It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Most Nefarious Part Of The TPP Proposal: Making Copyright Reform Impossible

page: 2
19
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 10:36 PM
link   
Xploder!

Love your threads.
One of the main reasons I check ATS every day.

Once every two months you are sure to bring up a topic
that is not only current, but hasn't been covered by any
other member.

I know this isn't a new topic, but this latest move is.

Remember when Disney got an amendment to extend
their copyright on the mouse?

Heard about the debate in the medical world between
protecting inventors vs. protecting owners.

Heard of all the pirate copies of windows still being
the number one operating system in most of china.





I see that your refrain in this thread is "how does
that help innovation?!" Especially when the
creator is already deceased.

I agree with your position, but for the sake of
argument, I will contend against your point.
Hopefully within the scope of the topic as it
is presented.

The answer to "how does a 100 year copyright
help innovation, especially when the inventor
is dead" is ... by selling future rights.

Here is a sample...


David Bowie netting $55 million after selling the future rights to his back catalog in 1997

law 360 . com / IP securitization


He would have gotten much less if the prospective
buyer could only "seek rent" on the IP for ten years.



=================
but that is not a compelling case for me,
I agree with you, and most of what is
happening is a travesty
================

Dracula, Frankenstein, Robin Hood, and
many others are in the public domain,
yet tons of money have been made off
of those titles. Even in modern times.

I think one of the greatest tragedies of
the internet age is that Mickey Mouse
didn't enter the public domain on
schedule.

Precisely at the moment when the
older generation could have made
tons of youtube videos of their
memories, or impressions of the
mouse over the years, in a way
that would make them relatable
to the younger generations, the
door was slammed in their face.

Now the mouse means little too
society in general. It is not a
meeting place between grand
parent and grand child. It is
a dead meme.

Mike




Is this copyright infringement?

Dragoncon 2013,
Cosplay
"The Veldt" by Deadmou5
edit on 18-11-2013 by mikegrouchy because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 10:56 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


I don't think you quite understand the true nature of a copyright.

If I innovate a new method for doing something, and write the "program" to do it. My copyright only protects my "program", and to some extent the actual "process" I used. In every single case of this kind of innovation, there are other "processes" that will accomplish the same thing.

Thus, you are absolutely free to use any process other than mine; so go ahead, innovate.

Here is an example.

About 13 years ago I developed a "new technology"; this technology allowed One to put up-datable sales information on a CD and track the "plays". It was used in a sales environment.

The methods, procedures I used to accomplished are all copyrighted, in that YOU can't use them, even re-coded, You would have to develop different methods and procedures. This is something I do all the time.

You also mentioned the Creative commons licensing; an excellent idea, I actually use open source "code" frequently. The problem is that it usually doesn't work well. Recently I was asked by an insurance company to "convert" their policy forms into a PDF. I wanted to save them a buck, so I tried open source software. It worked quite well with simple "forms", but as soon as they got the least bit complex, they failed. I told my client that I could "make it work" should only take a few days, or we purchase software that already worked. The difference in cost was enough to make them buy the copyrighted software.

Oh, by the way; using creative commons is not unlike you designing and building a new kind of transportation. Making it available to everyone, and having some total stranger show up and claim the whole thing was his, and then proceed to make a "killing" in the market, and you get nothing.

My personal experience cost me over $70,000. The only thing that saved me, and mitigated the damage of the attempted theft was a copyright certificate issued by the government.

One little question: "Why should I not have the right to my own work?"

