|
Red
|
 |
October 22, 2011, 07:09:36 PM |
|
If you want to talk about the original intent of copyright law, you'll have to go back further than the constitution, further than the Statute of Anne.
Exactly! US law was almost complete plagiarism of this. An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by vesting the Copies of Printed Books in the Authors or purchasers of such Copies, during the Times therein mentioned. An act for the Encouragement of Learning! That is the whole point of copyright law. It means the people must be allowed to READ books. If you read the act it mandates books be given to libraries, and that reasonable prices be charged. Anyone can bring price gougers up on charges! It means most importantly NOBODY can claim ownership of secrets! Your secret diaries were not originally copyrighted. Nobody can buy up the patent on a magically efficient engine and hide it from the world. Patented means it is already public knowledge. The opposite of Intellectual Property is not rampant freedom of knowledge. It is trade secrets, private licensing and a tangled web of secret self-interested interdependencies kept hidden from the public through the privacy of contract law. Digital Rights Management sucks bad enough. Imagine if people where implementing more Physical Rights Management. "I tried to open the hood of the car, but once I did, the engine melted itself down!" Duh, shouldn't have messed with the tamper resistant seal! Time for you to buy another! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unlike traditional banking where clients have only a few account numbers, with Bitcoin people can create an unlimited number of accounts (addresses). This can be used to easily track payments, and it improves anonymity.
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
MoonShadow
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1007
|
|
October 22, 2011, 07:16:09 PM |
|
I shall address the reasons why copyright exists in the Constitution, and why it's there in another post.
Cool! will you start another thread? This one is kind of bloated! No, I won't.
I'm pretty sure we are going to end up arguing on the same side. What industry is trying to do to copyright law is completely contrary to why people created it in the first place.
We likely will. The great disagreement between sides in this thread thus far is the definition of property and whether or not 'products of the mind' qualify as property. The framers of the US Constittution considered that question, and soundly rejected the notion that such 'products' were property of their creators, and with that the concept that copyright is a 'natural right' that can be inherited or even transfered. However, they also recognized the social value in 'patronage' of artists and thinkers. They encoded copyright into the constitution as an intentionally limited term monopoly on commercial copying of works in order to promote the arts, but this monopoly was not only limited to 15 years originally, it wasn't absolute either. It didn't apply to the average man in any real sense, it applied to copying for personal gain. Anyone not in the business of publication could copy any book that he could get his hands on, by hand or otherwise, for his own needs or the education of others, but just couldn't sell the end result for 15 years. This kind of exception also applied to libraries and educational institutions, and largely still does. A library can copy any work in their possession, no matter how they came to possess it (including inter-library loan) and lend it out to valid membership without risk of getting sideways with copyright laws. I've seen it done with music CDs, as well as lending out of self-made copies of reference only books. The key differences in approach are important, because in order to balance the net effect of copyright, the Constitution also explicitly established the Library of Congress, which has the privilage under the law to receive a copy of every published work without cost to itself, and to do with it whatever they wish. This was to allow a citizen access to culturally significant works even if they didn't have the means, as well as provide for an archive of works.
However, at the time, and quite probably today, the original intent/consequences of copyright/patent/trademark laws was much better for *everyone* than the consequences of not having them at all.
Certainly at the time, but that's now debatable. It would take quite a large hard drive, but it's now possible for an individual to own a computer with every book, movie and music ever produced in the US saved onto it's drive. The Internet has largely made archives such as the Library of Congress redundant. Also, the Constitution is a social contract that predates all of us. Thomas Jefferson openly questioned whether it was even proper for one generation to establish such a social contract to be imposed upon following generations by default, and without their explicit consent, but he couldn't offer a better solution either. And neither can I, since unlike our more anarchist membership, I recognize that there really are a small minority of the population that (even with a proper and functioning educational system) cannot be trusted to govern themselves, even though the vast majority of the population undoubtedly can do exactly that. |
"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."
- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
|
|
|
|
Red
|
|
October 22, 2011, 08:15:16 PM |
|
No, I won't.
I don't really blame you!  The great disagreement between sides in this thread thus far is the definition of property and whether or not 'products of the mind' qualify as property.
It's pretty sad people can't get that concept when it's written at the beginning of the law. http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#102(b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/usc_sec_35_00000101----000-.htmlWhoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. It has to come out of your head before it qualifies. This was to allow a citizen access to culturally significant works even if they didn't have the means, as well as provide for an archive of works.
Most importantly, you have to make the ideas available to everyone before they qualify. This isn't going to be any fun! We agree on everything. I recognize that there really are a small minority of the population that (even with a proper and functioning educational system) cannot be trusted to govern themselves, even though the vast majority of the population undoubtedly can do exactly that.
