Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   SOPA/PIPA and 'Intellectual Property'
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(1)
Message 59 of 303 (649294)
01-22-2012 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Tangle
01-22-2012 8:39 AM


The obvious problem you have with this argument is that if MGM's output could be legally copied and easily distributed for free, they would sell only one copy and everyone would get it for nothing.
Why would that be the case? Evidence abounds that they would sell no less copies than they would under our system of legally-binding anti-consumer DRM.
People want to patronize the artists they enjoy. The system we have now actually punishes them for doing so. How does that make any sense at all?
Economic theory tells us that the demand for a free good is infinite.
Economic theory also tells us that an infinite good will be free. But even in a world where its no problem to make a copy of an MP3, diversity and novelty are still things people value, things which are limited, and for which people are willing to pay. Thinking of artists as people who produce copies of digital files is exactly the wrong way to think about art, music, and literature. Artists are people who produce something new, and "newness" is no more an infinite resource in a freer world than it is in ours, and so people will pay for it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Tangle, posted 01-22-2012 8:39 AM Tangle has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by NoNukes, posted 01-22-2012 10:07 AM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 63 of 303 (649303)
01-22-2012 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by NoNukes
01-22-2012 9:56 AM


Fortunately, the above is not related to any point I've attempted to make.
Quite the contrary. Here's what you said:
quote:
Attorneys are employed to help corporations find workarounds that allow avoiding royalties.
You specifically proposed that one purpose of patents is to stimulate an entire industry of lawyers attempting to develop novel, baroque theories to avoid patent infringement. I certainly agree that this has been one of the results of a broken patent system but it's absolutely stupid to suggest that there's such a compelling public interest in new baroque legalisms that we should restrain businesses and technological innovations in order to achieve it.
When Google's engineers, possibly with the aid of a patent attorney, review Apples patent and invent yet another capacitive touch screen that does not infringe the patent, then the public benefits from having competing designs.
What's the benefit? Either Apple's technology is better, which means that Google's alternative is inferior and therefore that the products made with it will be inferior, or else Google's alternative is better and Google needed no patent coersion in order to adopt it. The only thing the lawyer did was create a job for himself - he's not an engineer, he has no idea how to make a better touchscreen. He knows only how to determine if a touchscreen infringes Apple patents.
Doing their job, which is to issue valid patents, when done perfectly requires proving, using a resource limited search, that no prior art exists to invalidate the patent.
And that also the patent doesn't cover something trivial, that is, "obvious to a reasonable person of ordinary skill in the art." How can 16 hours be enough time to determine what is "obvious to a reasonable person of ordinary skill in the art"? I've presented abundant evidence that it is not.
I've also outlined why examiner's have an incentive to reject rather than to issue a patent.
You've not.
You point to the One Click patent as clearly trival, but it turns out that despite all of the ranting and raving, nobody has been able to invalidate the patent either during reexamination at the patent office or in court, despite well funded attempts to do exactly that.
Which only demonstrates the circular dependencies at work, here: the PTO relies on the courts to test the validity of patents, under an "it'll all sort itself out eventually" perspective; the patent courts assume that the PTO would not approve a patent unless it was valid.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by NoNukes, posted 01-22-2012 9:56 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by NoNukes, posted 01-22-2012 1:18 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 64 of 303 (649304)
01-22-2012 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by NoNukes
01-22-2012 10:07 AM


Please cite some of that abounding evidence.
It's trivial to demonstrate that copyright holders continue to make money in a world of easy piracy because we live in a world of easy piracy and copyright holders continue to make money. Louis CK made millions of dollars releasing content with zero DRM because he understood that there's no compelling reason to punish the people who decide to patronize him.
It is true that the RIAA and MPAA overstate the impact of piracy on their products, but you are claiming to be able to show that there is no impact.
It's not up to me to show that there is no impact; it's up to those who make the positive claim to present evidence for it. There's zero evidence that "piracy" has a financial impact on content creators. The "pirates" are overwhelmingly those who would not have paid for the content in the first place. People patronize the artists that they enjoy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by NoNukes, posted 01-22-2012 10:07 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by NoNukes, posted 01-22-2012 1:23 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 75 of 303 (649331)
01-22-2012 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Tangle
01-22-2012 11:52 AM