ETA: Copyright law is primarily determined by international treaty, and has to remain within the limits of that treaty.

edit on 18-11-2013 by tanka418 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by mikegrouchy
 


hi buddy


glad to cross paths again


i cant help but look at the problem from a "whole" point of view,

not at the individual case level but as a complex system like an eco-system or organism,

from the "over-view level it is clear that the system is broken and inhibiting real progress,

i have nothing against an individual making a buck, or the concept of "limited" protection to inspire the useful arts and the progress of scientists,

but when the term is too long drugs are expensive past the point of profit and enter the area of price gouging,
ie profit instead of life.

or when a company litigates another company out of business, because they own a patent but have no intent of ever producing a product or hiring anyone to promote the use of said tech.

i have come to see that the only way to fix a problem of "granted monopoly" that actually hinders the correct functioning of the creative process is to deliver all my designs "into the commons"
so that no group can monopolise the design at the cost of the community that copy write was supposed to benefit.

what ever system that is put in place must have balance between inspiring innovation,
and increasing other innovation and enlightening lives with the progress that is possible through calibration.

these maximalists are going to slow down the process of innovation and content creation because they fear the competition of truly innovative people. this inhibits the free market of ideas that compete on their merits,

a socialism of ideas.

it is good to hear from you friend


xploder



posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 12:01 AM
link   
reply to post by tanka418
 


in my country NZ we have just passed a law that makes it much more difficult to get software patents,
why you might ask?

if i design the best way to make a database, and it is the only way to make the new best data base,
and you need one you have two choices,
pay me huge sums of money or use a much slower system.

now in most cases there are many ways to code to achieve the same result,
but in some cases EVERYONE is held captive to unreasonable prices,

or unfair terms and conditions,

the masses who are supposed to benifit from the increase of innovation is now held captive to the profit motive over efficiency in the design realm


I don't think you quite understand the true nature of a copyright.

If I innovate a new method for doing something, and write the "program" to do it. My copyright only protects my "program", and to some extent the actual "process" I used. In every single case of this kind of innovation, there are other "processes" that will accomplish the same thing.

Thus, you are absolutely free to use any process other than mine; so go ahead, innovate.


it is my personal opinion that you can make money and not prevent others from using your code,
so instead of designing a system where everyone benifits from your code AND you get paid,
we have a system where 100 people could have a claim on your code,
effectivly preventing you from ever monetising it.

i know its difficult but try and look at the whole interconnected system, rather than your individual case,
when you look at the larger system the small benfits for small numbers of individuals are out weighed by the damage created by the larger system.

read mikes post about culture lost,
and the shame of the mouse

xploder



posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 12:37 AM
link   

XPLodER
reply to post by mikegrouchy
 



i cant help but look at the problem from a "whole" point of view,

not at the individual case level but as a complex system like an eco-system or organism,

from the "over-view level it is clear that the system is broken and inhibiting real progress,

i have nothing against an individual making a buck, or the concept of "limited" protection to inspire the useful arts and the progress of scientists,

but when the term is too long drugs are expensive past the point of profit and enter the area of price gouging,
ie profit instead of life.

or when a company litigates another company out of business, because they own a patent but have no intent of ever producing a product or hiring anyone to promote the use of said tech.

i have come to see that the only way to fix a problem of "granted monopoly" that actually hinders the correct functioning of the creative process is to deliver all my designs "into the commons"
so that no group can monopolise the design at the cost of the community that copy write was supposed to benefit.




That's what I'm seeing too.

A scorched earth policy.



According to this guy it's an epidemic of historic proportions,
but the reason most never hear about it... is that it's covered
by non-disclosure agreements during settlement.

The greedy were so busy fighting over who is going to own
the future that they destroyed the very culture of creativity
that was inventing it.

Mike



posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 12:58 AM
link   

XPLodER
reply to post by tanka418
 


in my country NZ we have just passed a law that makes it much more difficult to get software patents,
why you might ask?

if i design the best way to make a database, and it is the only way to make the new best data base,
and you need one you have two choices,
pay me huge sums of money or use a much slower system.

now in most cases there are many ways to code to achieve the same result,
but in some cases EVERYONE is held captive to unreasonable prices,


All right then...

Firstly software can not be patented. Patents are a wholly different animal form a copyright. Software, and its source code is more akin to a novel, or new story. It is a body of essentially text, which describes the method of performing an action, usually in a "high level" language; such as "C".