Even this! But how come the people who so obviously cannot be trusted to govern themselves, always want to govern me? |
|
|
|
|
MoonShadow
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1007
|
|
October 22, 2011, 08:32:27 PM |
|
Even this! But how come the people who so obviously cannot be trusted to govern themselves, always want to govern me?
What do you get when you combine a sociopath and a narcisist? A congressman. |
"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."
- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
|
|
|
Hawker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1001
|
|
October 23, 2011, 06:27:52 AM |
|
...snip...
If your issue is that the elected don't represent society, then you have a basic issue with democracy. That's sort of off topic to this thread.
I guess you could say that my issue is with representative democracy, but since this is a federated republic and not a democracy, is such a complaint unfair? I would have thought you live in a state that is both a democracy and a republic but I'm conscious that goes wildly offtopic. |
|
|
|
|
MoonShadow
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1007
|
|
October 23, 2011, 06:06:35 PM |
|
...snip...
If your issue is that the elected don't represent society, then you have a basic issue with democracy. That's sort of off topic to this thread.
I guess you could say that my issue is with representative democracy, but since this is a federated republic and not a democracy, is such a complaint unfair? I would have thought you live in a state that is both a democracy and a republic but I'm conscious that goes wildly offtopic. You would be wrong. |
"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."
- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
|
|
|
MoonShadow
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1007
|
|
October 25, 2011, 05:39:49 PM |
|
|
"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."
- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
|
|
|
Rassah
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1680
Merit: 1035
|
|
October 25, 2011, 08:46:13 PM |
|
Sadly, until BitTorrent starts working over Tor or I2P, or until we finally get truly distributed wireless mesh networking for all our web access, "ignoring" those laws still won't be easy. We still have to keep an eye on our downloads and stop they as soon as they finish, lest we get angrygram from Comcast (I know I2P is supposed to work with bittorrent, but I had no luck with it). |
|
|
|
|
|
chickenado
|
|
November 08, 2011, 09:35:46 AM |
|
The purpose of property rights is not fairness, it's justice.
The purpose of property rights isn't to "fairly reward people for their work", "create incentives" or any utilitarian nonsense like that. These modern perversions of the concept of property come from ignorance of what property means in the first place, and where it came from originally.
Property rights have nothing to do with morality. Property rights are nothing but a way for humans to settle disputes over who controls scarce resources.
Property rights serve one purpose and one purpose only: To answer the question, "when is violence justified"?
Property rights are strictly negative rights, ie. the right not to be interfered with while using one's body, whether applied to physical property or information.
The modern concept of intellectual "property" is a positive right, ie. the right to arbitrarily violate other people's self-ownership because their behavior is deemed immoral by some central authority. Thus it isn't a property right at all.
The pro-IP brigade fails to make this distinction between morality/fairness and justice.
When a kind stranger helps me with directions on the street and I return the favor by being rude to him, most would consider that behavior immoral or unfair. But that alone doesn't give the kind stranger the right to force me to say "thank you" or to return another favor. Though he certainly has the right to ostracize or denounce me.
When I make money off an idea that I "stole" from a friend without giving him credit I might be an asshole, but that alone doesn't give my friend the right to point a gun at me, or steal my physical property as "compensation".
The concept of physical property is everything but "fair". A poor peasant might work 20 hours a day for a few dollars, while a rich land owner might earn millions from rent and live a life of leisure, simply because he owns capital and the peasant doesn't.
