communistes".

[...]

Q.:
what kind of right is intellectual property?

some people here might be surprised that it is explicitly set out as a right in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (article 27(2) on ownership of scientific, artistic or cultural productions)

On the other hand, raging debates about pharmaceutical properties focus on companies' investment in drug research and subsequent ownership of drugs

How does that relate to, say, an Amazon tribe's protection of ancestral wisdom about use of herbal and other natural remedies?

Is this right distinct from poor (and rich) freelancers insisting on their ownership of and residuals from re-published text, music, artwork, photos, etc. ?
That certainly affects Babble and the posting here of other people's copyrighted writing etc.

certainly not a clear Left /Right divide

[ 07 January 2005: Message edited by: Geneva ]


From: um, well | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 07 January 2005 08:35 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Geneva, this is such an important topic, although complex in just the ways you indicate.

In a sense, Bill Gates is right, of course. Before we can replace current systems of copyright in particular, and so-called intellectual-property laws in general, we have to figure out some other way to reimburse creators and craftworkers for their work. The only alternative I can see is to rethink the way everyone gets paid, and it is interesting to me that someone like Gates has suddenly sensed that serious thought about alternatives is bubbling up already and will inevitably bubble up more and more in the next few years.

Gates is being disingenuous, of course:

quote:
Pour Bill Gates on peut apporter des améliorations ici ou là mais, selon lui, c'est grâce à leur système de protection de la propriété intellectuelle que les Etats-Unis ont montré le chemin en terme de création d'entreprises et de création d'emplois. "La propriété intellectuelle c'est l'incitation à inventer les produits de demain", a-t-il affirmé.

Like all other defenders of our sick intellectual-property systems right now (hi, Brian Mulroney!), Gates exploits the image of creators, inventors, scientists, thinkers, poets ... But that's not mainly who is profiting from any invention or creation these days, and more and more good researchers are teaching us just who is profiting, and often how obscenely, in field after field after field.

The scandals of his own empire, of Big Pharma, and of the pop music biz may be a tipping-point, but the system is rotten to the core.

And I don't think there's much evidence that the hyper-centralization that we're watching in corporatized science, art, and technology is encouraging more independent creation -- just the reverse. For creators and consumers both, any independence of thought or taste or choice is getting tougher, not easier.

Well: lots of overgeneralizations there that need illustrating from lots of directions. But it is interesting that Gates is feeling threatened.

Good sign.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
maestro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7842

posted 07 January 2005 08:54 AM      Profile for maestro     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'll accept intellectual property rights when it can be shown that people have ideas in total isolation from the rest of the world.

Not gonna happen soon.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 07 January 2005 08:57 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Ah, maestro, that's a little too general and idealized for me.

I take your point, and you've got lots of history to back you up. It is none the less true that creation does not depend on inspiration only. Creators have to do the work too, and while they are working, they need to earn a living.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Papal Bull
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7050

posted 07 January 2005 09:14 AM      Profile for Papal Bull   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
People have the right to have recognition to their creations and ideas. Incidentally, every damned human on the Earth has the right to access pretty mcuh anything that can help the public.

At least in a good society.


From: Vatican's best darned ranch | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
MacD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2511

posted 07 January 2005 12:38 PM      Profile for MacD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Genetically modified organisms present an interesting issue re: intellectual property. Copyright and patent protections allow IP owners to control the reproduction of their work, but with GMO, the "work" is often self-reproducing.
From: Redmonton, Alberta | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 07 January 2005 02:49 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Before we can replace current systems of copyright in particular, and so-called intellectual-property laws in general, we have to figure out some other way to reimburse creators and craftworkers for their work.

I think an underlying problem in this area has to do with REPLICATION. The creator of a painting sells it. He or she receives remuneration, and the new owner now has the right to retain it. Usually, there is no replication, or perhaps a limited edition replication of 200 copies or so.

An actor on stage creates a role. He or she replicates it every night. A lot of effort goes into that replication, but it cannot be transferred or sold outside the theater.

