"Intellectual Property" Law

[AltF4]

Alt, your stance on allowing copyright for books seems to me like a recent development. It appears that you've made a concession that, in some cases, copyright is necessary.

Firstly, you'll have to forgive me for being a bit less verbose for the next little while. The past day or so I pretty much wrote half a book in this thread, lol.


Secondly, I think I need to rescind the terminology I used previously. I don't support copyrights, which are restrictions on what people can legitimately do with information. What I would support is anti-plagiarism legislation. It would be illegal for someone to profit from someone else's idea. This would be true of all media. Clearly it is immoral for someone to use someone else's ideas as one's own for profit, against their wishes.

Thus, the compromise that I would accept would consist of the content creator (all media forms) to solely profit from an idea for a certain limited amount of time. (5 years is what I think would be sufficient.)

If you do not find this satisfactory, then how would you improve it? Certainly you don't agree with copyright law as it exists today.


But I would also like to comment strongly against your use of terminology. Ideas cannot be "stolen". Stealing is a concept which only applies to physical objects, and has no meaning when referring to ideas. Ideas can be plagiarized, misappropriated, but not stolen. This may seem like nit-picking, but it is not. The use of language is incredibly important in this subject. Organizations such as the RIAA and MPAA use language such as "Intellectual Property" and "Stealing" to confuse and distort the real issues, and this must be prevented.

The author only speaks of the software industry, which I am pretty clueless on, so I may be wrong in some areas. I think he only covers this industry because he already realizes his proposed changes would be unfeasible to lazily apply across the board.

No, the author is Richard Stallman, legend in the software community. He was one of THE original MIT hackers and is responsible for more contributions to the field than most people could hope to. He talks about software because that's what he is an expert in.

 

[Deleted member]

It would be illegal for someone to profit from someone else's idea.

In pretty much every sense of the word, I think enjoying someone else's product without paying basically derives benefit. Meaning the pirate profits off the producer.

 

[manhunter098]

In pretty much every sense of the word, I think enjoying someone else's product without paying basically derives benefit. Meaning the pirate profits off the producer.

And? The meaning of the word profit varies. I dont think that somebody who pirates an artists music to listen to is stealing the artists work in order to make money. There is a very big difference.

 

[Deleted member]

# derive a benefit from; "She profited from his vast experience"
# net income: the excess of revenues over outlays in a given period of time (including depreciation and other non-cash expenses)
# make a profit; gain money or materially; "The company has not profited from the merger"
# the advantageous quality of being beneficial

 

[RDK]

He means profit financially. If he didn't want you to enjoy it he wouldn't sell his product to you.

 

[AltF4]

Monetarily. Profit meant making money in the sense that I used it. Though you did demonstrate well how lawyers have twisted wording to create the broken system we have now!

 

[Reaver197]

Great original post.

I remember learning a bit about that in a class that was about computers and society, and learned a bit about Lawrence Lessig and his fight to reform the system.

I have a hard time remembering specifics, I have a very poor memory for legalese, but I thought I also remembered that copyrights are protected through out the life of the creator plus 75 years after death, or something absurd like that. I could be mistaken though.

I also recall some scary issue that arose out of this is the possibility for medical and pharmaceutical companies to patent certain sequences of DNA and genes. What is going on with that?

 

[Overload]

Here's something interesting relating to this subject:

People Making Nintendo Emulators and Nintendo ROMs are Helping Publishers by Making Old Games Available that are No Longer Being Sold by the Copyright Owner. This Does Not Hurt Anyone and Allows Gamers to Play Old Favorites. What's the Problem?

The problem is that it's illegal. Copyrights and trademarks of games are corporate assets. If these vintage titles are available far and wide, it undermines the value of this intellectual property and adversely affects the right owner. In addition, the assumption that the games involved are vintage or nostalgia games is incorrect. Nintendo is famous for bringing back to life its popular characters for its newer systems, for example, Mario and Donkey Kong have enjoyed their adventures on all Nintendo platforms, going from coin-op machines to our latest hardware platforms. As a copyright owner, and creator of such famous characters, only Nintendo has the right to benefit from such valuable assets.

Isn't it Okay to Download Nintendo ROMs for Games that are No Longer Distributed in the Stores or Commercially Exploited? Aren't They Considered "Public Domain"?

No, the current availability of a game in stores is irrelevant as to its copyright status. Copyrights do not enter the public domain just because they are no longer commercially exploited or widely available. Therefore, the copyrights of games are valid even if the games are not found on store shelves, and using, copying and/or distributing those games is a copyright infringement.

source-http://www.nintendo.com/corp/legal.jsp#emergence

 

[AltF4]

The fact that you even actually use the term "Intellectual Property" demonstrates that you already are either deluded or ignorant of the facts of this subject, Overload. The rest of your post does not even deserve a proper response as it is under false premises to begin with.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

As much as I agree with AltF4, unfortunately, it will require a new generation of young, brave entrepreneurs to pave the way for the Internet era. Copyright and patent both need to be eradicated by the people. I hope to be part of that transition. I am going to start a business in the future that takes advantage of the principles outlined in AltF4's posts.

