Interesting read about copyright, piracy and fear

[Mamoulian War]

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/20...pyright-law.ars

 

very interesting read and look from different perspective on purpose of current copyright laws, written by a copyright lawyer who is in this bussiness for 27 years...

[Niten_Ryu]

Laws can, though, stifle innovation, and in this respect the copyright industries have been successful, and tragically so, for the public and for authors. Innovation leads to greater consumer demand and therefore greater profits for copyright owners.

 

Time for tiny personal rant. Drawing tablets with integrated graphical display are useful in all kind of various design work. Only problem is that there's only one company that manufacture 'em. Wacom from Japan. They basically own all patents for that type of technology.

 

If you can get new 21" LCD display for $200, Wacom type of device will cost at least 10 times as much. Technology is very simple, as there only need to be some way to handle the pressure in order to be able to draw different type of lines. Wacom products like Cintiq are not even that durable and spare parts (or fixing it) cost small fortune. There's also tons of issues with drivers, jitter, scratches, heating, dead pixels ect ect. I'd say lack of competition in this area creates serious issues in all kinds of design and creative work.

 

When amatours start to hack normal LCD displays and start to build their own DIY projects, you know there's a problem in somewhere. Don't too wide patents or strict licensing policy create automatical monopoly ?

[Rosbjerg]

There is no reason to keep pretending that the Copyright Wars involve matters of morality or principle

[Gorgon]

Laws can, though, stifle innovation, and in this respect the copyright industries have been successful, and tragically so, for the public and for authors. Innovation leads to greater consumer demand and therefore greater profits for copyright owners.

 

Time for tiny personal rant. Drawing tablets with integrated graphical display are useful in all kind of various design work. Only problem is that there's only one company that manufacture 'em. Wacom from Japan. They basically own all patents for that type of technology.

 

If you can get new 21" LCD display for $200, Wacom type of device will cost at least 10 times as much. Technology is very simple, as there only need to be some way to handle the pressure in order to be able to draw different type of lines. Wacom products like Cintiq are not even that durable and spare parts (or fixing it) cost small fortune. There's also tons of issues with drivers, jitter, scratches, heating, dead pixels ect ect. I'd say lack of competition in this area creates serious issues in all kinds of design and creative work.

 

When amatours start to hack normal LCD displays and start to build their own DIY projects, you know there's a problem in somewhere. Don't too wide patents or strict licensing policy create automatical monopoly ?

I've wanted one of those for ages, and I could never understand why it was so mind blowingly expensive.

[213374U]

Oh no, watch taks and the rest of the right wing nuts come storming in after reading the "a failed ideology that the unregulated private pursuit of profit is also in the best interest of the public" statement and dismiss him as a leftist hippie. Or something equally dumb.

He's actually supporting what taks always goes on about... that big businesses tend to game the system in their favour. He's arguing for less state intervention:

 

 

making him the top lawyer at the MPAA or RIAA would be fascinating to watch, though we're doubtful that those atop the big content industries share his easy confidence that innovation quickly produces greater profits, or that "less copyright law" can be "better copyright law."

 

You need to read the whole article, not just the first ten lines.

[213374U]

Okay, taks. You need to read the article, too!

 

edit: by "he", I meant the copyright lawyer the article talks about.

Edited November 4, 2009 by 213374U

[taks]

I believe leetster meant the article support your view, not mkreku.

ah, gotcha. thanks.

 

yes, i agree, the lawyer dude and i are on the same page. numbers man has thus recognized what i stand for! yay!

 

taks

[taks]

Okay, taks. You need to read the article, too!

i did, actually. see above post.

 

edit: by "he", I meant the copyright lawyer the article talks about.

that's what i misinterpreted.

 

you have earned a cookie for the day!

 

there is a movement among the hard-core capitalist economists to get rid of copyright and patent law, btw. i agree with their arguments but haven't been able to convince myself to fully support them (i don't know why... habit maybe). i have a patent*, but it does nothing for me and, ultimately, patents don't really do anything for anybody as they are easily busted (copyright is a bit more useful for the owner).

 

taks

 

* actually two patents, with a 3rd on the way, but they are all for the same idea. i haven't figured out how or why they keep the process going for something that really isn't worth anything (to me, at least) nor what i would consider all that original.

[Wrath of Dagon]

The patent system is so abused and broken now it would just be better to get rid of it entirely, all it does is let a few parasites blackmail and stifle innovators. The copyright law though works exactly like it should, I don't see any question of fairness or ethics, just because a large segment of the population is willing to violate the law doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the law itself.

[Rosbjerg]

Just because a large segment of the population is willing to violate the law doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the law itself.

 

If the segment is larger than 50% I'd argue that there's something wrong with the law.. They are there for us, not the other way around.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Laws are supposed to protect individuals from mobs too you know, it's not always majority rules.

[213374U]

edit: by "he", I meant the copyright lawyer the article talks about.

that's what i misinterpreted.

 

you have earned a cookie for the day!

Hey, no fair! Where did the posts disappear to?

