Jettison all intellectual property laws

http://salk.edu/about/jonas_salk.html

If you are afraid to write a song for fear of somebody copying it, don't write the song.

 

So I take it you're in favor of ending public funding for the arts?

 

Abso-freaking-lutely. Are you in favor of ending intellectual property laws?

 

It's not so much a fear of being copied, it's a fear of not getting all the proceeds.

Not sure what that has to do with a guy who freely gave his invention for the good of mankind?


Did you know the Lion Sleeps Tonight was stolen from an African who never got credit or a dime for the popular song, or that House of the Rising Son was a poem and then a folk song from the Civil War era? No residuals for you, whomever you was.

 

Same thing with those car seat belts, which auto lock. Invented by a Swede who just wanted to help save lives.

 

You must hate songwriters, authors and software programmers.

Salk had the right to choose how he wanted his vaccine to be distributed. He chose public domain. That doesn't mean that is good for all.

 

It's not so much that they need ending, just examining heavily. Music is nuts. A few years ago a UK police station was fined 40,000 sterling for playing the radio in their station; most people don't realise how draconian the laws are. Paul MCartney wrote a good few good songs and was worth 800M sterling at one point - this is crazy!

Pharma companies do invest an awefully large amount of money in R&D and deserve a period of time (I think its 10 years or so) to make money. But in this time, they might well have to build an entire new facility, these cost up to 2Bn USD (very much worst case scenario).

However, when you look at the patent cases between Apple and Samsung, they're just petty. "You unlock your phone screen with a swiping action and we invented that" - pathetic!

So they do need to be looked at.

 

Gotta admit, the polio vaccine was pretty darn good for all.

There are thousands of corporations, researchers(?) and lawyers out there who haven't invented a (*)(*)(*)(*) thing but got to the patent office first.

And I am thoroughly convinced that Bill Gates did nothing to advance the cause of operating systems everywhere.

 

Yep I hear ya on the radio thing. A drive in here played the radio station for decades until they said they had to pay for it. They just turned it off. Now no music while you enjoy your burger. The only people hurt are the customers, and the radio station.
　
　
Sorry I am one who just doesn't believe the top 5 pharmaceutical corporations are hurting that bad even with R&D. They are getting paid from so many different angles, tax breaks, grants, government contracts, loopholes, etc... etc... by the end of the day they are most likely turning a profit in their R&D dept, even a small one, but a profit no doubt. Otherwise they wouldn’t still be in business. Of course a little bit of creative paperwork can go a long way too.

 

I agree there are some strange things being allowed in the copyright/patent realms, but to get rid of copyright/patents due to them is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Copyrights/patents are the only reason that writers and inventors get paid relatively well.

Also, do you think that if copyrights/patents were eliminated that things would be any better? Big companies would be watching products of small companies, and then rapidly reverse engineer and steal the work of the inventors working for the small companies. Intellectual rights protection is the reason the U.S. became a leader in technology in the 19th century.

 

Without government contracts, it would have never got off the ground. Too many people underestimate the value of having government backing. Look at the railroads, or the space program and all that came from it.

 

I like Bill Gates, but I think the money he made by his monopolistic business practices (and the fact that the government allowed it) set OS development back by 15 years. That sorta thing happens in many industries. The pharmaceutical industry is the worst abuser.

 

The best way to handle some of this creative stifling is if a product isn't being used and somebody is just sitting on it, say within 5 years it becomes eminent domain.
　
　
　
IOW if a company cannot come up with an alternative fuel supply because the oil companies have the patent that they do not want released, use, or allow anybody else to use, too f(*)(*)(*)ing bad. There is a “for the good of the people” clause in the eminent domain legislation, and if a patent is the only thing stopping us from eliminating our dependency on the ME, then it should be made available, by force if necessary. It’s a matter of national defense. I mean really if you can throw a family out of their home they have had for numerous generations paying them pennies on the dollar of it’s actually value, so somebody can build a shopping center, for a corporate land developer to make billions, then as they say what is good for the goose…
　
　
Doesn't the government already have access to the patents on file? And if they used them under the guise of TOP SECRET, how would anybody know to stop it??

 

I think most of the research is done at the university level anyway, but what is happening with Pharma is that they are paying huge bucks to the generic manufacturers to keep them from jumping the patents when they expire. Of course, the huge bucks are added onto the cost of the drug.

 

Interpreted from liberal-speak: I want to be free to steal other people's work.