A musician makes a CD. The performance can immediately be cheaply replicated by the tens of millions of copies. Something similar is true of "films".

Books, such as novels, can also be replicated, though not so cheaply as films or CDs. But the really huge windfalls, like Rowling's $700 million for Harry Potter, come because it is possible to produce and distribute on a massive, indeed worldwide scale.

It is really the fact of unlimited replication which gives rise to substantial levels of income for the creator.

Baseball players used to get $25,000.00 per year. But once their performances can be replicated by the million--on television at home---the salaries soar. And yet it is hard to argue that the team owners are creating the value.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 07 January 2005 03:15 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
At the same time, unlimited replication without destroying the original creates interesting issues when people realize they can do this without paying for a second copy.

I think we can separate copyrighted works into two categories: Those that can be replicated without destroying or affecting the original, and those that cannot. A painting is one that probably falls into the second category, especially an old painting, since to expose it to unfiltered air and to touch it in order to precisely reproduce its coloring, shading, and so on, slowly ruins the original.

By contrast, a photocopier can reproduce pages of a book without in any way damaging or affecting the book.

Ditto music CDs and ditto DVDs.

The question is thus really: "Who gets the dough from replication and redistribtution?"

In my case, if I reproduce a music CD and give it away, theoretically I get the money from reproduction and redistribution. OTOH if the big music company has re-pressed another CD and sold it, they get the dough.

It's all about the dough. Bafflegab about "Creators' rights" simply obscure the fact that it's the money at stake.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
radiorahim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2777

posted 07 January 2005 08:41 PM      Profile for radiorahim     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Found this article on Infoshop.org that gives a pretty good overview of intellectual property issues and some of the battles that are taking place.

Infoshop.org - article


From: a Micro$oft-free computer | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
maestro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7842

posted 08 January 2005 12:16 AM      Profile for maestro     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I take your point, and you've got lots of history to back you up. It is none the less true that creation does not depend on inspiration only. Creators have to do the work too, and while they are working, they need to earn a living.

We are talking about two different things, the idea, and the physical manifestation of the idea.

I don't believe a person can own an 'idea', any more than they can own the air. We're all in this together, like it or not.

With qualifications, I don't have a problem with the creator of something having ownership of it.

The qualifications are that ownership extends only to the original creator (cannot be sold), and lasts only for the lifetime of the original creator.

This would still allow the creator (small 'c' - as opposed to the Creator, who owns the ideas ) to benefit from their creation, and at the same time deny rights in perpetuity to companies that had no hand in the original creation.

In reality, creators now get very little from their creations anyway.

Songwriters sell the songs to publishers who take 50%, then the recording company takes another 25%, leaving the creator with 1/4 of their work.

In the meantime, the recording company owns the masters, and the creating artist can't reproduce the recording, or the sheet music, without paying the either the publisher or the recorder.

In the world of science and technology, all inventions discovered on company time are the property of the company. In other words the creator owns nothing...

By making the ownership of the original creation (whatever it is) non-transferable, the artist gains control over their work, something which they do not have now.

At the same time they can still 'licence' use by others, and reap the rewards. Worked for Bill Gates.

[ 08 January 2005: Message edited by: maestro ]


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
ReeferMadness
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2743

posted 08 January 2005 01:12 AM      Profile for ReeferMadness     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
If I have seen farther, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.

With these words, Newton elegantly expresses the very nature of new ideas - they are based on what has come before. Even the expression itself is borrowed from earlier times.

Intellectual property laws are normally used to protect profits, not ensure that credit is given.
Forcing people to pay for the exposure to ideas and/or expression(eg selling books or songs) and hiding ideas (eg restrictions on decompiling code, trade secrets) slows down the free flow of ideas and information. In doing do, it denies growth opportunity to people who can't or won't pay and retards the overall development of our species.

In the context of a world where the ability to survive is based mainly on competition, I understand the need for these laws. Nonetheless they are at best necessary evils.


From: Way out there | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 08 January 2005 02:13 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
With these words, Newton elegantly expresses the very nature of new ideas - they are based on what has come before.

