Prev: I'm so proud, I weaned someone off a P&S to a DSLR!
Next: |GG| One more nail in the optical viewfinder coffin
From: sobriquet on 24 Oct 2009 06:27
On 24 okt, 11:16, Walter Banks <wal...(a)bytecraft.com> wrote:
> sobriquet wrote:
> > People who advocate the notion of intellectual property are
> > professional criminals who belong in jail.
> > The full potential of information technology can only be exploited if
> > intellectual property is exposed for the myth it really is.
> It would sure change the development of intellectual ideas if
> reward for development of new ideas was limited to those
> worth working on had reproduction costs approximating the
> development cost of the original idea.
> To give an example, sculpture vs digital images. The sculpture
> reproduction cost is essentially the same as the original. The
> digital image reproduction cost is a small fraction of the original.
This is no longer true at this point, where 3D printing and scanning
is already available. You can copy a figurine virtually as easy as
a digital picture.
> Intellectual property recognizes that some things once created
> can be duplicated at a small fraction of the original creation
> costs and provides a way of distributing those costs.
But in a way it doesn't achieve anything, since it only generates
problems when you try to impose controls on the reproduction and
process in the digital era (e.g. by means of DRM).
There is no fair and sensible way to keep track of who owns
The system is biased in favor of large corporations that benefit from
on intellectual property.
The creative minds depend on intellectual property indirectly, because
grown accustomed to being prostituted by the intellectual property
So just like slaves who were in a relatively good position might be
opposed to the abolishment of slavery, there are likewise artists,
musicians, composers and photographers who are
in favor of copyright.
> Paying for intellectual property generally can leave you better off.
> Take for example the development cost of the current round of
> automotive engine controllers. Order of magnitude a $70M
> cost for the first copy is installed in about 100M automobiles.
> The distributed cost is about 70cents per car for an improved
> gas mileage of 8 miles per gallon. At $3.00 per gallon your
> 70 cent investment in intellectual property would take about
> 10 miles before you are money ahead.
The issue is not whether nor not to pay for intellectual property.
The issue is HOW. The current method that relies on people refraining
from redistributing intellectual property and that isn't realistic as
people tend to redistribute intellectual property in practice.
So there is no way to ensure people who come up with new intellectual
can expect to be paid for there efforts if this relies on their
to control the reproduction and distribution process.
There might be more sensible ways to achieve a similar financial
might motivate people to contribute new intellectual property to the
of common knowledge and culture. One of those more sensible and more
ways would be to tax the online exchange of information and monitor
which creations are most popular, so you can reward the creators of
the most popular
content the most.
If you tax people, you can make them pay for the information they
consume in proportion to their financial situation and you can ensure
that the system is much more fair and reliable
than the current futile attempts to enforce copyrights in the context
of information technology that renders the previously useful notion of
copyright obsolete and counterproductive.
From: Walter Banks on 24 Oct 2009 22:24
> On 24 okt, 11:16, Walter Banks <wal...(a)bytecraft.com> wrote:
> There is no fair and sensible way to keep track of who owns
> intellectual property. The system is biased in favor of large corporations
> that benefit from
> or depend on intellectual property.
Copyrights and patents both are often used to establish ownership
In exchange for public disclosure patents give commercial rights.
Copyrights are longer and have real teeth
> One of those more sensible and more
> ways would be to tax the online exchange of information and monitor
> which creations are most popular, so you can reward the creators of
> the most popular
> content the most.
The music media model. Apples online music distribution
showed a much more effective model
> If you tax people, you can make them pay for the information they
> consume in proportion to their financial situation and you can ensure
> that the system is much more fair and reliable
> than the current futile attempts to enforce copyrights in the context
> of information technology that renders the previously useful notion of
> copyright obsolete and counterproductive.
Information technology makes it a lot easier to track copyrights. Getty
has shown that in recent years.
Music and software piracy tracking has almost become an art form
From: Red E. Kilowatt on 25 Oct 2009 00:30
> On 25 okt, 03:24, Walter Banks <wal...(a)bytecraft.com> wrote:
>> Music and software piracy tracking has almost become an art form
> Yeah, sort of like how the Nazis made an art form out of human rights
Ooooh, the NAZI's. I'm invoking Goodwin's Law on this thread.
"...there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet
discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is
finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically "lost"
whatever debate was in progress."
Though I suppose it'll take more than that to put this thread out of its
From: Ray Fischer on 25 Oct 2009 01:11
sobriquet <dohduhdah(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>Once somebody has obtained a piece of software (regardless whether
>it or downloaded it), they can create a duplicate for their friends
>out of thin air.
>They might be infringing copyright when people help each other out
>like that, but it's not
>theft, as nothing is being taken away, but rather, something is being
>added (another copy).
Similarly, emptying your bank account and transferring the funds to
mine would not take anything away from you since only some numbers
would be changed.
From: sobriquet on 25 Oct 2009 01:30
On 25 okt, 06:11, rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> sobriquet <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Once somebody has obtained a piece of software (regardless whether
> >they bought
> >it or downloaded it), they can create a duplicate for their friends
> >out of thin air.
> >They might be infringing copyright when people help each other out
> >like that, but it's not
> >theft, as nothing is being taken away, but rather, something is being
> >added (another copy).
> Similarly, emptying your bank account and transferring the funds to
> mine would not take anything away from you since only some numbers
> would be changed.
> Ray Fischer
Likewise the government can create money out of thin air. They can
as much of it as they like, which can change the value of your money.
So your money in the bank is just an abstract number and the value
depends on many factors.
Also, when you have money in the bank, the bank can suddenly go
bankrupt and some or all your money can go up into thin air.
So the moral of the story is that your money is not safe in the bank
and it might be better to invest it in something that is more likely
to retain it's value (like gold).
Money is simply not a very secure investment. It's better to invest in
education, as money can suddenly lose it's value (inflation) or go up
in smoke when the financial system crashes.
They can't take away your ideas or mental skills so easily (compared
to taking away your property or affecting your financial situation).