If you think about Lethal Weapon 18 being released into that world and being available for free with no legal consequences why would anyone pay for a copy?
For the same reason that people paid Louis CK for copies of his new comedy video, despite the fact that they could get it for free anywhere including, I believe, his own website.
People want to patronize the artists they enjoy. They want to pay them!
Can you think of a good reason why they should?
To encourage the development of Lethal Weapon 19! It's hardly a new thing for people to patronize artists; they do so because they know it fosters the development of art that they enjoy. It's the oldest and most robust means by which the arts have been funded - people voluntarily paying for it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Tangle, posted 01-22-2012 11:52 AM Tangle has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(1)
Message 76 of 303 (649332)
01-22-2012 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Tangle
01-22-2012 1:42 PM


It will work on a boutique level, some people will pay something to individual artists for some of their work, but that will not replace Hollywood.
Why should "Hollywood" be considered the only legitimate means by which movies get made?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Tangle, posted 01-22-2012 1:42 PM Tangle has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 77 of 303 (649333)
01-22-2012 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by NoNukes
01-22-2012 1:18 PM


Maybe Apple's solution was the most straightforward, while Googles is better/cheaper/faster/less polluting and as result the end products can compete over the differences.
But that hardly requires the existence of trivial technology patents meant to give lawyers busywork. You've ignored the point that if Google's solution is better, they'll use it regardless of whether they need to use it as a patent workaround; if Google's solution is worse, the fact that they're forced to use it as a patent workaround makes the consumer of those devices worse off.
So there's no benefit at all. You can't increase competition by erecting patent barriers to entry. That's exactly backwards. You increase competition by making it easier, not harder, for companies to enter a business.
But Apple's patent was part of the reason why Google even bothered doing something difficult.
No, exactly wrong. The potential profits in the smartphone market is why Google bothered doing something difficult. The patent situation simply made it more difficult, without providing any market benefit.
By your logic, since mountain climbers do it for the challenge, we can increase the number of mountain climbers who make Everest attempts by planting land mines all along the approach. It's completely backwards. Barriers to entry result in less, not more, competition. Google isn't in it for the challenge, they're in it for the money. A patent on touchscreens (or on a "slide to unlock" UI element) makes it less, not more likely that Google will attempt to enter that business segment.
Are you saying that I never explained how the PTO count system, which determines how examiners are paid, promoted, fired, and selected for financial awards favors rejecting rather than issuing a patent?
No, you've not explained it. You've just asserted it. You've asserted, in fact, something fundamentally false about the PTO.
Perhaps you simply don't believe that I am accurately reporting how the system works or how examiner's respond to it?
If you're wondering if I think you're a liar, now, the answer is "yes", based on your conduct in the other thread.
Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by NoNukes, posted 01-22-2012 1:18 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by NoNukes, posted 01-22-2012 5:22 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 79 of 303 (649335)
01-22-2012 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by NoNukes
01-22-2012 1:23 PM


The question in play is not whether copyright holders make revenue, but instead whether piracy reduces that revenue.
No, in point of fact the contention was that in a world of unrestrained privacy, copyright holders would make zero revenue:
quote:
If you think about Lethal Weapon 18 being released into that world and being available for free with no legal consequences why would anyone pay for a copy?
quote:
They'd also go because it would be really cheap because without copyright protection, the cinemas don,t need to pay MGM royalties.
So MGM get nothing for their work.
quote:
The obvious problem you have with this argument is that if MGM's output could be legally copied and easily distributed for free, they would sell only one copy and everyone would get it for nothing.
I realize those aren't your words, but you jumped into a discussion I was having with Tangle, and his position is that piracy is inversely proportional to the profits of copyright holders. But piracy is unrestrained in Asia, and yet both Western and Asian filmmakers are able to recoup their investments provided that the movies attract an audience. (There is, of course, no hope for the people who make shitty movies.)
As a side note, I don't think people are using DRM on music anymore.
No, they're not. Tracks from both iTunes and Amazon are freely copyable, yet there's no evidence that the music industry is on the precipice of ruin. And the reason is because people want to patronize the artists they enjoy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by NoNukes, posted 01-22-2012 1:23 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by NoNukes, posted 01-22-2012 5:12 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 80 of 303 (649336)
01-22-2012 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Huntard
01-22-2012 2:38 PM