In reality though, have any of us ever said "Oh, the First Law of Thermodynamics? That was thought up by Newton... and lots of other people who came before him."?


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 08 January 2005 03:14 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Ya, it's like the filthy rich guy who says, "I made my fortune through hard work", and then someone asks, "Whose ?."

[ 08 January 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 08 January 2005 04:07 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Actually, the laws of thermodynamics were codified by Lord Kelvin and others, not Newton. And they, in turn, stood on the shoulders of others, such as the Greeks.
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 08 January 2005 10:08 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
maestro, I am in sympathy with everything you say, although I know that there are many more variations on rights ownership and compensation than even the whole group of us have listed so far.

jeff house's sifting out of the issue of replication in the different media is an interesting distinction -- must ponder. And thanks for the link, radiorahim -- haven't finished yet but will.

btw, radiorahim, I would like to PM you, but you have your PMs disabled. If you can and wish, could you PM me?


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ReeferMadness
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2743

posted 08 January 2005 01:56 PM      Profile for ReeferMadness     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Though Bill Gates recognizes Linux as a threat to Windows, it is easy to miss the truly revolutionary nature of this type of cultural production. If you give people the opportunity to create, they will do so, even without economic incentives. The core justification for intellectual property protection is that, without it, no one would have any reason to produce cultural, creative content. They would undertake a rational calculus and go off to become tax attorneys. But the dynamism of the open source movement shows that this fundamental justification doesn't hold. Many people will produce creative content even outside what we can think of as the capitalist underpinnings of I.P. It's a small step to go from this to a Marxist revolution: The open source movement promises to put the means of creative production back in the hands of the people, not in the hands of those with capital.

I.P. laws ultimately do much more to stifle creativity and innovation than promote it. But there is still hope for us.


From: Way out there | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Ron Webb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2256

posted 08 January 2005 07:04 PM      Profile for Ron Webb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
In case anyone wants to read what Gates actually said:
quote:
[Interviewer] In recent years, there's been a lot of people clamoring to reform and restrict intellectual-property rights. It started out with just a few people, but now there are a bunch of advocates saying, "We've got to look at patents, we've got to look at copyrights." What's driving this, and do you think intellectual-property laws need to be reformed?

[Gates] No, I'd say that of the world's economies, there's more that believe in intellectual property today than ever. There are fewer communists in the world today than there were. There are some new modern-day sort of communists who want to get rid of the incentive for musicians and moviemakers and software makers under various guises. They don't think that those incentives should exist.

And this debate will always be there. I'd be the first to say that the patent system can always be tuned--including the U.S. patent system. There are some goals to cap some reform elements. But the idea that the United States has led in creating companies, creating jobs, because we've had the best intellectual-property system--there's no doubt about that in my mind, and when people say they want to be the most competitive economy, they've got to have the incentive system. Intellectual property is the incentive system for the products of the future.



From: Winnipeg | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Ron Webb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2256

posted 08 January 2005 07:15 PM      Profile for Ron Webb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
At the risk of being accused of spamming, allow me to repeat what I recently posted on another forum:

I am heartily sick of being told over and over again that "copyright is theft". If someone steals my car, then I no longer have a car, and I'm justifiably pissed off about it. If someone copies my car, I really don't care and probably will never know. It's obviously NOT the same thing.

As far as I'm concerned, "intellectual property" is an oxymoron. You can only own physical objects. You can't "own" an idea, which is why it's virtually impossible to prevent its "theft".

Which is not to say that ideas should not have some limited legal protection from freeloaders taking advantage of the creators' ingenuity -- but subsuming it under property law is nonsense. Even those who promote this nonsense ultimately recognize that it's not the same, since property rights never expire, but copyrighted "property" always reverts to public domain eventually.


From: Winnipeg | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 08 January 2005 07:31 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Webb:
Even those who promote this nonsense ultimately recognize that it's not the same, since property rights never expire, but copyrighted "property" always reverts to public domain eventually.