And, IF you were to design the world's best database engine. I can design one that performs the very same operations, all I need do is "code" it in such a way as to not do it the way you did. It is really that easy, and that difficult. There is NO operation, no procedure you can design that is "the only way" to do something. Did you know that the worlds two most popular, and useful database engines are in essence the same application? Check it out sometime; Microsoft SQL Server, and Oracle; both are "SQL" engines. They execute the same high level language (SQL...Structured Query Language), there are in face only few real differences. Both are copyrighted.

And, my choices are not to pay an outrageous price, nor use an inferior system. My choices are to pay your outrageous price, or design my own system, that will actually be superior, due to the fact that it can be tailored very specifically to it's unique task.

The only time a copyright "gets in the way" is when you have lazy engineers who don't want to put in the work to build their own system.

I do this for a living, and NEVER pay outrageous prices, nor accept lesser software. If I need something I typically "write it", without caring how difficult it is, or if it has been done before. My original code is sufficiently unique so as to NOT violate copyright.



posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 01:14 AM
link   
reply to post by mikegrouchy
 


your vid is spot on

patents were for good and now they slow or even stop innovation,

here is my favourite vid about why copy write does not work the way most people have been told


when you realise who and why the extensions were enacted you can see its not for the useful arts or creators or innovators and it actually robs jobs and culture from the many to line the pockets for the few.

congress is debating copy write now, which is why its important to have the discussion now so people can make informed decisions


xploder




edit on 19/11/13 by XPLodER because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 01:16 AM
link   

XPLodER
reply to post by tanka418
 

it is my personal opinion that you can make money and not prevent others from using your code,
so instead of designing a system where everyone benifits from your code AND you get paid,
we have a system where 100 people could have a claim on your code,
effectivly preventing you from ever monetising it.


So, tell me; "Why did I even bother t get two advanced degrees in engineering?"

If I can not profit from my own work, what is my motivation for doing the work?

If I get a copyright on my work, I am not preventing others from using the software I publish. I'm only requiring you to pay for the privilege. You are absolutely free to develop your own system.

Also, would you advocate that all novels, music be free as well? That we could all enjoy the music of say "Led Zepplin" and not compensate the band? Or how about a Steven King novel? Should he just write, and not get paid for the work?

Should I spend a year or more of long days and late nights for the "joy" of coding? Should I put up with months of frustration developing a "new technology" to simply give it away? Again I would ask: "Where is my motivation?"

Perhaps IF you could make it so that I don't need an income, I could be more "into" the "joy of coding", I could afford to do it for free.



posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 01:19 AM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


You are aware that Patients and Copyrights are completely different animals, right? They apply to different "kinds" of Intellectual Property.



posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 01:25 AM
link   

tanka418


I do this for a living, and NEVER pay outrageous prices, nor accept lesser software. If I need something I typically "write it", without caring how difficult it is, or if it has been done before. My original code is sufficiently unique so as to NOT violate copyright.




It's good to hear from someone in the trenches,
so don't take this the wrong way. I'm going to
characterize the response as a shellshocked
WW1 soldier in the trenches wearing a gas mask.

Reporter: How's the mustard gas?
Soldier in the Trench: It's not that bad.


See ^ he doesn't "care how difficult it is either",
but that doesn't make it right.

/ sorry about that.


But you are right, of course, about there being
a world of difference between copyright and
patents. Always worth mentioning.


But the trend, the bad decisions, the irreversible
precedents being set are bad. Just as Xploder
has described. And it's happening to both the
copyright and patent worlds.

Mike






posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 01:31 AM
link   
reply to post by tanka418
 



All right then...

Firstly software can not be patented. Patents are a wholly different animal form a copyright. Software, and its source code is more akin to a novel, or new story. It is a body of essentially text, which describes the method of performing an action, usually in a "high level" language; such as "C".

