|
Fair? Fair? Who ever said fair? We're talking about the hindering of development based on selfish reasons, not fairness.
Alright cut the bullshit, setting a standard to receive a creation disallows all the potential in the world from being used. Since everything that is made by people right now is expanded on what our ancestors did there is a very small case for total ownership of a creation. Would you not agree that more used potential would on average yield more creations? By disallowing these unfortunate to collaborate you hinder the future generations and the current generations as they and their children will most likely be unable to contribute due to a lack of basic necessities that will be more important than creative works.
Moreover, who is to say the medicine the poor Nigerian boy needed for his particular strain would have even existed in the first place if a private medical corporation based out of the US, or the UK, or Germany, hadn't dropped however many millions of dollars in development costs?
That is a hypothetical and you cannot say if that is true or not so not really an argument as that is based on the chance that the medicine does not exist and that it has not been made yet.
Again, I can just as easily say the selfish drive for profit is what allowed such medicine to be created in the first place, let alone mass produced and perfected to the point where it can treat X disease.
Exactly, since this argument is so hypothetical and not based on any logical basis then theres no need to consider it.
To sum up, more tapped potential = more possible works to take place.
|
On June 16 2011 11:42 xarthaz wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2011 11:03 abominare wrote:On June 16 2011 10:54 qdenser wrote:On June 16 2011 10:50 abominare wrote:On June 16 2011 10:10 xarthaz wrote:Intellectual property is cancer to society. It creates scarcity and conflict where none is necessary. Media can be peacefully and globally shared without anyone pointing a gun toward someone else. It is purely barbaric to punish people for using content that takes nothing away from anyone else. On June 16 2011 10:01 cfoy3 wrote:
I think some people here are being a little ridiculous. I mean corporation's have rights too. Hollywood spends a lot of money making quality entertainment. They need revenue. If this law starts to clamp down on the illegal streaming of entertainment, such as tv shows, then I think its a good thing. If we do not make the business of producing entertainment profitable, then their wont be a business. No, you dont understand. The artificial scarcity is twhat is ridiculous. It is purely evil, due to enforcement of violence over rights that no one need have. You know theres easier way to let people know youre a moron. People who have issues with IP are either children, have the mental capacity of children, or never able to grasp the idea of actually creating somethign for profit. Some of us worked hard not to be minimum wage fry makers like you. whoa there put down the copy of ayn rand, step away from the keyboard and take a deep breath. isn't oxygen calming? I er, uh, you know what you obviously didn't read her work so I'm not going to explain why you fail at trying to use that joke. Ayn Rand was also and idiot. IP laws are a requirement of a capitalist society regardless, you can't have a functional western marketplace without them. I mean sure we can totally go back several thousand years to an agrarian city state society but I like how it is now. a lot of wealth has been created in eastern european and china due to lack of IP enforcement.
Dear god and exactly how much new thought is coming out of those places? The inability to recognize value in orginal thought is one of the prime reasons why china got left behind in technology for a thousand+ years. In fact they didn't even begin to catch up until recently when people were dumb enough to let them cheaply manufacture things for them, having forgotten why labor was so cheap to begin with.
China also has several other factors thats really contributing their increases in wealth beyond IP issues. Lets take eastern europe though since those places are completely devoid of the reasons why china is developing so quickly. How many people honestly think to themselves hey wouldnt it be great to live in a ex soviet buffer state with a completely assbackwards government and market structure? People arent clamoring to live in those places at all, hell most are trying to get out.
I'm also willing to bet even with the great advances in living conditions the line to move into china there is pretty short from people who already live in developped nations. I've been there its neat to see but I'll take anywhere in the states over that sillyness any day of the week.
|
That is a hypothetical and you cannot say if that is true or not so not really an argument as that is based on the chance that the medicine does not exist and that it has not been made yet.
The entirety of what you are saying is hypothetical.