Although these days it takes a really frickin' long time for this stuff to hit the P.D. with the new copyright laws.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
pebbles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6400

posted 08 January 2005 07:41 PM      Profile for pebbles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Geneva:
[QB]some people here might be surprised that it is explicitly set out as a right in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (article 27(2) on ownership of scientific, artistic or cultural productions)


Read the WHOLE of that article. Thank you.


From: Canada | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 08 January 2005 08:45 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.

(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.


The problem arises when I wish to "freely" participate in the arts by downloading a film, whose author wishes to have his or her "material interests resulting" from it.

Property rights are ultimately rights of EXCLUSION. Property which is "priv"ate de-"prives" those who do not own it.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Geneva
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3808

posted 09 January 2005 11:33 AM      Profile for Geneva     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Pebbles: precisely my point,
there are conflicts raised by the right to scientific and artistic property ownership vs free circulation and expression; that is the point of the thread -- how can the issue be addressed/understood and perhaps tamed?

if as a struggling musician I happen to write, say, Purple Haze, and 2 months later hear on the radio some fella named Jimi playing it for his own benefit (and granted, that of listeners), without any credit to me, what can I do?
what rights to I have?

relying only on Universal Declaration article 27(1) cited above -- meaning, every artistic creation belongs to everyone -- would mean: nothing, tough luck

surely that is not fair

[ 09 January 2005: Message edited by: Geneva ]


From: um, well | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
pebbles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6400

posted 09 January 2005 07:31 PM      Profile for pebbles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DrConway:
Although these days it takes a really frickin' long time for this stuff to hit the P.D. with the new copyright laws.

What new copyright laws?

The term of copyright in Canada hasn't changed, thankfully, in 80 years. It's still life+50. It also recently got shorter in respect of unpublished works.


From: Canada | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
pebbles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6400

posted 09 January 2005 07:32 PM      Profile for pebbles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Geneva:
relying only on Universal Declaration article 27(1) cited above -- meaning, every artistic creation belongs to everyone -- would mean: nothing, tough luck

surely that is not fair


Neither is overlong and overstrong copyright "protection". After not very many years, all it succeeds in doing is protecting the current generation from its own communal past and history.


From: Canada | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
pebbles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6400

posted 09 January 2005 07:34 PM      Profile for pebbles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Geneva:
Pebbles: precisely my point,
if as a struggling musician I happen to write, say, Purple Haze, and 2 months later hear on the radio some fella named Jimi playing it for his own benefit (and granted, that of listeners), without any credit to me, what can I do?
what rights to I have?

relying only on Universal Declaration article 27(1) cited above/quote]

You wouldn't rely on them. You would rely on the national copyright law of wherever you happen to be.

[quote] -- meaning, every artistic creation belongs to everyone -- would mean: nothing, tough luck


It doesn't mean that at all. Neither does the other half of that article mean all copyright for all time, as the copyright mafia would like to think.


From: Canada | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Ron Webb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2256

posted 10 January 2005 12:07 AM      Profile for Ron Webb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Geneva:
if as a struggling musician I happen to write, say, Purple Haze, and 2 months later hear on the radio some fella named Jimi playing it for his own benefit (and granted, that of listeners), without any credit to me, what can I do?
what rights to I have?


The odds of that are somewhere between slim and none. Far more likely is you getting sued by Jimi's estate for playing Purple Haze without sending them a cheque.

As with any other form of property rights, intellectual property rights work for the protection of the rich to the detriment of the poor. As a struggling musician you'd be much better off being able to play the songs your audience hears on the radio all the time (and occasionally mixing in a few original tunes of your own) without having to pay royalties, instead of worrying about the vanishingly small odds that the likes of Jimi Hendrix are going to rip you off. Frankly, if they did, it'd probably be the best thing that could happen to your career. There would be no better endorsement, and no better form of publicity.


From: Winnipeg | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
jrootham
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 838

posted 10 January 2005 02:35 AM      Profile for jrootham     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The whole issue is much more complicated than that. To start with the "Intellectual Property" covers at least four different things: patents, copyright, trade secrets, and trademarks.

Patents protect the idea from independent invention but are time limited (14 years form application). They require public disclosure.

