Government monopoly grants
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| Bob_Robertson Nov 30, 2007 6:39 AM EDT |
It's just another grant of monopoly by government. Patent and copyright exist because there are laws creating copyright and patent. They do not exist independent of those laws. For example, I drive along and see a beautiful scene out the window. I go home, paint that scene and sell it. If, however, I saw a beautiful painting, go home and paint it myself I cannot technically sell it even if the original artist had nothing what so ever to do with my painting of my painting, nor do I claim to be selling the original. The abuses that copyright and patent foster have always been there. What has happened with the insane ways that copyright and patent have been extended in recent decades, is that those abuses are now so obvious only the RIAA and MPAA can't see them. |
| bigg Nov 30, 2007 6:49 AM EDT |
What's shocking is that these are broad laws with really no justification beyond, "I can tell a story where copyright and patent are good things." Shouldn't policies so critical to the growth of the economy be based on something more than that? |
| tuxchick Nov 30, 2007 7:18 AM EDT |
Bob, you lost me when you copied another person's painting. Of course the artist had everything to do with it- you copied their work. Got any better examples to illustrate your point? |
| Bob_Robertson Nov 30, 2007 7:36 AM EDT |
I didn't copy their painting. I made my own painting. I make no claim that my painting is theirs, I used none of their materials. It is entirely mine. _Honesty_ compels me to admit my source, exactly like Beethoven might title a piece "Variations on a Theme by Paganini". Yet has Beethoven stolen anything from Paganini by doing so? The tree is in no way diminished by my drawing it. Neither is someone else's painting. I can take a photograph of the Mona Lisa, print it well, hang it on the wall, and without getting really close no one could tell it wasn't the original. Yet the original has in no way been diminished. I have not stolen _anything_, even if I sell the photograph. If I try to claim it's the original, I commit fraud. |
| Abe Nov 30, 2007 7:36 AM EDT |
Quoting:If, however, I saw a beautiful painting, go home and paint it myself...Yeah Bob, you copied his painting, his work, his touches and changes of the seen. It is against the law. If you went to the seen and painted it, that would be a totally different story since it almost certainly your painting will be very different. It will contain you perspective, feelings, mood, touches and inadvertent changes. |
| bigg Nov 30, 2007 7:55 AM EDT |
@Abe It's against the law, but should it be against the law? There are a number of things to consider. How do you know someone else doesn't see the same thing? What about the ability to improve upon work done by someone else? Moreover, patents are in a different category entirely. They are vague, often even poorly defined. They end up covering not just someone's idea, but also a lot of other ideas as well. And why should you have a monopoly over something just because it popped into your mind and you were the first to apply for a patent? You're also not considering the effect of handing out a monopoly. The monopoly part is completely arbitrary. Why should only one company/individual be granted control over knowledge of how to fight AIDS? Why not auction the rights to a second company/individual and use the revenue to provide health insurance to kids? As I said above, there is little empirical foundation for the laws we've got. |
| tuxchick Nov 30, 2007 8:21 AM EDT |
Bob's example of copying a painting is unfortunate, because it appears to defend being a plain old parasite or leech. Copying a painting is a great learning tool, or fun for personal amusement. Selling it crosses a clear line- you're not selling your own vision, but poaching someone else's. It shows a lack of respect for the original artist, and for their skill and hard work. In fact it's this same disrespect behind sharing music and movies. It's plain old freeloading, and the next time I read "aw, they don't need to make money from their recordings, they can make it up touring" I'm going to invent the over-the-Internet-zapper. I dare these glorious freedom fighters would change their minds if they ever got off their butts and created anything themselves, which was then poached and copied en masse. None of which has much to do with the actual article, which proposes replacing the propagandistic term "intellectual property" with the more accurate "intellectual monopoly." |
| Abe Nov 30, 2007 8:29 AM EDT |