Literally your entire viewpoint is framed in the idea that selfish enterprise inhibits progress, whereas mine is founded in clear evidence that selfish desires have, in many cases, led to great advancements in human technology
|
What is the reason of property? Why should property rights be enforced, at all? This is the fallacy that makes people believe in IP. Regular property has a serious reason for its enforcement - it is the only nonviolent way of using it, as property is exclusive in its use.
Intellectual property however does not need to be enforced to be used in non violent manner - everyone can use it together without excluding each other. As such, the entire basis of justification of IP is eliminated, and the big scam of intellectual property is proven.
One of the important reason for private property is scarcity. Scarcity in their not being enough. Intellectually property you are arguing does not suffer from this issue and thus should be open to everyone. You are correct that IP does not suffer from scarcity, but I argue that the developers of IP can not exist in a vacume. They need money to live and support their families. If their content they develop does not make money, then they will not be able to make sure their needs are met. That is why we have IP copyrights so that those who develop IP are rewarded.
|
Very sad how Nimmer, who was an authority on the matter of IP, once thought that IP does not violate the First Amendment because of its "traditional contours." These traditional contours include fair use, the idea/expression dichotomy, and reasonable term limits. Look where we are now.
Fair use is so case specific that ordinary people have no idea what they may or may not create. Furthermore, because proxies like youtube are the ones who in reality have the say in whether content stays up, companies claiming infringement have a natural advantage to someone trying to defend against that claim by arguing fair use. And this isn't even taking into account how coercive even bad claims can be.
The idea/expression dichotomy has been corroded so much that what Nimmer would have considered ideas are now regularly put in the "expression" that may be protected category by courts. And since the Sonny Bono Term Extension Act the whole idea of a term limit is a complete joke. For some strange reason (corruption) Congress seems to think that a term of protection lasting from life plus 70 years is necessary to promote the arts and sciences, when all the research shows that a term of merely 15-20 years is sufficient.
It's sad that our entire copyright system has become so unconstitutional, but the current court system can do nothing about it since under the majority's First Amendment analysis they will decide many of these cases under rational basis review, which pretty much permits anything Congress can do.
Fuck sorry for the rant but I hate how illogical and corrupt our whole copyright system is.
|
On June 16 2011 11:40 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2011 11:24 BlackJack wrote:On June 16 2011 11:04 Nothing-to-No-One wrote:If you don't think that copyright infringement stifles creativity and innovation then you are just wrong. Do you think Hollywood is going to spend $300 million to make a movie that they lose money on? Since when the hell was Hollywood the only ones who made movies? And your missing my point. I am arguing that the sale of a file that can be copied with much ease is a largely less legitimate business then the sale of a theater ticket. I know what your point is. There is no reason for me to argue with your point because we probably have a fundamental difference of opinion that we will never agree on. You say it's not a legitimate business and I say that it is, where can we go from there? Not very far. So back to creativity and innovation. I am aware that Hollywood is not the only place that makes movies. Are you saying that it's okay if Hollywood is ruined because other places will make films on the cheap? Like your just thinking about yourself man. Your like the freaking bodyguards at the Phish concert who had nothing on their mind but messing with my vibe. Im just there to soak in the love like everyone else, why do I need a ticket? You should be paying me for adding to the merryness of the moment. You cant put a price on things like sound waves or water or love, that's bogus man. When my co-op mate Aurora Ray buys a delicious box of Kashi Go Lean Crunch (not pre-processed ultrapastuerized polyeurothanized crap from earth fascists like Kelloggs) can you imagine if he/she charged me for each delicious cluster? Thatd be bogus man. The foods from the Earth and no one owns Mother Earth. Next thing you know people will start charging for stars or to use the growlights at the college's nature center. Its corporatists like you that are raping Mother Earth of good times but i got news for you its time for us to take back the night. Well not the night cause its totally bumming when the suns not out but i got a lot of stress and probably wont be up till 1 or 4pm so then watch out then cause free dom is coming to every1.