Copyright is currently lifetime + 50 years here but Disney has bought a long extension in the States and there are great pressures to extend terms and increase the power everywhere. Copyright is the most contentious because the balancing act is trickier and there are a number of exceptions (quoting for review) and extensions (artists moral rights, which is why the Eaton Centre Canada Geese don't have red ribbons at Christmas).

Trademark is product labeling and is mostly commercial arguments (although even free products may not infringe). The silliness here is when trademarks get too successful and threaten to become generic terms (think Kleenex).

Trade secret is what you use if you want to keep ideas for a long time (the Coke formula). The trick being that you have no protection against independent invention.

All of these forms have utility. All of them have contentious issues. Corporate capture and dominance is a very nasty issue right now, and will probably stay nasty as long as the corporate power structure holds sway (don't hold your breath on this one).


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 10 January 2005 02:38 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by pebbles:
What new copyright laws?

The term of copyright in Canada hasn't changed, thankfully, in 80 years. It's still life+50. It also recently got shorter in respect of unpublished works.


I was under the impression we tracked US copyright laws. Prior to the 1970s, it was 25 years and then on nonrenewal it hit the public domain. Now, it's no P.D. until... hell if I know when.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092

posted 10 January 2005 02:41 AM      Profile for Jacob Two-Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The internet, as a very egalitarian medium of information exchange, is putting a new spin on this whole topic. A slow trend is building that sees audiences paying artists directly with no middle man. Potentially at least, this could evolve such that we wouldn't require intellectual property rights to compensate people for their work, operating on an honor system.

In a society less defined by greed and aquisitiveness, I don't think it would be unusual for people to freely give some monetary reward to those that have entertained or enlightened them without any form of coersion. Artists and intellectuals would present their work freely, and those who found value in it would support them just as freely. In truth, this would not be entirely selfless, but would merely show a more actualised and conscious appreciation of the link between the work and those who enjoy it. It would be understood that if you do not choose to compensate someone for their efforts, then it would be unlikely that those efforts would continue. If you valued the work, you would only be screwing yourself by not contributing, much like those of us who donate to rabble because we don't want to see it disappear.

Removing the coersion factor (and hence, eliminating the corporate "owners" from the equation) would mean a substantial reduction in the amount that an average consumer would have to pay, as well as freeing up intellectual content for whatever purposes the world wanted to use it for. It would also remove poverty as a stumbling block to accessing the intellectual content of the world. And it would place a built-in overflow mechanism that would prevent artists from getting ridiculously rich, as people would probably stop choosing to pay at a certain point, reasonably assuming that the creator has enough money and doesn't need theirs to keep doing what they do.

The downside would be that while this would work great for comics, music, books and other low-overhead enterprises, it would be pretty much impossible to make a 100 million dollar movie under these circumstances, since you would be guaranteed not to make such huge amounts of cash under a voluntary system. Personally, I like huge expensive special-effects blockbusters, so it's a major wrench in my otherwise perfect world.


From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
maestro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7842

posted 10 January 2005 05:22 AM      Profile for maestro     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
There's been a lot of discussion about various art forms and property rights, but here's something. Jokes.

As far as I know, no one has ever been able to copyright a joke.

Does that mean jokes are still common property?

If they're not, I'm ready.

I have a series of jokes that all start the same way. Bear in mind, these jokes are my personal intellectual property, and any reproduction in whole, or in part, is a violation of my copyright.

How does the guitar player know he's died and gone to heaven?

He wakes up, and the first words he hears are, "Could someone tell the guitar player to turn it up a bit please."

or

"This next number has a twenty minute guitar solo in it, full volume and distortion please."


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Bobolink
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5909

posted 11 January 2005 09:50 PM      Profile for Bobolink   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
IBM releases patents to Open Source communities:
http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3554542

From: Stirling, ON | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
ReeferMadness
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2743

posted 12 January 2005 12:15 AM      Profile for ReeferMadness     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
More than any other computer company of its size and type, too, IBM has embraced open-source software (which allows programmers the world over to share the underlying codes and to collaborate in developing new applications), particularly that developed by Linux, an operating system that, unlike Microsoft’s Windows, is freely available to all.