So why, then, intellectual property should be "fair" is beyond me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
deuxmill
|
|
November 08, 2011, 02:09:00 PM |
|
The concept of physical property is everything but "fair". A poor peasant might work 20 hours a day for a few dollars, while a rich land owner might earn millions from rent and live a life of leisure, simply because he owns capital and the peasant doesn't. So why, then, intellectual property should be "fair" is beyond me. [/quote] I actually don't see the unfairness . Or did the rich land owner got his riches from God or something? Why isn't the poor peasant rich? Because he is poor maybe , we have to protect him until he finds a way to become rich then. If he can't then what the hell should we do , should the rich bastard which clearly can do something with his wealth split this wealth with the poor guy which didn't prove yet that he can. Maybe he should . But maybe the fact that there is IP law for example is making the rich bastard rich ... and the poor bastard could very easily recreate what the rich bastard has only he would be hunted by masked armed men if he does it. EVEN if that information is INFINITE and if the poor guy recreates it doesn't deprive anyone of anything.  Physical property is psychical , therefore finite , and you can't recreate it out of thin air so you would need to deprive someone of it or find some more that ain't owned. "IP" on the other hand is not physical it's fiction on a piece of paper , or a CD , or a hard drive , and you can easily recreate it with the use of a pen for example or just by copy paste , or with the push of a button , and that action alone won't deprive the originator of the "IP" of NOTHING because he would still have his work . That is why one is fair . Because if someone has property is because he did something or his forefathers did something . I don't know , Kings did murder and oppressed serfs , inventors invented things then they also created something psychical based on that invention , and sold it and made huge profits and wealth , Americans murdered Indians and took over their lands . They could do this because the laws at that time allowed it or maybe because no one wanted to enforce the existing laws because people believed it's better not to. OUR hole world works because of FICTION like the law and information. Even a gold bracelet , or the fire , or a weal was at one point invented or more exactly discovered by a human. Al this things have a combination of Physical and FICTIONAL property. The bracelet for example is composed of the physical material called/defined as gold and the IP called/defined as bracelet (a circle to put around your arm) We can all create bracelets because at the time of it's invention there weren't laws that would recognize Intellectual Property. IF there were ,then the inventor's offspring would still be extremely wealthy and you wouldn't be able to create one without paying them. Think about how much we have discovered so far and then think about what we might invent from now on and remember that by accepting IP you grant the OWNER of the IP a monopoly on an infinite resource that can be recreated out of thin air , that could be at one point , vital to our existence. Think that if IP existed at the moment of the writing of the first document that contained GOD in it , and the authors copyrighted their works , the authors would have monopoly on the use of the word GOD in all future works , even speech . No Bible , No church , No nothing without payment to the owner. This would be wonderful from my view but still pretty stupid. Also remember that if you don't manage to make people believe that a inventor is an absolute OWNER of the IP , they won't obey that law unless you attach some risk to it's braking , so you end up initializing violence against someone that never deprived anyone of anything. It would be like getting arrested for killing someone's imaginary friend and it's just as stupid as getting burned on a stake for blasphemy or just as stupid as ending in the concentration camps of Hitler because you believed you were jew , just as stupid as getting arrested because you brought injury to state institutions by swearing a cop etc and just as stupid as considering a whore doesn't produce value through sex but a singer does by singing. |
|
|
|
|
Hawker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1001
|
|
November 08, 2011, 04:03:42 PM |
|
deuxmill - people have been around 100,000 years and patents on things like bracelets last 10 years. If the grant to the patent speeds up the rate of invention, then that 10 year patent is worth it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
deuxmill
|
|
November 08, 2011, 05:26:15 PM |
|
deuxmill - people have been around 100,000 years and patents on things like bracelets last 10 years. If the grant to the patent speeds up the rate of invention, then that 10 year patent is worth it.
There is no such thing as a patent on a bracelet . Maybe on the shape of a bracelet or the pattern on it (a bracelet shaped as a snake or a bracelet with the face of Jesus on it). And it might be worth for you . For me it ain't. Se at this point you have to start hunting me because I'm in contradiction with your thinking , and not because i caused any damage to you or your property. Just don't expect me not too try to escape your hunt or even retaliate because I believe it is stupid. I believe it's stupid to initiate violence against someone who didn't act violent in any way and also didn't deprive anyone of anything. |
|
|
|
|
Rassah
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1680
Merit: 1035
|
|
November 08, 2011, 06:02:04 PM |
|
deuxmill - people have been around 100,000 years and patents on things like bracelets last 10 years. If the grant to the patent speeds up the rate of invention, then that 10 year patent is worth it.
It does the opposite of speeding it up, since it puts a 10 year halt on anyone playing around with that invention to make it better. |
|
|
|
|
Hawker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1001
|
|
November 08, 2011, 07:26:27 PM |
|
deuxmill - people have been around 100,000 years and patents on things like bracelets last 10 years. If the grant to the patent speeds up the rate of invention, then that 10 year patent is worth it.
It does the opposite of speeding it up, since it puts a 10 year halt on anyone playing around with that invention to make it better. The problem with your idea is that we have empirical evidence. Countries with IP laws excel at innovation. The others don't. |
|
|
|
|
Hawker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1001
|
|
November 08, 2011, 07:53:33 PM |
|
deuxmill - people have been around 100,000 years and patents on things like bracelets last 10 years. If the grant to the patent speeds up the rate of invention, then that 10 year patent is worth it.