 

[RDK]

Instead of combatting the system that's already in place, which, for all intents and purposes, is virtually incompatible with the concept of digital information as a tradable asset, it seems like it would be necessary to revamp the entire system. You just simply can't sell things that are so easily reproducable as .mp3's and expect nobody to want to distribute or use them how they please.

The only problem is the "how".

 

[Jam Stunna]

I don't think that's Overload's thoughts, AltF4, just something he copied from Nintendo's website.

Also, for those people who think copyright law's heart is in the right place, I think it can't be argued that the laws are simply unenforceable. In a world with photocopiers, rippers/burners, mp3s, the Internet, TiVo, hell, even VCRs and blank cassette tapes, how can you realistically expect copyright to be enforced? Nevermind if it's right or wrong, is it even possible?

EDIT- RDK beat me to it.

 

[Overload]

The fact that you even actually use the term "Intellectual Property" demonstrates that you already are either deluded or ignorant of the facts of this subject, Overload. The rest of your post does not even deserve a proper response as it is under false premises to begin with.

Woah wait a second, I didn't write any of that. It came from the link I have at the bottom. I just posted it because I thought it was amusing.

EDIT-Jam Stunna beat me to it.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

I don't think that's Overload's thoughts, AltF4, just something he copied from Nintendo's website.

Also, for those people who think copyright law's heart is in the right place, I think it can't be argued that the laws are simply unenforceable. In a world with photocopiers, rippers/burners, mp3s, the Internet, TiVo, hell, even VCRs and blank cassette tapes, how can you realistically expect copyright to be enforced? Nevermind if it's right or wrong, is it even possible?

EDIT- RDK beat me to it.

The sad truth is that big guns like Microsoft, RIAA, etc. are trying to pepper the earth with devices that obey them. Did you hear about Microsoft's "Digital Manners Policy"? It was the DRM of the real world. Basically, it would disable cameras, phones, etc. in museums, movie theaters, etc. They want control of everything. Rather than accept the benefits of informational freedom, they choose to instantiate artificial barriers. It is quite embarrassing, frankly.

 

[Jam Stunna]

^Now that is truly absurd.

 

[RDK]

Digital Manners? OMG, that just made my day.

And as far as digital douchebaggery goes, I think Sony takes the cake. Just take a passing glance at their DRM history and you'll know what I'm talking about. They've had countless civil suits over allegedly installing hidden rootkits on flash drives, programs, and even CD's that are essentially primer for allowing people to potentially hack into consumers' computers.

 

[Reaver197]

The sad truth is that big guns like Microsoft, RIAA, etc. are trying to pepper the earth with devices that obey them. Did you hear about Microsoft's "Digital Manners Policy"? It was the DRM of the real world. Basically, it would disable cameras, phones, etc. in museums, movie theaters, etc. They want control of everything. Rather than accept the benefits of informational freedom, they choose to instantiate artificial barriers. It is quite embarrassing, frankly.

I also recall that for an online identification system, in which people would essentially have sort of internet "passports" that would have various bits of information, like your birthdate, name, address, maybe credit card numbers, etc. The "passport" would be used to help people navigate the web, and, also, restrict them from certain material, like, people who's age is under 18 can't access porn sites, Americans can't access gambling sites, etc.

Microsoft was one company proposing, with another company, their own system for doing that. The key difference between the two systems was the other company made it so that only relevant/pertinent information was shown. Like, for accessing porn sites, it could only check your age, and that's it. However, with Microsoft's system, they could look at all your information. Microsoft was allowing that since they wanted ad companies to able to gather additional information about clients and such.

It's been a couple of years since I last heard about it, though, so I'm guessing its either stalled at the moment or canned.

Also, I remember an absurd lawsuit, brought up by Activision/Blizzard, in which they wanted to be able to prosecute certain people for playing, I believe, pirated versions of their games. However, they apparently had very little to actually go on, so what they decided to do was prosecute them on the fact that the game had to have a copy of itself on the RAM of their computers, which they would deem an illegal copy of the game, because their end user agreement only allows for a user to have a copy on the disc they bought, and on their harddrive.

I was glad to see that did not fly in court.

 

[AltF4]

Overload:

Oh, I see. In that case, I apologize.


Reaver:

You're probably talking about the national ID card ideas. Lots of people are trying to do that, even open source developers. Try googling around for Open ID. The whole idea has lots of fatal flaws. The most obvious of which are security concerns, but that's a whole thread by itself.

 

[Reaver197]

Ah, ok. Yeah, I couldn't remember the name of it. Thank you.