Intellectual property (in the way it's implemented at least) is good for the individual but bad for the community. Ultimately, everyone is worse off.


From: Way out there | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
N.R.KISSED
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1258

posted 12 January 2005 01:20 AM      Profile for N.R.KISSED     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
If Gates is so keen on copyrights than he should allow his workers to hold the copyright for what they create.

As far as I know the only thing Gates has invented is methods to exploit other peoples intellectual labour.


From: Republic of Parkdale | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 12 January 2005 03:13 AM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
This is a pro-Industry blog filled with free market ideologues. I dunno how James DeLong could be Brad DeLong's dad (Brad DeLong is a conventional but somewhat leftish-sympathetic economist), but apparently he is.

http://weblog.ipcentral.info/


From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600

posted 12 January 2005 10:30 AM      Profile for Stephen Gordon        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It’s hard for me to take seriously the notion that there is a moral dimension to IP rights that trumps everything else; imagine a thread title such as ‘is surgery a human right or wrong?’ Sometimes yes, sometimes no. It depends.

I don’t think anyone seriously questions whether or not it makes sense to let for pharma firms have a temporary monopoly on their products so that they can cover their R&D costs. But it’s also possible for IP protection to be too strong. The private gains for a R&D firm to coming up with the Next Big Thing can be stupendous, but the social benefit is just the difference between the new and the existing technology. It doesn’t make sense to allocate vast resources to replace one monopolist with another.


From: . | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 12 January 2005 10:51 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
As far as I know the only thing Gates has invented is methods to exploit other peoples intellectual labour.

You mean he invented the system known as "paying them"?

My office uses a similar system. My employer pays me for my work, with the understanding that if I don't like this system, and wish to own my work, I'm free to work for myself.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
N.R.KISSED
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1258

posted 12 January 2005 03:01 PM      Profile for N.R.KISSED     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
You mean he invented the system known as "paying them"?

It is very generous to compensate someone after laying claim and ownership to their creative and intellectual labours.


From: Republic of Parkdale | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 12 January 2005 03:17 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Generousity implies a gift. This is a straight business transaction. And it's non-coercive too.

If you're a programmer, and you want complete ownership of your code, sell it yourself. It's worked just fine for every tinkerer, every shareware author, and every software company that's not MS.

On the other hand, if you don't want all that hassle, work for a big company and trade your work for pay.

Back when I did more creative work (illustration, layout, etc.) I surrendered ownership of my work in exchange for my paycheque. Would it have been reasonable to expect my employer to let me keep ownership of my work, and collect a paycheque for it at the same time??

That would be like a contractor saying "I want you to pay me to build a house, and when it's done I also want to keep the house".


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
pebbles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6400

posted 12 January 2005 03:23 PM      Profile for pebbles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DrConway:
I was under the impression we tracked US copyright laws. Prior to the 1970s, it was 25 years and then on nonrenewal it hit the public domain. Now, it's no P.D. until... hell if I know when.

In Canada? Life+50, life of the latest surviving of multiple authors plus 50, or in the case of crown, anonymous, and pseudonyms works, publication plus 50.

In the US? If published before 1923, it's in the public domain. If published after, it's as above+70 for most works, or until January 1, 2019, whichever is later; and there's no copyright in US government works.


From: Canada | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
N.R.KISSED
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1258

posted 12 January 2005 03:37 PM      Profile for N.R.KISSED     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
That would be like a contractor saying "I want you to pay me to build a house, and when it's done I also want to keep the house".

Actually it is more like having an architect design your home and then being told he can no longer use any of the design features on any future homes. The homeowner however could sell the architectural design to others. Curious state of affairs...


From: Republic of Parkdale | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 12 January 2005 03:46 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Curious perhaps, but not unheard of.