There is no such thing as a patent on a bracelet . Maybe on the shape of a bracelet or the pattern on it (a bracelet shaped as a snake or a bracelet with the face of Jesus on it). And it might be worth for you . For me it ain't. Se at this point you have to start hunting me because I'm in contradiction with your thinking , and not because i caused any damage to you or your property. Just don't expect me not too try to escape your hunt or even retaliate because I believe it is stupid. I believe it's stupid to initiate violence against someone who didn't act violent in any way and also didn't deprive anyone of anything. You chose the bracelet as an example and I went along with it. If you want to be more realistic, consider the patent on a drug that costs $100 million to develop and then costs 30 cents to make. Only a fool would invest the $100 million if anyone else can come along and copy his research the day that he first unveils the drug. The 20 year window in which he can recover his costs is tiny compared to the 1000s of years people will benefit from the drug. |
|
|
|
|
Rassah
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1680
Merit: 1035
|
|
November 08, 2011, 08:05:09 PM |
|
deuxmill - people have been around 100,000 years and patents on things like bracelets last 10 years. If the grant to the patent speeds up the rate of invention, then that 10 year patent is worth it.
It does the opposite of speeding it up, since it puts a 10 year halt on anyone playing around with that invention to make it better. The problem with your idea is that we have empirical evidence. Countries with IP laws excel at innovation. The others don't. Evidence shows China is on the brink of kicking our collective buts with innovation. Companies that abandon their IP rights in exchange with being able to do business in China (one of their prerequisites) tend to still do extremely well, too. |
|
|
|
|
Hawker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1001
|
|
November 08, 2011, 08:19:54 PM |
|
deuxmill - people have been around 100,000 years and patents on things like bracelets last 10 years. If the grant to the patent speeds up the rate of invention, then that 10 year patent is worth it.
It does the opposite of speeding it up, since it puts a 10 year halt on anyone playing around with that invention to make it better. The problem with your idea is that we have empirical evidence. Countries with IP laws excel at innovation. The others don't. Evidence shows China is on the brink of kicking our collective buts with innovation. Companies that abandon their IP rights in exchange with being able to do business in China (one of their prerequisites) tend to still do extremely well, too. Let's wait and see. I sell in China and have been visiting and doing business there since 2004. From what I see, their system prevents innovation. Chinese factories import the high value components from Japan, South Korea, the US and wherever else, they assemble the product and they export it. They don't have the high value stuff themselves because of the peculiar enforcement of IP laws. If we see Chinese inventions that take us forward, like the iPhone or the Trent engine, you will be proven correct. But on a historical basis, the Chinese have no way to monetise innovation. |
|
|
|
|
Rassah
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1680
Merit: 1035
|
|
November 08, 2011, 08:25:12 PM |
|
You may be right, and wait and see is likely the best course regarding China
|
|
|
|
|
MoonShadow
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1007
|
|
November 08, 2011, 10:20:39 PM |
|
deuxmill - people have been around 100,000 years and patents on things like bracelets last 10 years. If the grant to the patent speeds up the rate of invention, then that 10 year patent is worth it.
It does the opposite of speeding it up, since it puts a 10 year halt on anyone playing around with that invention to make it better. The problem with your idea is that we have empirical evidence. Countries with IP laws excel at innovation. The others don't. Evidence shows China is on the brink of kicking our collective buts with innovation. Companies that abandon their IP rights in exchange with being able to do business in China (one of their prerequisites) tend to still do extremely well, too. There is a strong cultural component to innovation, and the dominat culture that is China doesn't really have it. That is not to say that it can't happen, if the powers that be in China can recongnize that fact, but odds are high that innovation in China will long be connected to Western companies. Japan, for that matter, doesn't innovate very well, but both cultures are particularly good at productive efficiency. |
"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."
- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
|
|
|
Hawker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1001
|
|
November 08, 2011, 10:57:25 PM |
|
deuxmill - people have been around 100,000 years and patents on things like bracelets last 10 years. If the grant to the patent speeds up the rate of invention, then that 10 year patent is worth it.
It does the opposite of speeding it up, since it puts a 10 year halt on anyone playing around with that invention to make it better. The problem with your idea is that we have empirical evidence. Countries with IP laws excel at innovation. The others don't. Evidence shows China is on the brink of kicking our collective buts with innovation. Companies that abandon their IP rights in exchange with being able to do business in China (one of their prerequisites) tend to still do extremely well, too. There is a strong cultural component to innovation, and the dominat culture that is China doesn't really have it. That is not to say that it can't happen, if the powers that be in China can recongnize that fact, but odds are high that innovation in China will long be connected to Western companies. Japan, for that matter, doesn't innovate very well, but both cultures are particularly good at productive efficiency. Not strictly true - patent filings show that culturally they are all great. The Japanese are masters at innovation. Properly supported, so are the Chinese. Look at the impact of Taiwan and Singapore. The real issue in mainland China is that you can't protect your investment from a secretary stealing a backup and selling your source code to a rival. |
|
|
|
|
|