And, IF you were to design the world's best database engine. I can design one that performs the very same operations, all I need do is "code" it in such a way as to not do it the way you did. It is really that easy, and that difficult. There is NO operation, no procedure you can design that is "the only way" to do something. Did you know that the worlds two most popular, and useful database engines are in essence the same application? Check it out sometime; Microsoft SQL Server, and Oracle; both are "SQL" engines. They execute the same high level language (SQL...Structured Query Language), there are in face only few real differences. Both are copyrighted.

And, my choices are not to pay an outrageous price, nor use an inferior system. My choices are to pay your outrageous price, or design my own system, that will actually be superior, due to the fact that it can be tailored very specifically to it's unique task.

The only time a copyright "gets in the way" is when you have lazy engineers who don't want to put in the work to build their own system.

I do this for a living, and NEVER pay outrageous prices, nor accept lesser software. If I need something I typically "write it", without caring how difficult it is, or if it has been done before. My original code is sufficiently unique so as to NOT violate copyright.


ok so i understand your point,
in this case, in your line of work, you can "design around" the protected work

there is nothing you can do in patent terms if there is "only one way" to query the disc of the SQL database at the hardware level,

ie for your SQL query to work the hard disk has to be accessed and the "method" of read/write is patented to someone else.

to design different software is easy for you but when you rely on an i/o read you may infringe on a patent,

i realise this is different from a purely software database example,
but when your working with both hardware and software that interact,
it becomes more difficult.

using music as an example,
if every riff was computer generated and copy written in snippets, and you did every sound/instrument you could get,
at some point some one would create the same sound or rift in their music,

without your permission, and or agreement of terms i could have your song removed,

i realise this is an extreme example, i am just trying to convey a point
i hope you get my drift


xploder



posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 01:44 AM
link   

tanka418
reply to post by XPLodER
 


You are aware that Patients and Copyrights are completely different animals, right? They apply to different "kinds" of Intellectual Property.



yes i have been on a personal crusade for years, on both the damage to culture on copy write maximalists,
and the damage to innovation and progress to patent maximalists.

i design both hard ware and software (privacy tools)
and have many designs made into products,
by people i have never meet, on the condition that the products are either open source or creative commons,
or open source hardware.

i have been studying the effects of BOTH copy and patent on a macro/micro level for many years.

i have come to the same conclusion as sir tim burners lee,

for some things to be a benifit to culture or the arts,
they must be owned by every single living person equally.

xploder



posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 01:55 AM
link   
reply to post by tanka418
 


ah ha
now we get to the "balance" or stable equilibrium between personal reward for the creator,
balanced against the needs and values of the society, that are in effect giving you SOLE use of the created material


So, tell me; "Why did I even bother t get two advanced degrees in engineering?"

If I can not profit from my own work, what is my motivation for doing the work?

If I get a copyright on my work, I am not preventing others from using the software I publish. I'm only requiring you to pay for the privilege. You are absolutely free to develop your own system.

Also, would you advocate that all novels, music be free as well? That we could all enjoy the music of say "Led Zepplin" and not compensate the band? Or how about a Steven King novel? Should he just write, and not get paid for the work?

Should I spend a year or more of long days and late nights for the "joy" of coding? Should I put up with months of frustration developing a "new technology" to simply give it away? Again I would ask: "Where is my motivation?"

Perhaps IF you could make it so that I don't need an income, I could be more "into" the "joy of coding", I could afford to do it for free.


at what point have you the right to benifit over the "original motivation" of causing MORE innovation and culture to be useful to the group giving you exclusive rights?

is it 28 years?
is it 50 years?
is it ok to hold progress or culture hostage for you life plus 100 years?

if you answer 100 years, how does a dead man create anything?
how does holding innovation or culture hostage inspire a corpse to "continue"?

the ONLY reason to extend copy write or patent terms past the life of the designer/author is to benefit something that can not die nor has bad feelings about depriving culture from the masses.