 

I admit, I really fail to understand some 'intellectual property' laws. Let's say that I write a piece of music. I release it to the world. Releasing it comprises making a CD for distribution to the public, for a price of course. Then that piece of music is registered with ASCAP and it is played on the radio for which I receive compensation until the end of time. People that support what I do, buy the CD, providing they can afford to. Other people simply wait for my music to be played on the radio where they can enjoy it, for free, but they must endure the other free music as well. If they get tired of enduring the other free music, they can put a mike to the radio and record my music, or download it from You Tube or someplace else on the internet. Thus, they can enjoy my music, for free, when ever the urge overtakes them. Now, it is my 'intellectual property' so if my fans record it, they are instantly felons and can be prosecuted, fined and/or imprisoned. I, personally, gain nothing from that. Chances are they won't ever get arrested for 'stealing' and illegally listening to my property. Let's say that these intellectual property thieves share the fruits of their treachery with a few friends. Are those friends now accomplices in the felony? Why shouldn't they be prosecuted?
How does this apply to books and magazines. If you buy a book, read it and then lend it to a friend to read, is your friend a felon? Are you not a felon for aiding in a criminal act? How about TIVO and DVR recorders supplied by your cable or satellite service. When you program your TIVO to record something while you watch something else or are away from your TV, aren't you committing a felonious act and shouldn't you be prosecuted for intellectual property theft?

 

You must hate logic, debate and frank discussion as you rely on strawmen and other ridiculous ad hominem.

 

Don't give them any more ideas.
　
　
Did you know that the change from VCR tapes to DVD was pushed by the film industry itself? Yep it seems that the residuals for performers didn't cover DVD releases, and once all that is settled, how long do you think there will be another change?

 

I am. They are grants of monopoly privilege and create fictional property where people are punished for the act of non-theft.

 

No, I make my money in a field related to software development. I understand the issue from the producer side. If I spend months or years working on a project, I expect compensation. Without intellectual copyright laws, anybody can steal my hard work. If you look at the history of invention, it skyrocketed when intellectual property rights were protected. This isn't coincidental.

 

If they truly want to protect the musicians 'intellectual property', outlaw the mp3 file format and quit producing CD's Intellectual property wasn't an issue back in the days of vinyl records. At least not for the music industry. They seem to want to have their cake and eat it too. CD's and DVD's are easy for them to manufacture and distribute resulting in higher profit margins. The price payed for that is that they are easily copied and distributed illegally as well. Quid pro quo, so to speak.

 

There are many small companies making products that are not patented, and yet they don't seem to be put out of business by larger companies. Hat makers, for instant, make products that have been around for ages and are not protected by any IP laws, yet the small businesses that make them aren't put out of business by the larger. Generally, that's because small business tends to focus on quality, customer service and other selling propositions whereas a larger business may focus on reaching deeper into a market with a lower quality product.

 

I wonder sometimes if those opposed to Capitalism, even understand what it is or how it works. Taking green energy, there have been hundreds of start up's created from thousands of ideas each making an attempt to create a market and folks, WITHOUT GOVERNMENT....Is this NEW, absolutely not, has it worked, yes thousands of times and it remains the most practical means for human intellectual advancement. Here's a list of US auto makers, long gone but that were involved with others in the world to create the cars/trucks of today. You'll need some time, there are hundreds....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_defunct_United_States_automobile_manufacturers

 

It's the idiotic contracts that Hollywood and the music industry allow that is bringing these things to the forefront. $30 million for an actor/actress that didn't make that money in the last couple runs. MaDonna getting $5 million in advance on an album she hadn’t even made yet, when her glory years were gone over a decade ago, and Michael, a person who actually had to literally die to make a lucrative come back.
　
If they were still dealing with basic contracts and residuals on the actual profits made, it wouldn't be so strict today.

 

So do I. In fact, it's my primary business. It's not my problem if you fell that you cannot do your work without a grant of monopoly from the government. Many of the guilds in the 18th century felt the same way, which is why IP laws were created. It kept the rabble from competing with them.

I don't think you do. I think you demand coercion on your behalf and seek to justify it without really thinking about it at all. If you were thinking about it, you wouldn't insist that those who argue against monopoly "hate" you.

That's what contracts are for. If someone wants your work, they'll pay you for it. Value does not arise from labor.

You present a false dichotomy. There are many ways that a programmer can protect his work without relying on a government monopoly. In fact, in the patent system, many can steal your work simply by showing that they came up with the idea before you and registered it as a patent. You could lose months or years of project work upon which you expect compensation because some patent brainstormers got together in a conference room and came up with as many ideas as they could and filed them while you were working on the project.

You make the claim, back it up with something. Then I'll provide the studies that show that you are wrong.