This is about whether or not no one will pay for content when it is freely available. Not if less people will pay for it.
It's not even clear that less people do pay for it. I think more people are now paying for music than ever before, because it's easier to buy music than it has ever been. But, for some reason, outfits like the RIAA and MPAA believe that people should be punished for choosing to patronize the artists they enjoy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Huntard, posted 01-22-2012 2:38 PM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Huntard, posted 01-22-2012 2:51 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 84 of 303 (649347)
01-22-2012 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Tangle
01-22-2012 4:02 PM


It may work for small, independant artists that have low to zero costs of production but you'll never see a blockbuster movie that needs ten of million of dollars invested up front again - because there's no way to get your money back.
So what? Who says that's the only way to make a good movie? Who says that's the only way to fund a blockbuster?
You're not getting it at all.
You're not getting it. Who says that the Hollywood of 2012 is the only way to make a movie?
You'd have to be a raving idiot to put your money up.
Why? What if you invested in the film not because you expected to make a profit, but because you wanted to see the movie?
Why does "film as an investment vehicle" have to be the only way to make a movie?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Tangle, posted 01-22-2012 4:02 PM Tangle has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 89 of 303 (649353)
01-22-2012 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by NoNukes
01-22-2012 5:22 PM


Determinging that some yet to be developed solution is better than copying an existing design is not trivial.
If the benefit isn't immediately and profitably obvious, then there's little reason to suspect that the market would be better off.
Again, the point that you're ignoring is that you can't increase competition by erecting barriers to entry. That's completely backwards.
And without the ability to protect their own invention from copying, Google might not be able recoup their investment.
You're right, for once, because you're finally catching up with what I was telling you in Message 26:
quote:
I think we do benefit as a society when the people who invest in the development of new technologies are granted a limited-time monopoly from which to profit from it.
Patents benefit society when the innovators who sink enormous costs into development and research are, for a period of time, insulated from competition by those who would simply reverse-engineer their technology and lowball them out of the market. But patents benefit nobody but a small number of entrenched, moneyed interests when they're granted for trivial developments or are issued so broadly that they encompass all possible solutions to a particular problem (as in the case of gene patents, which I hope will soon be invalidated by US courts.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by NoNukes, posted 01-22-2012 5:22 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by NoNukes, posted 01-22-2012 7:40 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 90 of 303 (649354)
01-22-2012 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Tangle
01-22-2012 5:48 PM


For some things it will work but in my opinion for anything that needs a large pre-investment and a big company that people can't identify with, it mostly won't.
Nothing needs a "big company that people can't identify with."
What is it you actually think needs to be done?
I think we need to dismantle the DMCA, which makes it illegal to circumvent copy protection even to achieve fair use. I think we need to punish rights holders who opt to punish those who attempt to patronize artists. I think we need to resist efforts by the government, such as SOPA/PIPA, to censor speech and knowledge on the Internet simply to preserve the not-in-any-way-under-threat "rights" of a small number of moneyed interests. I think we need to reclaim the public domain, which was always meant to be the eventual and inevitable destination of all copyrighted works, from corporate control and infinite extension of "limited-time" copyright.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Tangle, posted 01-22-2012 5:48 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Tangle, posted 01-22-2012 7:09 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 97 of 303 (649366)
01-22-2012 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Tangle
01-22-2012 7:09 PM