at that point its rent seeking of a dead mans ideas by a corporations that wont die nor be creative
the exact opposite of the reasons given for copy write or patent terms.

xploder



posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 09:05 AM
link   

XPLodER
reply to post by tanka418
 


at what point have you the right to benifit over the "original motivation" of causing MORE innovation and culture to be useful to the group giving you exclusive rights?

is it 28 years?
is it 50 years?
is it ok to hold progress or culture hostage for you life plus 100 years?

if you answer 100 years, how does a dead man create anything?
how does holding innovation or culture hostage inspire a corpse to "continue"?

the ONLY reason to extend copy write or patent terms past the life of the designer/author is to benefit something that can not die nor has bad feelings about depriving culture from the masses.

at that point its rent seeking of a dead mans ideas by a corporations that wont die nor be creative
the exact opposite of the reasons given for copy write or patent terms.

xploder


Okay...first of all; there is no group "granting" me exclusive rights to my own work. Period!

Copyrights are what society pays the innovator for the use of his innovation. When I design something, all of it is "mine". That is to say; the original ideas, methods, etc. are a product of MY imagination and ability to actualize. There is no "rule" that says I have to give my innovation to society. Thus, you are not granting me rights to my innovation.

IF you (as a society) wish to use my innovation, why should I allow it. The whole idea of Copyrights and Patients is to protect the innovator, and to keep society from causing harm to individuals.

by the way: You have absolutely NO RIGHTS to my work.

It would seem that you want to simply take my "right of benefit" from my work away, and enjoy my work at my expense. (somehow you seem to think that this "spurs" innovation...)

Your examples: Ya know IF I needed to store data on some type of media there are still two ways to go. I can use what we have now...pay all the appropriate licensing fees, and continue (kind of like I do now), or I can "re-invent the wheel". If I need storage, nothing is making me use established technologies, well other than it is more cost effective to simply pay for the license.

But, you see, I can design new storage if I want. AND, that is actually doing more to "spur" innovation than removing the patent and copyrights. If left in place Patients and Copyrights can tend to limit the availability of technology, causing in turn, someone to engineer a work around; resulting in innovation and new technologies. And all because you couldn't use my protected work.

By the way; copyrights last for 75 years after my death...not that I care. Patients last for 17 years and can be renewed.

The concept of Intellectual Property is an important one for any society. It is something that MUST be protected for the ultimate benefit of the individual and society. It is these kinds of protections that assist the evolution of the society, and without then you will loose innovation, there will be no new technologies, nor idea. Y'all would prolly stagnate.

By the way...the machine you are using is both patented and copyrighted, by several companies and individuals. It has done more to "spur" innovation than any other device in history. It is the result of no longer wanting to use, and be "tied" to the slide rule. It came from the desire to process more information than could be done mechanically. Do you think the innovators would have IF there were not some protections for their ideas and work?

I've had people attempt to "steal" my work, and I would not have continued to innovate IF I thought there was no "protection". You see, that would remove most of my motivation. As it is now, people who want to use my work pay a license fee (or they use some one's else's work)

Patients and Copyrights; Intellectual Property Protection, does more to enhance innovation than any other schema. It allows innovators to actually realize some benefit of their own hard work.

eta:


now we get to the "balance" or stable equilibrium between personal reward for the creator,
balanced against the needs and values of the society, that are in effect giving you SOLE use of the created material


Again I think you misunderstand. Society does not effectively give me sole/exclusive right to my work. The fact that it is my work does that. I am under no obligation to share my work with anyone. Yet, you seem keen on taking my work from me and turning a profit yourself...Thank you congress for making that illegal.



edit on 19-11-2013 by tanka418 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 01:25 PM
link   



Okay...first of all; there is no group "granting" me exclusive rights to my own work. Period!