 

[arrowhead]

something i've always had a problem with copyrights and patents is that if someone independently invented something that someone else already patented, he wouldn't just not get credit for it, but he would not be able to profit from it, which kills a little of the idea that people should be rewarded for their hard work.

 

[AltF4]

And that is not as rare of a situation as one might think.

To use anecdotal evidence, I've been looking for a thesis topic for my masters degree for a while now, and have come up with no less than a dozen cool ideas. Just to find that they have already been done. (Like triangulating the physical positions of wifi signals for security purposes. IE: To locate rouge AP's and such)

But seriously, even the printing press was invented first in China independently of Gutenberg. In fact, just about every major invention from that period of time has an asterisk next to it that says: "technically, it was invented in ancient China first."

 

[Overload]

something i've always had a problem with copyrights and patents is that if someone independently invented something that someone else already patented, he wouldn't just not get credit for it, but he would not be able to profit from it, which kills a little of the idea that people should be rewarded for their hard work.

He would have no way of proving he didn't get the idea from the person who originally created it.

 

[AltF4]

He would have no way of proving he didn't get the idea from the person who originally created it.

Ah, yes, but this is EXACTLY the same problem that current patent law has.


Patents are given to the person who invented the item first. Not to the person who applies for a patent first! It is quite common for a person to invent something and not think that it is of any value.

Then, later, someone else will invent the same thing, but show how you can make money off of it. Then the first inventor will say "Hey! That was MY idea!". And he can go to the US Patent Office, and file to get the patent revoked. He can get the patent revoked and put in his name if he can prove that he invented the item first.

Of course, however, doing so can be a dubious and confusing matter. And in practice, people use this system to get patents fraudulently taken away from their real inventors.

 

[manhunter098]

Ah, the one part of the system that actually tries to be somewhat just and it just get abused.

 

[cman]

If someone invents something first and refuses to tell anyone, then someone else invents the same thing, should the first person really get credit for it? I supposed it really depends. If we take the historical example that Altf4 provided, then Gutenburg would not get credit for it since china had it. However, that still left Europe without a good printing press until Gutenburg. I'm inclined to think that the person who makes something useful should get credit. Although then a whole bunch of problems over what is defined as "useful" would arise.

 

[Overload]

If someone invents something first and refuses to tell anyone, then someone else invents the same thing, should the first person really get credit for it? I supposed it really depends. If we take the historical example that Altf4 provided, then Gutenburg would not get credit for it since china had it. However, that still left Europe without a good printing press until Gutenburg. I'm inclined to think that the person who makes something useful should get credit. Although then a whole bunch of problems over what is defined as "useful" would arise.

Person1: I just came up with this neat little invention. I won't make anything off of it. I won't even bother getting it patented.
Person2: I just came up with this neat little invention. I can probably make some money off of it. I'll get it patented.
Person1: Hey that guy made the same thing I did! He's making money off of it! I want to make money now too! I want a patent!

If person1 was never going to patent it but decided he wanted to when someone else came forth with the idea, should he get credit?

 

[cman]

Person1: I just came up with this neat little invention. I won't make anything off of it. I won't even bother getting it patented.
Person2: I just came up with this neat little invention. I can probably make some money off of it. I'll get it patented.
Person1: Hey that guy made the same thing I did! He's making money off of it! I want to make money now too! I want a patent!

If person2 was never going to patent it but decided he wanted to when someone else came forth with the idea, should he get credit?

Do you mean person1? If not, what do you mean?

 

[Overload]

Do you mean person1? If not, what do you mean?

Ah yes sorry. Bad typo. Person1.

 

[cman]

Ah yes sorry. Bad typo. Person1.

That was the point of my post. I was saying that I think person2 should probably get credit in a very convoluted way.

 

[AltF4]

Here is a good video about the Pirate Bay, from the BBC. It does a decent job of sounding balanced on the issue. (Unlike any American news outlets who are too deep in corporate pockets to be fair)

I particularly like an analogy made by one of the Pirate Bay's founders. He says the copyright industry today is much like selling ice. Years ago, people used to go around selling ice. Ice was not easy to come by, and it didn't stay long once you got it. It had to be delivered by hand.

But today, this system is obsolete. Everyone in the modern world owns a freezer, and can make their own ice. The entire ice market was eliminated.

But now what if the ice distributors tried to sue and stop this? What if they said "Hey! We have a patent on freezing ice, you're not allowed to do it yourself. You have to get ice from us and only us, for a large price! And we'll sue you if you don't!"

You'd tell them to take a hike, is what you'd do! Because the world is a better place where people can make their own ice freely. New technology has made their job obsolete. Instead of suing to stay in business, what the ice distributors did was (now get this): find a new job.

Today we are seeing the EXACT same thing. The recording industry has been made obsolete by technology. But rather than packing up and finding new jobs, they're suing people to stay in business. And since they were rich to start out with, they're writing the law itself to make what they're doing legal.

