The real cost of being sued by Getty
in [Digital Cameras]
|
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 distribution process in the digital era (e.g. by means of DRM). 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. The creative minds depend on intellectual property indirectly, because they have grown accustomed to being prostituted by the intellectual property mafia. 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. > > w.. 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 property can expect to be paid for there efforts if this relies on their ability to control the reproduction and distribution process. There might be more sensible ways to achieve a similar financial incentive that might motivate people to contribute new intellectual property to the pool of common knowledge and culture. One of those more sensible and more practical ways would be to tax the online exchange of information and monitor statistically 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 sobriquet wrote: > 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 > practical > ways would be to tax the online exchange of information and monitor > statistically > 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 w..
From: Red E. Kilowatt on 25 Oct 2009 00:30 sobriquet wrote: > On 25 okt, 03:24, Walter Banks <wal...(a)bytecraft.com> wrote: >> Music and software piracy tracking has almost become an art form >> >> w.. > > Yeah, sort of like how the Nazis made an art form out of human rights > violations. Ooooh, the NAZI's. I'm invoking Goodwin's Law on this thread. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law "...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 misery. -- Red
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 >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 rfischer(a)sonic.net
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 > rfisc...(a)sonic.net 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). |