you are wrong,


On August 18, 1787, the Constitutional Convention was in the midst of a weeks-long stretch of proposals to establish what would become the enumerated powers of the United States Congress. Three such proposals made on that day addressed what are now lumped together under intellectual property rights. One, by Charles Pinckney was "to secure to authors exclusive rights for a limited time". The other two were made by James Madison, who had previously served on a committee of the Congress established under the Articles of Confederation which had encouraged the individual states to adopt copyright legislation. Madison proposed that the Constitution permit Congress "to secure to literary authors their copyrights for a limited time", or, in the alternative, "to encourage, by proper premiums & Provisions, the advancement of useful knowledge and discoveries".[1]
Both proposals were referred to the Committee of Detail, which reported back on September 5, 1787 with a proposal containing the current language of the clause. No record exists to explain the exact choice of words selected by the Committee on Detail, whose task was essentially no more than creating a draft Constitution by arranging the proposals that had been made into the most appropriate language. On September 17, 1787, the members of the Convention unanimously agreed to the proposed language, without debate, and this language was incorporated into the Constitution.[1]
Effect[edit]

The clause actually confers two distinct powers: the power to secure for limited times to authors the exclusive right to their writings is the basis for U.S. copyright law, and the power to secure for limited times to inventors the exclusive rights to their discoveries is the basis for U.S. patent law. Because the clause contains no language under which Congress may protect trademarks, those are instead protected under the Commerce Clause. Some terms in the clause are used in archaic meanings, potentially confusing modern readers. For example, "useful Arts" does not refer to artistic endeavors, but rather to the work of artisans, people skilled in a manufacturing craft; "Science" is not limited to fields of modern scientific inquiry, but to all knowledge, including philosophy and literature.


en.wikipedia.org...


Copyrights are what society pays the innovator for the use of his innovation. When I design something, all of it is "mine".


i see your problem, mine is a funny word to use, it indicates your belief that the act of copy write is a BARGIN between you as creator and the society YOU BELONG TOO


That is to say; the original ideas, methods, etc. are a product of MY imagination and ability to actualize. There is no "rule" that says I have to give my innovation to society.


there is no rule that you must protect and monetise your innovation,


Thus, you are not granting me rights to my innovation.


copy-write is a BARGAIN where society ALLOWS you to have EXCLUSIVE right,
set against the needs and benifits of the society from which you came!!!!
without the part of the bargin where there is BENIFIT to society WHY would you be GRANTED exclusive rights?


IF you (as a society) wish to use my innovation, why should I allow it. The whole idea of Copyrights and Patients is to protect the innovator, and to keep society from causing harm to individuals.


nope, you are wrong,

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.


en.wikipedia.org...

"to promote" is before "by securing"


by the way: You have absolutely NO RIGHTS to my work.

agreed! up to the point you seek protection, at which point a "LIMITED TERM" of exclusive right is GRANTED,
so that it may allow you income up to the point it is RELEASED from TERM

[QUOTE]It would seem that you want to simply take my "right of benefit" from my work away, and enjoy my work at my expense. (somehow you seem to think that this "spurs" innovation...)[/QUOTE]

ACTUALLY i think that the ABILITY to benefit from YOUR work should be limited to 28 years,
at which point the granted monopoly GRANTED to you by society should end!!!

i feel i should point out that you have an idealistic view, not a realistic view of this BARGAIN over IP!!!!!


Your examples: Ya know IF I needed to store data on some type of media there are still two ways to go. I can use what we have now...pay all the appropriate licensing fees, and continue (kind of like I do now), or I can "re-invent the wheel". If I need storage, nothing is making me use established technologies, well other than it is more cost effective to simply pay for the license.


while duplication of effort can spur innovation, it is usually economically redundant!!!!!



posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 01:43 PM
link   

But, you see, I can design new storage if I want.


yes you can re-invent the wheel!!!
but if the idea of copy write is too promote the useful arts, why re write pinoccio?