This is a moral and legal atrocity of the highest kind, and must be stopped.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

Here is a good video about the Pirate Bay, from the BBC. It does a decent job of sounding balanced on the issue. (Unlike any American news outlets who are too deep in corporate pockets to be fair)

I particularly like an analogy made by one of the Pirate Bay's founders. He says the copyright industry today is much like selling ice. Years ago, people used to go around selling ice. Ice was not easy to come by, and it didn't stay long once you got it. It had to be delivered by hand.

But today, this system is obsolete. Everyone in the modern world owns a freezer, and can make their own ice. The entire ice market was eliminated.

But now what if the ice distributors tried to sue and stop this? What if they said "Hey! We have a patent on freezing ice, you're not allowed to do it yourself. You have to get ice from us and only us, for a large price! And we'll sue you if you don't!"

You'd tell them to take a hike, is what you'd do! Because the world is a better place where people can make their own ice freely. New technology has made their job obsolete. Instead of suing to stay in business, what the ice distributors did was (now get this): find a new job.

Today we are seeing the EXACT same thing. The recording industry has been made obsolete by technology. But rather than packing up and finding new jobs, they're suing people to stay in business. And since they were rich to start out with, they're writing the law itself to make what they're doing legal.

This is a moral and legal atrocity of the highest kind, and must be stopped.

This.
I am tired of content providers attempting to charge me for the "privilege" of transferring my song/movie to another format or device. Despite the fact that I have already paid for the content, I am expected to buy it again. A common example of this is books packaged with eBooks. The books I like are the ones that show you how to obtain a free PDF of the text I just bought. The idiotic books are the ones that say, "Buy the digital version for an additional $10." Um, I just bought the book. I feel no remorse in pirating that book online after I bought the freakin' thing.

The creation of content will never go obsolete, but its distribution methods always tend to go obsolete. Of course content creators deserve to make money, but forcing customers to do something they can take care of themselves with "we need to make money" as their justification makes me sick. Find a way to make money like everyone else. Stop whining that the world operates differently today.

 

[AltF4]

This video is VERY good. (But watch all the parts, not just the first.)

He's lecturing TV producers and executives about how bit torrenting is amazing, and essentially how they're dumb for not using this technology to their advantage, as opposed to pretending it's hurting them. He goes into detail about how to monetize this market, as well.

In fact, I'm probably going to put this on the OP.

 

[manhunter098]

Watched them all, that took quite a while. I can certainly agree, this is the model for the future, free information is far more profitable than information that you need to pay for.

 

[AltF4]

OP has been edited. Changes:

-Pretty formatting and colors for enhanced readability.
-A "videos and links" section at the bottom with some EXCELLENT videos that I would suggest everyone watch.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxCoCTc3T5Q&feature=PlayList&p=03EF3B07022FBAC8&index=0&playnext=1

There is your answer right there. This is an amazing series of videos explain how profits can be made by embracing BitTorrent.

 

[AltF4]

lol, I already linked to that in the OP.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

lol, I already linked to that in the OP.

NOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Well, link to my uber playlist.

And everyone should watch it. ^_^

 

[Lore]

stuff about ice.

This is probably the best argument for piracy I've seen in a while. Nice.

Personally, I agree with all of AltF4's points in the OP, and I can't really add much to the argument but this.

The main thing that really gets me about movie piracy especially is the fact that the MPAA is on such a witch hunt over piracy. Most of their arguments are completely wrong and not based in fact at all.

Take the college study they did a bit back as an example. They decided to see how much of downloads on a college campus are pirated. They thought it was 44%. They then decided to go to congress about it. Congress issued warning to campuses to be stricter about downloads.

However, two years later, the numbers were actually found out to be around 15 percent.

oops.

http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2008/01/23/mpaa-wrong-on-piracy-prevalence

 

[Oracle]

Sorry if this has already been answered, but how will the creators of software get money if everyone downloads it for free?

 

[AltF4]

1) I argue above that information should be "free", as in "freedom". Not "free" as in "no cost". It is perfectly okay to offer a charge, direct or indirect, for open source software. When we talk about the Free Software Movement, we are talking about freedom to use, change, and improve the software as we see fit. We are talking about restoring the freedoms of the users. We are not talking about everyone being able to get something without paying.

2) Your question pre-supposes the following: The only way to get money from software is charge per-download.

But this is of course not true. There are lots of open source companies thriving today. Try looking around at Red Hat, Sun Microsystems, or Canonical. They all produce software which is "free" (as in freedom) and yet still draws revenue.

Think about google for a second. Google makes a lot of money. But they don't charge you to use their search engine! How do they make money if they give away "for free" their main product?!

There are other ways. Google, in fact, has pioneered the ability to monetize the internet in new ways.