You've just done away with Hollywood and most of book publishing.
Sure. Fuck 'em! Why does content have to come to us through the controlled bottleneck of a small number of elite tastemakers? Hollywood and Big Publishing (if you'll forgive the conceit) aren't content creators, they're distribution networks. Hollywood has always been more about distributing films than really making them, and the big publishing houses don't produce the literature, they merely discover it and then market and distribute it.
But we no longer need giant businesses to disseminate content, we have a technology that does that practically for free. Who needs Hollywood?
I'm missing a really big point somewhere. Artists have survived throughout history on patronage.
Yes, you're exactly right. Artists have never had to leverage the government's guns to force people to pay up in order to survive, so why should we let them, now? Why should we change a system that produced some of Western culture's most enduring classics? Anybody could perform and enjoy the works of Mozart and Bach, so why should Lenny Kravitz be allowed to sue a mother for a 25-second YouTube clip?
They're free to do whatever they like with their own copyright.
The question isn't what they're free to do, it's what they're asking the government to force me to do - for instance, to ensure that my own DNS servers (yeah... I have one) don't contain IP address resolution entries for any of a list of websites determined by the FTC, without review or opportunity for appeal, as linking to "infringing" content. What is the FTC's criteria for "infringement"? Somebody with an expensive suit comes in and says "my company holds this copyright, and this website is infringing."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Tangle, posted 01-22-2012 7:09 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Tangle, posted 01-22-2012 11:11 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 98 of 303 (649367)
01-22-2012 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by NoNukes
01-22-2012 7:40 PM


Instead I described a scenario in which competition actually would increase despite the fact that there was a barrier to entry.
What you described was a nonsensical flight of fancy.
And in my Google hypothetical, Google was quite surprised to find out that there was an actual advantage.
And in my hypothetical, you stop posting because suddenly, Oberon the Lord of Fairies suddenly transmutes you into an ass. Isn't it amazing what can happen in hypotheticals!
Do you see no advantages to society at all in having more than one solution to a problem.
I do, but it's risible to suggest the advantage is that the challenge of meaningless legal obstacles will somehow inspire people to great heights of innovation. By this logic, North Korea should be the world's number one tourist destination.
The advantage of patents, the way that they encourage the arts and sciences, is that people can recoup the costs of development by securing a limited-time monopoly on selling the product. But where development costs were zero - say, Amazon's One-Click - patents should not be awarded. There's no compelling public interest in doing so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by NoNukes, posted 01-22-2012 7:40 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 112 of 303 (649731)
01-25-2012 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by Artemis Entreri
01-24-2012 4:22 PM


Re: Eleven Herbs and Spices
what would keep one from breaking a contract if not for what do you call them [rhetorical]?
laws.
Enforcement of contract is a civil, not a criminal, matter. It's not like contracts were toothless before the DMCA. Seconding Jon: stop being dumb.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Artemis Entreri, posted 01-24-2012 4:22 PM Artemis Entreri has seen this message but not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 124 of 303 (650149)
01-28-2012 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by Tangle
01-26-2012 4:55 PM


Re: Great logo, shame about the cause
Crashfrog is fine that this model will destroy Hollywood
I don't think it will "destroy Hollywood" because people want to patronize the artists they enjoy, and Hollywood exists because of the positive network effect of having the nation's filmmaking resources concentrated in a single area. Unregulated consumption of content isn't going to change that.
But even if it did somehow "destroy Hollywood", why should anyone care about that? Would the destruction of Hollywood mean less movies? There are already more movies than anyone can watch. Would it mean worse movies? I doubt it. Would it mean cheaper movies? Possibly, but would that mean worse movies? Again, not likely.
Maybe what it means is that you'll have to buy a ticket to the movie you want to see three years in advance, so that it can be made. But that's not a big deal.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Tangle, posted 01-26-2012 4:55 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Tangle, posted 01-28-2012 10:17 AM crashfrog has replied
 Message 126 by Jon, posted 01-28-2012 10:26 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024