Quoting:It's against the law, but should it be against the law? That is a different questions and happen to agree with you it if you believe it shouldn't. In my opinion, nothing should be against the law unless it brings harm to others. In this case and IMO, there is nothing that is harming the original painter or his painting. On the contrary, you by creating another painting your are benefiting society. You should be allowed to sell it because you put hard work and effort in creating another one. OTHO, we are a social society that is governed by laws that we establish. There is a court system for you to take your case to and set a precedence. I am sure a good lawyer ( not Dino :-) ) would be able to prove to the court that you did no harm. Ideas should be free to everyone. If one doesn't want anyone else to use his/her idea, one should keep the idea a secret. Now if you make an machine copies and sell them, that would be a different story, unethical, and also illegal. |
| Bob_Robertson Nov 30, 2007 12:20 PM EDT |
> Bob's example of copying a painting is unfortunate... Ah, but if we're going to discuss the absurdities of "intellectual property", it must be addressed in its most in-your-face example. Either the principle applies universally, or it's not a principle. Making a copy, no matter how perfectly, does not deprive anyone of the original. The act of making a copy cannot therefore be theft. Agreed that claiming it's mine and selling it is fraud. Just claiming it as mine is fraud, no sale required. > If one doesn't want anyone else to use his/her idea, one should keep the idea a secret. Which Kentucky Fried Chicken and CocaCola have done a spectacular job of doing, for example. > the next time I read "aw, they don't need to make money from their recordings, they can make it up touring" I'm going to invent the over-the-Internet-zapper. I dare these glorious freedom fighters would change their minds if they ever got off their butts and created anything themselves, which was then poached and copied en masse. It's been done, of course. One of the most rabid Libertarians I know, L. Neil Smith, is an author of some 25 published books. Ask him if he wants to repeal copyright, he'll give you an unequivocal YES. And yes, I did find his _Forge Of The Elders_ in Microsoft .lit format on Mininova. |
| dinotrac Nov 30, 2007 12:25 PM EDT |
>And why should you have a monopoly over something just because it popped into your mind and you were the first to apply for a patent? AARRRRGGGGHHHH!!!!! Patents are not granted for things that "pop into your mind". That is copyright. Patents do not cover ideas. You must reduce something to practice. You must be able to articulate a claim as to how your something advances the art in a way that is not obvious to an ordinary practitioner. It's absolutely true that the USPTO has royally screwed the pooch in recent years, but you should try to understand what a patent is meant to be. As to justification, you might try doing a little research there, too. Patents were intended to bring advances into the public domain. In the bad old days, many advances were kept secret in order to get competitive advantage. Patents introduced three important concepts: 1. If you are granted a patent, you don't have to protect your secret. In fact, the government will help you to exploit your advance in ways the couldn't otherwise be done. 2. In exchange, you must grant your advance to the public domain. When the patent is published, everybody will get to know your advance -- it won't be secret -- and when it expires, everybody will get to exploit it without paying you a dime. 3. If somebody else figures out the same advance you did, they can apply for a patent. If you kept the advance secret, they can get a patent even if you invented it first. The public good wants advancements to be made public. You can argue whether or not patents are the best way to do this, whether they make sense for software, whether twenty years (the current term) is too long or too short, etc. But...you should make some minimal effort to understand what you are talking about. |
| dinotrac Nov 30, 2007 12:31 PM EDT |
>Making a copy, no matter how perfectly, does not deprive anyone of the original. Come on, Bob, you know better than that. Methinks you're just determined to look the other way from the facts. Nobody has ever claimed that a copy deprives an author of the original. That is not what you steal in making a copy. However, the law (right or wrong, it is reasonable to argue that) gives the author control of the right to make copies. That is what you steal and you know it. I don't recall if you have a problem with libel and defamation, but, by your logic, you really shouldn't. After all, a reputation is not something you can own in any real sense of the word. |
| tracyanne Nov 30, 2007 12:32 PM EDT |
Thanks dino as usual most people fail to understand Patent and copyright, and the IP rhetoric of monopolists and would be monopolists, doesn't make it any easier to understand. |
| azerthoth Nov 30, 2007 4:02 PM EDT |
Reading the definitions of what is required for patent one of the requirements that the USPTO has been failing miserably on. There needs be enough specificity in the patent application that someone familiar with the field can successfully reproduce the product. For some of the software patents, there would be a major case for "show me the code". A patent is only valid between the times that the USPTO says OK and someone takes it to court and proves that it is invalid. Or of course the time on the clock runs out. |