LOL That was funny but now I am reminded that those people exist 
|
I think the copyright discussion while interesting and fairly related has somewhat distracted from what this article/legislation is most directly tied to, which is streaming of copyrighted content.
If someone is sitting around streaming South Park episodes all day, no streaming site is going to let the advertise, or share ad revenues they generate. I personally don't care for people that do this, and really don't understand the thought process that causes them to do it. Probably either some sense of popularity seeing several hundred people watching 'them stream' who are really just watching South Park, maybe some sense of providing a service to the community at large.
I think that if anything, this is the most 'malicious' form of streaming content that is most directly capable of hurting a pre-existing revenue system. Be it taking viewers away from the show itself, or ads from the content owners site or stream, this is the most obviously and directly problematic form of infringement, and I have a hard time imagining it being worth wiretaps and FBI crackdowns. If copyright holders care, they should hold stream websites responsible for the content of their sites, and stream websites can then police and shutdown or penalize streamers, or give their information over to ISPs to take appropriate action.
The other thing, which I don't think actually suffers from this is music content being used in conjunction with fair use or personal content, be it a SC2 player streaming his ladder games while listening to (and in many setups therefor streaming) the music they are listening to. This does not in any way hurt the music industry. If anything, people in chat more often ask what a song is so that they can acquire it (again, although there are thousands of ways for people to get the media without paying or via other illegal means, it is meaningless for this discussion unless you hope to stop all of them by cracking down on streaming media.)
To me, this is very troublesome to think about, as esports and streaming content are expanded upon, tons of people are trying to make a name for themselves as gamers or casters etc. and having legislation like this looming overhead, where someone has to fear law enforcement if they accidentally show their desktop and it has a copyrighted image on it, or the wrong logo, or they have to be talking to their viewers nonstop, or have a silent stream and not listen to music etc. It just seems very heavy handed to even suggest when if anything, it helps sell music. I'd love to see a metric somewhere of how many copies of songs or albums are sold after being heard on Day[9]'s stream in the pre-show.
At the end of the day, unless you destroy the internet, people will illegally obtain free copies of things. Even if you do that, you cannot stop someone from burning a copy of something and mailing it, or handing it off to someone else. That is an unavoidable truth about the world since the dawn of the information age. If companies/corporations really want to make the best of it, they need to help create the means by which they can still profit from creating their content, and I don't think that the steps outlined in the article are going to help that. The fear of reprimand is important to keep the volume of piracy down a little bit, but I think the South Park episode had it right in a lot of ways about how it is hard to feel sorry for people who are still living extremely lavish lives.
You can only say that piracy hurts innovation/creativity if you believe that profit is the only thing that drives innovation/creativity, which I think very few people would agree with. That doesn't mean that everything should be free and content creators can go die in a fire, but I really don't think that there is anyone in this conversation suggesting that.
|
theyd hate to fix whats wrong in america but lets crack down on streams. Theres the government for ya
|
The entirety of what you are saying is hypothetical.
Literally your entire viewpoint is framed in the idea that selfish enterprise inhibits progress, whereas mine is founded in clear evidence that selfish desires have, in many cases, led to great advancements in human technology
+ Show Spoiler +
Does this look like progress?
Let's pay close attention to Africa, India, and China. This is where the majority of the worlds population is and this is what the progress there is.
|
On June 16 2011 12:42 Nothing-to-No-One wrote:Show nested quote +The entirety of what you are saying is hypothetical.
Literally your entire viewpoint is framed in the idea that selfish enterprise inhibits progress, whereas mine is founded in clear evidence that selfish desires have, in many cases, led to great advancements in human technology + Show Spoiler +Does this look like progress? Let's pay closs attention to Africa, India, and China. This is where the majority of the worlds population is and this is what the progress there is.