 

 

The copyright law though works exactly like it should, I don't see any question of fairness or ethics, just because a large segment of the population is willing to violate the law doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the law itself.

In my opinion as a certified attorney-at-lol, I'd say a law can work as designed, and still fail to accomplish what the lawmakers intended for it.

[alanschu]

Spirit of the Law vs Letter of the Law type stuff?

[Purkake]

Laws are supposed to protect individuals from mobs too you know, it's not always majority rules.

 

I think his point was that the representatives of the majority make the laws.

[entrerix]

maybe he should be made copyright czar, since he is king of being smart about it...

 

 

....unscramble....

 

 

too bad he's not on the federal supreme court

Edited November 4, 2009 by entrerix

[Masterfade]

I usually don't bother reading books by corporate lawyers, but the Wired review got me interested. I decided to check out the author's blog where to my dismay I couldn't locate a PDF download. So in the end I'm not reading it as I prefer progressive writers who are actually progressive in practice.

 

But I do have a question for those who have read the book (if there's any here). The author wrote (according to Ars Technica) "If stronger criminal laws are necessary to deter infringers, why not impose the death penalty, as China has done?", did he also consider the Chinese IP situation in his book? China is a major economy where copyright and patent laws are practically non-existent, does the author think such loose regulation helped Chinese companies to be more innovative?

[taks]

interesting point. from what i understand, until recently, the chinese basically broke patents they coudln't come to favorable terms on anyway (read: we'll pay you nothing and you'll let us infringe, capiche?).

 

taks

[Mamoulian War]

I usually don't bother reading books by corporate lawyers, but the Wired review got me interested. I decided to check out the author's blog where to my dismay I couldn't locate a PDF download. So in the end I'm not reading it as I prefer progressive writers who are actually progressive in practice.

 

But I do have a question for those who have read the book (if there's any here). The author wrote (according to Ars Technica) "If stronger criminal laws are necessary to deter infringers, why not impose the death penalty, as China has done?", did he also consider the Chinese IP situation in his book? China is a major economy where copyright and patent laws are practically non-existent, does the author think such loose regulation helped Chinese companies to be more innovative?

 

Disclaimer: This is my personal oppinion and might not be correct, if you agree or dont' i will not go further into the discussion, because i do not want to turn this into flame war and do not want to get the thread closed.

 

The reason why i think China is so fast pacing is that they do not care about any sort of patens, they take an idea which is successful and most of the time they innovate and they offer it that way. This is very helpful to the nation and their industrial growth as a whole (this works better for centralized government like China has, than for a country with "lobbycracy" and "free market"), but not very helpful to the people who spent initial time to develop the original idea...

 

No copyright/patents at all is imo not very good idea, the people who are working hard on inventing the stuff should be able to get the money invested back and make some profits. But the way how the system works now is completely ridiculous, 12 year patent protection for pharmaceuticals, which can save lives, versus 100+ years copyright protection to everyone who just gets a blowjob and puts it on a DVD...

[Mamoulian War]

and another interesting article on Ars Technica about the issue of P2P and copyright holders with very interesting citation, from people in music bussiness and the European Commissioner for Information Society and Media - Viviane Reding.

 

 

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/20...a-hard-sell.ars

[Meshugger]

Haha, i can only laugh at naivety from growing up thinking that the sole reason of a patent is to ensure that a product is build according to the patent itself. For example: Product "A" is product "A" according to the specifications of the patent, not adhering to those specifications and you can no longer call it product "A", but product "B" instead.

[213374U]

I usually don't bother reading books by corporate lawyers, but the Wired review got me interested. I decided to check out the author's blog where to my dismay I couldn't locate a PDF download. So in the end I'm not reading it as I prefer progressive writers who are actually progressive in practice.

Well, giving away what he can sell wouldn't make him progressive or even coherent... it would make him stupid. That's not what he's talking about, I think. Has he actually sued anyone for illegally copying his book?

 

 

interesting point. from what i understand, until recently, the chinese basically broke patents they coudln't come to favorable terms on anyway (read: we'll pay you nothing and you'll let us infringe, capiche?).

Yeah it looks like ignoring the concept of intellectual property altogether saves the Chinese the hassle of actually being innovative themselves.

[Gorgon]

That goes for any kind of liability. Chinese electronics are cheap, but the warranty they come with might be honored and it might not. Certainly foreign companies have a hard time trying to get anything done though Chinese civil law.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Stay away from Chinese dry wall.

[Masterfade]

Well, giving away what he can sell wouldn't make him progressive or even coherent... it would make him stupid. That's not what he's talking about, I think. Has he actually sued anyone for illegally copying his book?

 

A lot of academics give out fully-indexed PDF files of their published books freely on their websites. I don't think that makes them stupid. But perhaps I shouldn't expect that much, even when the author is basing some of his arguments against the current copyright/patent regime on the benefits of spreading knowledge rapidly.

Edited November 5, 2009 by Masterfade

[Nihilus5078]

I think the law of copyright was pushed way over the limit in 1998. Seriously, they made it like a lockdown. I damn hate YouTube copyrights. Before 1998, the copyright law was fine. Just my opinion though.