| Bob_Robertson Nov 30, 2007 4:40 PM EDT |
> Come on, Bob, you know better than that. Methinks you're just determined to look the other way from the facts. No, just arguing another aspect of it. I take no right to copy from anyone. The originator is free to make any copy they wish, no action of mine to make a copy can possibly deprive anyone else of that same action. "Copyright" is a misnomer. It is a legal grant of monopoly on the copying. It is not "copyright", it is "copy-monopoly". |
| bigg Nov 30, 2007 4:56 PM EDT |
> you should make some minimal effort to understand what you are talking about That's an interesting statement, given that I summarized my opinion above as 'these are broad laws with really no justification beyond, "I can tell a story where copyright and patent are good things."' You then proceed to criticize my argument by telling stories about how our current patent system might be a good thing. There is a LOT more involved in determining the optimal patent system than what you have written. > Patents are not granted for things that "pop into your mind". I'm pretty sure you know better than that, Dino. I would like to know how you go about getting a patent on something that didn't start out in your mind. Or do you get patents on things that are revealed divinely? You have an idea, come up with a way to put it into practice, and get a patent on it. I also think you are referring to the patent system as envisioned by the guys who wrote the patent laws. That's not very helpful. I'm talking about the patent system we've got. |
| dinotrac Nov 30, 2007 5:35 PM EDT |
bigg - Gosh, you don't even try to be honest, do you? your statement was, "and why should you have a monopoly over something just because it popped into your mind and you were the first to apply for a patent?" You can't get a monopoly just because it popped into your mind. You have to reduce it to practice. >I would like to know how you go about getting a patent on something that didn't start out in your mind. You can get a patent on something that popped into somebody else's mind, or didn't you understand that part of my post? |
| bigg Nov 30, 2007 5:48 PM EDT |
> you don't even try to be honest, do you? And you don't change your irrelevant statements at the beginning of your posts, either. I've seen you use this line about 1000 times in these forums and seriously doubt that anyone can accuse me of being dishonest, however much they might disagree with my opinions. > You have to reduce it to practice. Which is implied by the fact that you applied for a patent and got the patent. The point I'm making is that there is no reason to believe someone else might not have gotten to the same point on their own, yet they cannot bring that innovation to market because someone already has a monopoly. > You can get a patent on something that popped into somebody else's mind Okay, I will concede that you are correct there. > didn't you understand that part of my post? I thought I read a lecture, but okay, we'll call it a post. |
| dinotrac Nov 30, 2007 6:17 PM EDT |
>seriously doubt that anyone can accuse me of being dishonest, Don't be idiotic. I accused you of being dishonest because you were dishonest. You made one statement and then you tried to run away from it so that you could shout "No, no, no!!!". It's easy to be right when you refuse to be wrong. >The point I'm making is that there is no reason to believe someone else might not have gotten to the same point on their own And that has nothing to do with anything. There is a requirement that an advance be non-obvious, but it needn't be impossible, either. The idea is to encourage people: a) to make advances b) to make them public. It's hardly unique to IP. There is no reason to award found property to the person who finds it other than to encourage honesty by rewarding people when rightful owners can't be found. There was no reason to grant claims on gold mines or homesteads to the people who got there first except to encourage development. And so on and so forth. Patents, at least expire, and that is real boon to society. For example, pharmaceutical research is extremely expensive. Patents allow drug companies to recover their investments by making ridiculously priced drugs. Very bad for many of us -- until the patents expire, at which time cheap generics are a boon to everyone. |
| Bob_Robertson Dec 01, 2007 3:59 PM EDT |
This is not exactly a non-explored issue. Against Intellectual Property http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/15_2/15_2_1.pdf There's No Such Thing as a Free Patent http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?Id=1763 Do patents and copyrights undermine private property?: Yes http://www.insightmag.com/main.cfm/include/detail/storyid/12... |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!