![[image loading]](http://2redroses.com/Fun/Best2002/Light%20of%20the%20World.jpg)
Pretty impressive to me, compared to barely 100 years ago!
|
Yes and after 100 years of harsh inflations and economic collapses. I'm sure these graphs are comparable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-capitalism
I need to get homework done so argue with this Wikipedia article instead
|
How does a snapshot say anything about progress?
|
United States22883 Posts
On June 16 2011 12:42 Nothing-to-No-One wrote:Show nested quote +The entirety of what you are saying is hypothetical.
Literally your entire viewpoint is framed in the idea that selfish enterprise inhibits progress, whereas mine is founded in clear evidence that selfish desires have, in many cases, led to great advancements in human technology + Show Spoiler +Does this look like progress? Let's pay close attention to Africa, India, and China. This is where the majority of the worlds population is and this is what the progress there is.
Perhaps you should look up what progress means. Progress requires at least two data points, in this case levels of income by points of time, and through comparison you can determine "progress" in some specifically defined capacity from one of those points to the other.
Pointing out that some people in the world are poorer than others does not denote progress. And even if you had two data points, you still haven't defined what progress is. They're speaking of technological/scientific progress, which by all types of evidence, is actually progressed through IP management. If you're speaking of the progress of global equity, then that's certainly questionable but the reasons for that can hardly be neutered into some tiny label like "greed" or "patents."
If you're so convinced that things should be given away for free whenever possible, perhaps you should examine the effects of large scale food donations to various countries. Guess what? Making things free can hurt 'progress' as well.
|
On June 16 2011 12:52 Jibba wrote:
They're speaking of technological/scientific progress, which by all types of evidence, is actually progressed through IP management. O.o Let me guess, you never even heard of Groklaw? And you have absolutely no idea what the world's most innovative tech company (google) stance on IP is?
|
United States22883 Posts
|
Haha, I was so 100% sure you were gonna reply that. Indeed you don't know what their stance is  They're buying Nortel patents to defend themselves. Exactly because they believe in fighting in the market instead of fighting in courts. Nortel's portfolio's will make Microsoft less likely to keep attacking Google (ie. hurting innovation). And save Google billions in trying to defend themselves against lawsuits. Google themselves have never attacked anyone.
In short, what you posted proves precisely the opposite of what you're trying to prove. Next time bother learning about the subject instead of just posting the first search result you find ^^
|
Hopefully, it will come down to wether you make money out of the streaming. Jtv has already stated that streams with producer rank (which unlocks commercial use) are not allowed to play copyrighted music. I guess thats as far as they can go. If you are streaming your gaming and playing music just to entertain, I guess that the governments cant do much about it, hopefully...
|
United States22883 Posts
On June 16 2011 13:44 VIB wrote:Haha, I was so 100% sure you were gonna reply that. Indeed you don't know what their stance is They're buying Nortel patents to defend themselves. Exactly because they believe in fighting in the market instead of fighting in courts. Nortel's portfolio's will make Microsoft less likely to keep attacking Google (ie. hurting innovation). And save Google billions in trying to defend themselves against lawsuits. Google themselves have never attacked anyone. In short, what you posted proves precisely the opposite of what you're trying to prove. Next time bother learning about the subject instead of just posting the first search result you find ^^
You don't think Google was patenting their services long before that (hint: they were) or have never countersued anyone (hint: they have)?
|
On June 16 2011 12:17 Flanlord wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I think the copyright discussion while interesting and fairly related has somewhat distracted from what this article/legislation is most directly tied to, which is streaming of copyrighted content.
If someone is sitting around streaming South Park episodes all day, no streaming site is going to let the advertise, or share ad revenues they generate. I personally don't care for people that do this, and really don't understand the thought process that causes them to do it. Probably either some sense of popularity seeing several hundred people watching 'them stream' who are really just watching South Park, maybe some sense of providing a service to the community at large.