AND, that is actually doing more to "spur" innovation than removing the patent and copyrights. If left in place Patients and Copyrights can tend to limit the availability of technology, causing in turn, someone to engineer a work around; resulting in innovation and new technologies. And all because you couldn't use my protected work.


that is where i disagree with your position
through out history mankind has extended the work of others,
in science we stand on the shoulders of giants,
IF I HAD TO REPLICATE EVERY SINGLE DISCOVERY BEFORE i could start my resurch ,
well science would be in the dark ages!!!



By the way; copyrights last for 75 years after my death...not that I care. Patients last for 17 years and can be renewed.


please explain how your dead body can have an INCENTIVE to contine creating after your death?
or is YOUR idea YOURS after DEATH?

[QUOTE]The concept of Intellectual Property is an important one for any society. It is something that MUST be protected for the ultimate benefit of the individual and society.[/QUOTE]

I DO NOT SEEK TO REMOVE IP or the protections granted,
only TO LIMIT THE TERM, and to promte the useful arts,
WHICH MEANS GIVING THEM to society in a timely manner!!!!


It is these kinds of protections that assist the evolution of the society, and without then you will loose innovation, there will be no new technologies, nor idea. Y'all would prolly stagnate.


it is usually an "individual perspective" that people display when they hold this view,
have you considered the larger implications to your greed?
the loss of culture?
the lost innovation?



By the way...the machine you are using is both patented and copyrighted, by several companies and individuals. It has done more to "spur" innovation than any other device in history. It is the result of no longer wanting to use, and be "tied" to the slide rule. It came from the desire to process more information than could be done mechanically. Do you think the innovators would have IF there were not some protections for their ideas and work?


SOME, LIMITED, in exchange for the work given to society at the end of A REASONABLE TERM!!!!


I've had people attempt to "steal" my work, and I would not have continued to innovate IF I thought there was no "protection". You see, that would remove most of my motivation. As it is now, people who want to use my work pay a license fee (or they use some one's else's work)


you sound like you are convinced that innovation is only spurred by the profit motive!!
i design for NEED not for money, i have little interest in money, and my inspiration strikes when i see a need,
how does your "monopoly" of ideas help me be more creative?


Patients and Copyrights; Intellectual Property Protection, does more to enhance innovation than any other schema. It allows innovators to actually realize some benefit of their own hard work.


while in years gone by i would have agreed with you,
now the terms are too long and the RIGHTS GRANTED or onerous
on balence there is more harm than good coming from these laws



Again I think you misunderstand. Society does not effectively give me sole/exclusive right to my work. The fact that it is my work does that. I am under no obligation to share my work with anyone. Yet, you seem keen on taking my work from me and turning a profit yourself...Thank you congress for making that illegal.



with all due respect,
you again seem to think insiration only strikes those who seek to earn!!!!!
this is not the case,
and copy-write and patents ARE a bargain between culture/society and the creative,

IT IS NOT A GOD GIVEN RIGHT!!
it is an AGREEMENT that was supposed to be mutually beneficial!!

it has become out of balence

xploder



posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


Corporations own the patents and copywrites now, not human people or their families.

Even 40 years ago when you went to work for a big corporation you had to (regardless of your job description) sign away the rights to any copywrite or patent you received during the term of your employement to the corporation. Didn't matter if you invented something non related to your work and in your spare time with your money - it became the company's patent.

Human people are not considered people with inalienable rights any longer. Only corporate people seem to exist in the USA or should that be United Corporations of American.



posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 10:05 PM
link   

FyreByrd
reply to post by XPLodER
 


Corporations own the patents and copywrites now, not human people or their families.


Excuse me... I have several copyrights, I'm NOT a corporation.



posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


ya know, I don't really care what happens after I'm gone; however, my family might. I would agree that the term doesn't need to be so long, but you need to understand that my copyright have to work for people like Stephen King, and others.

In some cases that long term might be a good thing.

And no I don't think that compensation is what drives innovation. I'm semi-retired now, and work for far less than I did during my career; I do it for the challenge, as I always have. But, until the world no longer requires compensation, I will demand it.



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 1   >>

log in

join