Ever wonder why Frank Lloyd Wright didn't make a few hundred copies of "Falling Water"? Many creative people sell off the right to "features", typically to folks who want a certain measure of exclusivity. When I got my tattoo years ago, the artist assured me that my tattoo was one-of-a-kind, and that I wouldn't have to worry about seeing the same design all over town.

Anyway, I'll stick by my post of earlier: if you don't want to sell your work to Bill Gates, don't. Work for yourself. Hell, start your own software company and pay your employees to keep and re-sell their work. They'll get two (or more) paycheques, you'll be paying for work that they can then sell to your competition at a discount, and you'll fold faster than Superman on laundry day, but you'll be doing the right thing.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
ReeferMadness
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2743

posted 14 January 2005 11:06 PM      Profile for ReeferMadness     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Anyway, I'll stick by my post of earlier: if you don't want to sell your work to Bill Gates, don't. Work for yourself. Hell, start your own software company and pay your employees to keep and re-sell their work. They'll get two (or more) paycheques, you'll be paying for work that they can then sell to your competition at a discount, and you'll fold faster than Superman on laundry day, but you'll be doing the right thing.

Everything is about money, isn't it? Maybe that's part of the problem!


From: Way out there | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
N.R.KISSED
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1258

posted 15 January 2005 01:08 AM      Profile for N.R.KISSED     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Anyway, I'll stick by my post of earlier: if you don't want to sell your work to Bill Gates, don't. Work for yourself. Hell, start your own software company and pay your employees to keep and re-sell their work. They'll get two (or more) paycheques, you'll be paying for work that they can then sell to your competition at a discount, and you'll fold faster than Superman on laundry day, but you'll be doing the right thing.

Well at least you're always consistent in missing the point. Gates is claiming that copy rights to intellectual property is the only thing that is driving innovation and creativity yet those who are actually engaging in the creative and innovative acts are not the ones holding the copyrights. Gates is redundant in the process of creative or innovative production,he provides capital but doesn't create anything why should he hold the copyright.

This is one of the great myths of capitalism that those who are creative innovation and inventive recieve the economic rewards. In reality it is the huckster that markets the product who generally makes the killing not the inventor.

secondly as creativity and innovation or those who are creative are not primarily driven by material gain, they may wish to make a living with their creations but the drive is generally not just to become rich.

Those who are driven by greed ,material gain and the desire to rich find it is much more effective if you appropriate the ideas and labour of someone else.


From: Republic of Parkdale | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 15 January 2005 01:57 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Gates is redundant in the process of creative or innovative production,he provides capital but doesn't create anything

This seems to be a common belief among anarchist types — that management is entirely redundant because they aren't holding a shovel or a jackhammer in their hand. This seems to me a little like suggesting that the driver of a car is simply deadweight because it's the engine that propels the vehicle. Taking one's hands off the wheel and feet off the pedals demonstrates just how far the engine can get on its own.

If management were truly redundant, why wouldn't the success of all companies be equal? Or simply proportional to the number of employees? Why is MS so successful, where Apple failed to be? I'm going to suggest it's MS management. You?

quote:
why should he hold the copyright.

Because they agreed to sell it to him.

We're speaking of this copyright as something with value. They exchanged that value for a paycheque. As I've said, if they don't want to, they don't have to.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Ron Webb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2256

posted 15 January 2005 02:07 AM      Profile for Ron Webb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
If management were truly redundant, why wouldn't the success of all companies be equal? Or simply proportional to the number of employees? Why is MS so successful, where Apple failed to be? I'm going to suggest it's MS management. You?

It's certainly not because MS made a better product. I'd agree that MS management did a better job in marketing, but I'd disagree with the implication that economic success is the only or even the best measure of social benefit.

From: Winnipeg | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Ron Webb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2256

posted 15 January 2005 02:14 AM      Profile for Ron Webb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
As I've said, if they don't want to, they don't have to.
Well, in theory perhaps, but in practice the strongly pro-market orientation of our present society doesn't provide a whole lot of alternatives. If Apple couldn't break the MS monopoly on desktop software, what chance does an individual stand against them?

From: Winnipeg | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 15 January 2005 02:20 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I'd disagree with the implication that economic success is the only or even the best measure of social benefit.