I think that if anything, this is the most 'malicious' form of streaming content that is most directly capable of hurting a pre-existing revenue system. Be it taking viewers away from the show itself, or ads from the content owners site or stream, this is the most obviously and directly problematic form of infringement, and I have a hard time imagining it being worth wiretaps and FBI crackdowns. If copyright holders care, they should hold stream websites responsible for the content of their sites, and stream websites can then police and shutdown or penalize streamers, or give their information over to ISPs to take appropriate action.
The other thing, which I don't think actually suffers from this is music content being used in conjunction with fair use or personal content, be it a SC2 player streaming his ladder games while listening to (and in many setups therefor streaming) the music they are listening to. This does not in any way hurt the music industry. If anything, people in chat more often ask what a song is so that they can acquire it (again, although there are thousands of ways for people to get the media without paying or via other illegal means, it is meaningless for this discussion unless you hope to stop all of them by cracking down on streaming media.)
To me, this is very troublesome to think about, as esports and streaming content are expanded upon, tons of people are trying to make a name for themselves as gamers or casters etc. and having legislation like this looming overhead, where someone has to fear law enforcement if they accidentally show their desktop and it has a copyrighted image on it, or the wrong logo, or they have to be talking to their viewers nonstop, or have a silent stream and not listen to music etc. It just seems very heavy handed to even suggest when if anything, it helps sell music. I'd love to see a metric somewhere of how many copies of songs or albums are sold after being heard on Day[9]'s stream in the pre-show.
At the end of the day, unless you destroy the internet, people will illegally obtain free copies of things. Even if you do that, you cannot stop someone from burning a copy of something and mailing it, or handing it off to someone else. That is an unavoidable truth about the world since the dawn of the information age. If companies/corporations really want to make the best of it, they need to help create the means by which they can still profit from creating their content, and I don't think that the steps outlined in the article are going to help that. The fear of reprimand is important to keep the volume of piracy down a little bit, but I think the South Park episode had it right in a lot of ways about how it is hard to feel sorry for people who are still living extremely lavish lives.
You can only say that piracy hurts innovation/creativity if you believe that profit is the only thing that drives innovation/creativity, which I think very few people would agree with. That doesn't mean that everything should be free and content creators can go die in a fire, but I really don't think that there is anyone in this conversation suggesting that. I really agreed with most of what you said, but it seemed to fall apart towards the end. Profit isn't the only thing that drives innovation, but it is the main thing, particularly when it comes to things which require a great deal of investment of effort time and money. Of course people won't innovate in such ways if they don't expect to profit off of it.
That said, when corporations lobby the government they're obviously interested in more than just protecting their rights, though the individuals running those corporations certainly have rights, and more to protect than most people. They want to make as much money as possible for the most part, by whatever ridiculous means may be available, and if somehow they can claim a "right" to be the sole distributer of something for over a hundred years, they won't stop at a more reasonable goal like 15-20. The government and the people who elect government have to say 'no' to these people, as would be routine in general if anyone knew what the government's role in society was supposed to be anymore.
|
On June 16 2011 13:51 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2011 13:44 VIB wrote:Haha, I was so 100% sure you were gonna reply that. Indeed you don't know what their stance is They're buying Nortel patents to defend themselves. Exactly because they believe in fighting in the market instead of fighting in courts. Nortel's portfolio's will make Microsoft less likely to keep attacking Google (ie. hurting innovation). And save Google billions in trying to defend themselves against lawsuits. Google themselves have never attacked anyone. In short, what you posted proves precisely the opposite of what you're trying to prove. Next time bother learning about the subject instead of just posting the first search result you find ^^ You don't think Google was patenting their services long before that (hint: they were) or have never countersued anyone (hint: they have)? Did you not read what I posted? How does that change anything?
Google believes IP lawsuits hurts innovation. Have always defended themselves against lawsuits. (which they claim are done by companies who cannot compete with them in the market, so have to resort to the court). And have never attacked anyone. And these guys, with that stance, happen to be the most innovative tech company in the planet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/4/maputi.jpg/)