I'd agree, and point to VHS as further proof.

Well, OK, maybe I'm just still a bit resentful that my Beta HiFi ended up as a doorstop.

And just for clarity's sake, when we're referring to "Bill Gates owning the copyright", are we being loosey-goosey, and what we really mean is "Microsoft, the corporation, owning the copyright", or do we literally mean that Bill Gates, and Bill Gates alone, owns the copyright the way you or I might own our wristwatch?


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 15 January 2005 02:23 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
If Apple couldn't break the MS monopoly on desktop software, what chance does an individual stand against them?

I certainly never suggested that one lone programmer could topple the Microsoft dynasty. What I suggested was that any programmer who wants to own his/her own code, can. Simply by not selling it to MS/Gates.

I cannot guarantee that this will bring them as much money as selling it, or for that matter any money at all, but if the idea of selling one's copyright is unacceptable, independence is always an option.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 15 December 2007 02:13 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Bumping as I want to see how people think and feel about the DRM/copyright/etc issues in light of the recently-proposed-but-killed legislation.
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
TemporalHominid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6535

posted 15 December 2007 04:02 PM      Profile for TemporalHominid   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DrConway:
Bumping as I want to see how people think and feel about the DRM/copyright/etc issues in light of the recently-proposed-but-killed legislation.

thanks Dr. Conway

the following presentation (yeah, it was hosted by a capitalist think-tank, I know ) was helpful to me, expecially read write culture vs read only culture, great entertainment as well

[ 15 December 2007: Message edited by: TemporalHominid ]


From: Under a bridge, in Foot Muck | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Proaxiom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6188

posted 15 December 2007 09:28 PM      Profile for Proaxiom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The outrage caused by that legislation is especially noteworthy in light of the fact that nobody outside the government (aside from lobbyists, maybe) knows what it says. The bill hasn't been tabled.

I'd be surprised if anyone posts here with something positive to say about the DMCA. If not then there's no argument that we don't need or want it in Canada.

The expansion of intellectual property over the last century is a travesty. Even the name 'intellectual property' is a framing mechanism to make us think of copyright as property, even though there is no moral or legal reason to treat it as such. Copyrights are incentive mechanisms, not property rights.

Thomas Jefferson wrote some nice words explaining why copyright should not be treated as property, which is why the US Constitution rather explicitly prevents it from becoming so. Of course the entertainment industry and their lobbyists have been exploiting loopholes in the Constitution's copyright clause for several decades now.


From: East of the Sun, West of the Moon | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Brian White
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8013

posted 17 December 2007 05:39 PM      Profile for Brian White   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think sun microsystems gave way more back than IBM. Open office, java, BSD, and more. There is open sourse solaris too.
Linux is just the OS.
You can do an entire top notch computer system with open sourse Sun Stuff.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by ReeferMadness:
quote:
More than any other computer company of its size and type, too, IBM has embraced open-source software (which allows programmers the world over to share the underlying codes and to collaborate in developing new applications), particularly that developed by Linux, an operating system that, unlike Microsoft’s Windows, is freely available to all.

Intellectual property (in the way it's implemented at least) is good for the individual but bad for the community. Ultimately, everyone is worse off.
[QB]


From: Victoria Bc | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Brian White
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8013

posted 17 December 2007 05:47 PM      Profile for Brian White   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I have released the mechanical mathematician for making solar reflectors under the Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike licence
What does that mean though?
Others can build on it but have to release their work under the same licence.
Interesting.
I guess it stifles innovation according to B Gates.

From: Victoria Bc | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Proaxiom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6188

posted 17 December 2007 06:56 PM      Profile for Proaxiom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Brian White:
Linux is just the OS.

Not even. Linux is just the kernel.

On companies open sourcing their stuff: don't give them too much credit. It happens when a company is hopelessly losing market share, and they want to surrender in a way that undermines their competitors. IBM, Sun, and Netscape all open sourced proprietary software for that reason.

Not that it's a bad thing.


From: East of the Sun, West of the Moon | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca