Patent & Copyright Law

[Michael]

Newswise — Abolishing patent and copyright law sounds radical, but two economists at Washington University in St. Louis say it's an idea whose time has come. Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine see innovation as a key to reviving the economy. They believe the current patent/copyright system discourages and prevents inventions from entering the marketplace. The two professors have published their views in a new book, Against Intellectual Monopoly, from Cambridge University Press.

"From a public policy view, we'd ideally like to eliminate patent and copyright laws altogether," says Levine, John H. Biggs Distinguished Professor of Economics. "There's plenty of protection for inventors and plenty of protection and opportunities to make money for creators. It's not that we see this as some sort of charitable act that people are going to invent and create things without earning money. Evidence shows very strongly there are lots of ways to make money without patents and copyright."
Source (http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/549822/?sc=dwhn)

Well this is a breath of fresh air on this ugly topic. I've long argued that patents and copyright laws are not 'tools to foster innovation' but rather legal tools elite corporations used to defend their turf.

How and why Disney corporation is allowed to put a copyright on what was previously public domain material (Snow White for example) is beyond me. Again, how much did Disney "invest" in Congress to get this rule passed?

And how does an inventor need 99 years of exclusive 'idea-ownership' protection? 99.9% of all inventors are dead before the ownership will run out. Indeed, I suspect that 95% of patent & copyright holders are not the actual inventors or creators themselves.

And it is to be noted that the US economy was entirely built on stealing British patents, copying them and then hiding behind US law to deny standing to British subjects (something the US objects to vehmently when China does it). Indeed, few things foster more competition and economic growth better than ignoring patents and copyrights.

Indeed, the US itself shifting from a 'patent-buster' society to a 'patent-protecting' society seems to mark the high water point for US material innovations. Surprise, surprise.

Fact is, patent law and copyright law have become tools used to protect market position, block competition and to establish permenent income sources for non-productive corporations - a product that can be bought, sold and traded as much as any other commodity.

If anyone has a defense of this heavily abused process, I'd love to hear it.

[drgoodtrips]

I'm with you on this. Patent law is ostensibly designed to protect invention and foster innovation, but it actually seems to stifle both, as evidenced by the sheer number of "defensive" patents out there.

For anyone interested, I've developed some software for maintaining intellectual property and have gained a bit of insight into corporate strategies in this arena.

A "defensive" patent is a patent that a corporation obtains but has no intention of using. Rather, the idea is that they know some competitor wants to do it, they wedge in the door first, and then lord it over the competitor in some form or another. If the two competitors have a more amicable relationship, they might engage in a quid pro quo where each one agrees not to enforce a patent that they have in exchange for the same. Or, they may work out some licensing arrangement. But, more often than not, this is simply de facto blackmail. And, of course, none of this corporate intrigue has anything to do with actually protecting the rights of an inventor, which is what the average person thinks of when he hears the term 'patent'.

There is an interesting case developing right now, where Microsoft is suing TomTom. To sum it up, Microsoft used to have a very shitty and stupid file system 15 years ago (FAT), which they upgraded to a slightly less shitty and stupid system (FAT32) at that time. Of course, they patented this upgrade (which no sane person would really want to use on his own). Now, because Microsoft has a monopoly on the OS market, they were in the position that they could not bother making their software able to read filesystems of competitors like Linux, UNIX and Apple. Of course, those guys, if they wanted to get a foot in the door, absolutely needed to be able to read Microsoft's filesystem (think of it this way - would you buy a USB jump drive that didn't work in Windows but worked with Linux?) So Microsoft, via its monopoly, made its shitty filesystem (FAT32) the de facto industry standard.

Now, fast forward to the present. They're suing TomTom because TomTom can read USB drives formatted in the FAT32 system and they're not letting Microsoft wet its beak with licensing fees. Of course, TomTom's behavior is completely standard, and anyone and everyone has been doing what they're doing for over a decade. So, why is Microsoft suddenly staking its first ever claim to this decade-old "innovation"? I'm not normally a conspiracy theorist, but I'll wager dollars to donuts that it has to do with TomTom's popularity in Europe combined with the EU recently bitch-slapping Microsoft in making competitor browsers mandatory on Windows machines.

Microsoft is flexing its muscle, and TomTom is collateral damage. All of this because of a patent Microsoft obtained over a decade ago, has never enforced, and is only in place because of monopolistic practice. This isn't exactly about defending the little guy inventor.

(If there's a silver lining, it's that Microsoft is risking having this blow up in their face, because the FAT32 usage demonstrates their monopolistic behavior more than any preposterous 'infringement' at the hands of TomTom. I think that Microsoft is hoping to bully them into a settlement because Microsoft's SOP is to tie competitors/threats up in court until they go bankrupt)

[Sucre]

Yes, I agree to a certain extent : the copyright system - protecting the copy, not the author - actually serves the interests of larger corporations. Not so for the authors rights system, which protects the author so that he/she gets - at least - remunerated for his/her work.

Copyright does offer, however, a certain layer of protection to the authors. Just to reap it away would be absurd.

[dilettante]

I agree with Sucre here. It sounds like copyright/patent laws have been poorly written and abused; but that doesn't mean the concept itself should be done away with. Reading the content of the link it sounds like these authors envision something more along the lines of massive reforms then the abolishment of intellectual property rights.

[drgoodtrips]

As a follow-up to what I wrote here before, TomTom is now suing Microsoft over some alleged infringement the other way. I'd imagine that TomTom is hoping for the quid pro quo I mentioned earlier - "overlook my infringement if I overlook yours".

[drgoodtrips]

I agree with Sucre here. It sounds like copyright/patent laws have been poorly written and abused; but that doesn't mean the concept itself should be done away with. Reading the content of the link it sounds like these authors envision something more along the lines of massive reforms then the abolishment of intellectual property rights.

I should probably clarify. I've never previously considered the idea of having no IP laws at all. I have to think more about whether or not I would support that. My agreement with Michael was regarding the idea that the current IP system does just about anything but encourage innovation and protect the little guy.

Microsoft is exhibit A - one of its standard business practices is to willfully violate intellectual property laws, and tie the little guy up in court until it goes bankrupt because Microsoft has stolen its idea. No company, no lawsuit, and paying the court costs is cheaper to Microsoft than licensing or buying out the company.

[Michael]

Yes, drgoodtrips and myself seem to share the same point of view here. I'm not approaching this issue with the idea that patent & copyright law ought to be abolished in principle.

My position on the issue is that the present regime seems to do more harm than good, or that the present regime is corrupted and/or non-functional.

That being said, I will point out that the two of the four largest industrial-economic expansions known in the last few centuries were characterized by government-supported patent-busting (USA in the 19th century, China over the last half-century). That's food for thought.

Indeed, one of the biggest problems with our modern society is the obsession with private property. Now I consider private property an important concept, but I'm thinking that our laws are overly protective of it at the expense of the common good. Our environment is a good example of this phenomena, that patents & copyright are only one aspect.

[Sucre]

It is difficult to have a fair view on the cases at hand (Microstock/ TomTom for instance) without getting all the information on the cases - usually, this is my experience and I work a lot with copyright cases - the information provided via the media is partial, not biased but written by journalists who actually do not have the knowledge to do so. I will therefore abstain from comments on the case at hand.

Generally speaking, it is true of course that laws are often used to pursue egoistic interests and not the common good. I mean, laws are usually made to serve the common good, but in practice the various players only pursue self-interested goals and abuse of the law if they can and if they have the means to do so.

However, with regard to patent in particular, do you think that 10 years is too long to protect the results of research ?

[Michael]

It is difficult to have a fair view on the cases at hand (Microstock/ TomTom for instance) without getting all the information on the cases - usually, this is my experience and I work a lot with copyright cases - the information provided via the media is partial, not biased but written by journalists who actually do not have the knowledge to do so. I will therefore abstain from comments on the case at hand.
What case at hand?

This thread's about the general topic of patent & copyright law, not any specfic case.

However, with regard to patent in particular, do you think that 10 years is too long to protect the results of research ?
I'm not convinced that such 'protections' serve any general public good.

Or to put it another way, why is the state required to protect any given person's commercial efforts, when the same 'protection' is not generally avialable to anyone else for anything. You can steal my words and ideas at will and I have no recourse. But if you steal a digital copy of my photograph, I can sue you. That makes no sense to me. Apparently any idiot pressing a button on a digital camera is some kind of "artist" that deserves state protection for their right to sell their efforts? That strikes me as absurd and extremely arbitrary.

[phungus420]

I think all copywrites and patents should become public domain after 10 years, no exceptions.

Just actually posted this in a discussion about the Civilization 2 source code. The fact 2K games still claims propriatery ownership overs something that old, I find immoral. http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=7916999&postcount=337

[Sucre]

What case at hand?

This thread's about the general topic of patent & copyright law, not any specfic case.
The cases outlined quite interestingly by drgoodtrip.

I'm not convinced that such 'protections' serve any general public good.
They protect the :
- inventor (for patent and innovation)
- the author (in case of books or any work of the mind)

It is just to make sure that they get a reward for their work, not just a one-time payment but continuously all thoughout their life, not that the work is copied and sold for profit by companies or people who absolutely have not merit in its making ...

What you write below - that your ideas are not protected is not true. They are if you patent them. Or they are if you fix them in a book, painting etc,

You must do something in order to be rewarded, that is clear, not just think about it ...

Patricia Highsmith wrote a very funny story on the topic : about a man who had written 54 books ... but they were all in his head ..!

You can steal my words and ideas at will and I have no recourse.
Yes, this is true : Ideas are not protectable unless - as noted above - you patent them, fix them in a medium or use any existing legal way to protect them.

(For example, in the case of photography, some ideas in advertisings are copied, this is called "copycat". These are extremely complicated and interesting cases because you must prove that it is the photography which was copied, not the idea.)

But if you steal a digital copy of my photograph, I can sue you. That makes no sense to me. Apparently any idiot pressing a button on a digital camera is some kind of "artist" that deserves state protection for their right to sell their efforts? That strikes me as absurd and extremely arbitrary.
Well, this is only true in copy-right countries (basically all English speaking countries which inherited their legal system from the UK - So this includes the USA and Canada, with reserves)

Not so in "authors rights" countries which copied their system from France.

(Both systems were born in the 18th century.)

A photograph to be protected must be recognised as an "original Work" ie. must meet a number of "artistic" criteria which make the difference between the idiot pushing a button, as you say, and such great photographers as Frans Lanting (http://www.lanting.com/), Ansel Adams (http://www.anseladams.com/i), Anne Leibowitz (http://www.nytimes.com/library/photos/leibovitz/bourgeois.html), Robert Capa (http://www.magnumphotos.com/Archive/C.aspx?VP=XSpecific_MAG.PhotographerDetail_VPage&l1=0&pid=2K7O3R14YQNW&nm=Robert%20Capa), Cyndy Sherman (http://www.cindysherman.com/), Man Ray (http://www.manray-photo.com/catalog/index.php?cPath=32&osCsid=5f430728910578530e93f024312bff74&largeur=1280), Andre Kertez (http://www.artcyclopedia.com/artists/kertesz_andre.html), Robert Doisneau (http://www.robertdoisneau.com/), Henri Cartier-Bresson (http://www.magnumphotos.com/Archive/C.aspx?VP=XSpecific_MAG.PhotographerDetail_VPage&l1=0&pid=2K7O3R14T1LX&nm=Henri%20Cartier%20-%20Bresson), Hiroshi Sugimoto (http://www.sugimotohiroshi.com/) ... to name just a few who are well knows in the USA.

(I made an effort to find the links on the web, please enjoy ... :))

If the photograph does not meet the artistic criteria, it will not get any protection at all in the "authors rights countries" although it may in a "copyright" country.

There is also a recognition for photographs with a documentary value.

This means that the same photograph may be protected in one country and not in another.

But even though : the work of an "idiot pushing a button" may be worth protection. If it published in a Newsapaper, for example, I am thinking of a person who by accident happened to be there at the moment of an accident, why would the photographer make no money while the publisher makes loads of money when publishing the photograph ??? :shrug:

[Sucre]

I think all copywrites and patents should become public domain after 10 years, no exceptions.

Just actually posted this in a discussion about the Civilization 2 source code. The fact 2K games still claims propriatery ownership overs something that old, I find immoral. http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=7916999&postcount=337
The idea behind copyright is that the author gets rewarded for his work - the living person in flesh and blood. These people usually live longer than 10 years.

With regards to games - I refer to your post in the other forum - the problem is a bit different. Usually games are devised by an author but he is employed by a company. Again here, there is a difference between Copyright countries and Author right countries. In copyright countries, all the rights of the salaried staff belong to the company. It allows them disproportionate appropriation.

To put it in a nutshell, I support copyright 100% as long as it is in support of the author in flesh and blood and assures him a living during his life time. Not so for corporations where I agree that there is an abuse of copyright.

[Michael]

They protect the :
- inventor (for patent and innovation)
- the author (in case of books or any work of the mind)
As a general rule, I'm far more interested in the topic of patents here - that is the area where all the problems are cited.

Copyright is much less contentious (and less economic impact) - though Disney's ongoing successfull game of copyrighting public domain material ought to be a topic of concern.

Indeed, the biggest issue of copyright these days is music downloading - which as a topic, tends to illustrate the commerical problems with copyright existing to protect corporate business models, not the artists. As the music issue demonstrates, the vast majority of copyright on commerical music is NOT owned by the artists who created it.

That artists are so quick to sell off this 'right' suggests that this 'right' isn't very useful to the artists other than as a way of monetizing their production for maximum short term gain.

You must do something in order to be rewarded, that is clear, not just think about it ...

Patricia Highsmith wrote a very funny story on the topic : about a man who had written 54 books ... but they were all in his head ..!
My ideas and my words are composed and posted to this forum (and thus available to be freely taken). They are not inside my head.

If I set up a fee-access to this site and claim a copyright, and pay some legal fees, then my words have will monetary value that cannot be appropriated by anoyone else. But my words and ideas are still the same ones that are here already.

That is to say, copyright is not about protecting ideas or creativity - it is all about money. That's it, that's all.

Creativity exists whether it is copyrighted or not. The only difference is the monetary income to the creator (or more correctly, the owner of the copyright - if I own/copyright the content of this forum, then I may profit from your contributions/ideas/words - because I own the copyright - regardless of the fact that you may supply the idea/content).

Like I said, copyright is much more high profile to consumers, but less significant to the economy. For the economy, patents are where its at and patents are where all the problems are. Patents are more often used to protect corporate ownership rather than to foster innovation. It is the field of patents where I believe reform is needed. Copyright I don't care so much about since it has so much less social impact.

[Sucre]

A few things here :

* Copyright has a major economic impact. The problem is of perception - The authors usually stress the cultural/ moral/ social impact and not the money because it is what they feel is important. Besides the sector encompasses diverse industries, authors are individual with little bargaining leverage etc.

In 2006 the European Commission commissioned a study on the economic impact - I am quoting from this study, however WIPO has also put it high on its agenda and various universities are trying to "calculate" creativity. - Here are some figures :
http://www.european-creative-industries.eu/KA/tabid/77/Default.aspx

"The study “The Economy of Culture”, presented by the European Commission in November 2006 ... 5.8 million employees in the various arts sectors, e.g. literature, film, music, architecture, performing arts, visual arts, and dance and in the creative sectors like advertising, design and video games, accounted for a turnover of 654 billion Euros in 2003. The study points out the heterogeneity of the culture industries, but also their shared sense of belonging to the cultural and creative sectors. Their high share in the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of 2.6 per cent comes as a surprise even for many creative workers. Culture industries contribute more towards the economy in Europe than e.g. the food industries (1.9%) or the chemical industries (2.3%)."

The US copyright industry figures are also impressive, mostly due to Holywood.

* Copyright is very contentious, actually a lot more than patent. However, in countries with a copyright tradition (US, UK, Canada, Australia, South Africa etc.) copyright cases tend to be rare - i.e solved with an agreement - Authors rights countries on the authors hand have a lot of them.

(I ran a seminar on copycats a few years ago, and I remember that the UK lawyer, one of the best specialists in the Kingdom of her majesty, could quote one single case in the last 50 years, whereas the German lawyer had a full blown powerpoint presentation with 50 cases just for the last three years and just amongst his clientele...)


* Regarding your quotes on this forum, if a poster were completety taking your quote as his own on an other forum, you could sue him. (Not if he quotes from you, ie. Michael from this other forum said this and this, but if he copy/pastes the entire quote)

But sue him for what ? Why would you spend money on a lawyer ? Since you are not getting compensation anyway ?

As for using "ideas", this is a point of exchanging on a forum or doing some reading on a number of subjects, isn't it ? Creativity is just about that : borrowing the ideas from other people, from existing making new stuff etc..

(Besides the burden of the proof, which would be very tough), this is the reason why ideas are not protected.

What is protected is the unique way an idea is transmitted to the wider world, for money or not for money.

* Copyright is mostly about money, because authors need to make a living in order to continue to be creative, but it is also about "reputation" - This is the "moral rights" aspect of it, which has only been integrated in Copyright in the USA when they signed the Berne Convention in 1990 - and actually hardly applied. Authors using the Creative Common Licence for example are not about miney but just about spreading their work and letting it known that it is their own.

* Michael : "That artists are so quick to sell off this 'right' suggests that this 'right' isn't very useful to the artists other than as a way of monetizing their production for maximum short term gain."
I find your thought interesting and sad. Interesting because it shows the impact of buying off rights. Sad because knowingthe life reality of many individual artists and I can tell you this : the reason why they sell off their rights is because they do not have a choice. What is the power of an individual v. a large corporation ? What you call "short time gain" is simply that artists need to eat every day, they need to pay their mortgage and sometimes they even have a family. So yes, they need a remuneration and if (as an example!) all the photographers I posted a link of have made your life happier or more beautiful just for a few seconds or changed your perception of the world (which they have done anyway although you may not be aware of it!), then they deserve to be remunerated.

[Sucre]

I came back to post here because I realised that my post was just about copyright when you were saying you did not care so much about copyrught.

I know less about patent, or it is mostly theoritical, but I can say this :
1) If copyright is about money, then patent is only about money . No moral right, no reputation to be saved ...
2) What is protected is less the idea then the investment. A company must spend a lot of money in years of research before this research gets to a product - and this is what is protected.

Of course, there is something very "immoral" about the whole story. The best example is the story about anti aids medicines sold for free in South Africa and these big corporations whining about it ...

[Michael]

A few things here :

* Copyright has a major economic impact. The problem is of perception - The authors usually stress the cultural/ moral/ social impact and not the money because it is what they feel is important. Besides the sector encompasses diverse industries, authors are individual with little bargaining leverage etc.

In 2006 the European Commission commissioned a study on the economic impact - I am quoting from this study, however WIPO has also put it high on its agenda and various universities are trying to "calculate" creativity. - Here are some figures :
http://www.european-creative-industries.eu/KA/tabid/77/Default.aspx

"The study “The Economy of Culture”, presented by the European Commission in November 2006 ... 5.8 million employees in the various arts sectors, e.g. literature, film, music, architecture, performing arts, visual arts, and dance and in the creative sectors like advertising, design and video games, accounted for a turnover of 654 billion Euros in 2003. The study points out the heterogeneity of the culture industries, but also their shared sense of belonging to the cultural and creative sectors. Their high share in the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of 2.6 per cent comes as a surprise even for many creative workers. Culture industries contribute more towards the economy in Europe than e.g. the food industries (1.9%) or the chemical industries (2.3%)."

The US copyright industry figures are also impressive, mostly due to Holywood.
Yes copyright is fairly big business.

As I noted above, the only political 'hot-spots' in this area is mostly in respect of recorded music and Disney. As such, I'm not interested in making arguments about reforming/changing copyright law - unless we are addressing the Disney law (American copyright stands for 75 years after the creator's death). I think that term of copyright is absurd and nothing more than corporate 'squatting'.

It is in the area of patents that I believe there are commerical problems and significant commerical interest in reform. Thus, this is the issue I think is more important to discuss.

I will also add that the aggregate commercial value of patents is very likely to be much larger than that of copyright in a given year, given that patents generally cover almost every manufactured product, process and physical object out there, whereas copyright usually only covers 'artistic productions', written words and/or logos. Yes, that's big business, but only part of 'all business' which is the field of patents. From the perspective of making and building things, patents are where its at.

Btw, your cited data includes the video game industry. Ask industry players in that sector about patents vs copyright and they will talk your ear off about patents. All forms of electronics, computers and software are loaded with patents like crazy. This is the area where some of the biggest problems with existing patent law and practice are found.

* Copyright is very contentious, actually a lot more than patent. However, in countries with a copyright tradition (US, UK, Canada, Australia, South Africa etc.) copyright cases tend to be rare - i.e solved with an agreement - Authors rights countries on the authors hand have a lot of them.

(I ran a seminar on copycats a few years ago, and I remember that the UK lawyer, one of the best specialists in the Kingdom of her majesty, could quote one single case in the last 50 years, whereas the German lawyer had a full blown powerpoint presentation with 50 cases just for the last three years and just amongst his clientele...)

This is relatively small business compared to Microsoft keeping 50 lawyers on staff in their Washington office primarily to deal with patent-legal issues.

* Regarding your quotes on this forum, if a poster were completety taking your quote as his own on an other forum, you could sue him. (Not if he quotes from you, ie. Michael from this other forum said this and this, but if he copy/pastes the entire quote)
Actually no. Fact is, I just happen to "own" this forum and website, and I do claim legal copyright over the contents of this forum, so the point is moot. See the very bottom of the page. :D

I can (theoretically) sue anyone who tries to use anything from this forum in any commerical way.

But sue him for what ? Why would you spend money on a lawyer ? Since you are not getting compensation anyway ?
My compensation doesn't matter. You have no legal right to profit from my property, without my explicit permission.

As for using "ideas", this is a point of exchanging on a forum or doing some reading on a number of subjects, isn't it ? Creativity is just about that : borrowing the ideas from other people, from existing making new stuff etc..

(Besides the burden of the proof, which would be very tough), this is the reason why ideas are not protected.

What is protected is the unique way an idea is transmitted to the wider world, for money or not for money.
Actually, ideas are patented, not copyright.

* Copyright is mostly about money, because authors need to make a living in order to continue to be creative, but it is also about "reputation" - This is the "moral rights" aspect of it, which has only been integrated in Copyright in the USA when they signed the Berne Convention in 1990 - and actually hardly applied. Authors using the Creative Common Licence for example are not about miney but just about spreading their work and letting it known that it is their own.
I agree that copyright is all about protecting a source of revenue. That's all it really is. I have no delusions about that. I don't think copyright has anything to do with creativity at all. Its just about money.

That artists are so quick to sell off this 'right' suggests that this 'right' isn't very useful to the artists other than as a way of monetizing their production for maximum short term gain.
I find your thought interesting and sad. Interesting because it shows the impact of buying off rights. Sad because knowingthe life reality of many individual artists and I can tell you this : the reason why they sell off their rights is because they do not have a choice. What is the power of an individual v. a large corporation ? What you call "short time gain" is simply that artists need to eat every day, they need to pay their mortgage and sometimes they even have a family. So yes, they need a remuneration and if (as an example!) all the photographers I posted a link of have made your life happier or more beautiful just for a few seconds or changed your perception of the world (which they have done anyway although you may not be aware of it!), then they deserve to be remunerated.
You draw examples from average live, yes artists are poor. But many of the biggest musical bands in the world sell off the copyright to their music as well. Paul McCartney famously owns almost all of the American 1950's early rock music (Little Richard, Buddy Holly, etc) yet owns zero Beatles music. Apparently Michael Jackson is the owner of most of the Beatles archive.

[Dominick]

I agree that copyright is all about protecting a source of revenue. That's all it really is. I have no delusions about that. I don't think copyright has anything to do with creativity at all. Its just about money.
What if copyright is detrimental to revenue ?

I'll take the example of computer games. It's by now pretty clear that increased copy protection is counterproductive for the publisher. Games such as Spore or Red Alert III have loosened their protection to increase sales. Like it nor not, moral or not, that's the way it is.

In a more and more digitalized society, the whole concept of copyright and patenting may need an overhaul that would send the prior meaning to the dustbin of history.

[drgoodtrips]

Did you incorporate to run this site, Michael?

[drgoodtrips]

What if copyright is detrimental to revenue ?

I'll take the example of computer games. It's by now pretty clear that increased copy protection is counterproductive for the publisher. Games such as Spore or Red Alert III have loosened their protection to increase sales. Like it nor not, moral or not, that's the way it is.

In a more and more digitalized society, the whole concept of copyright and patenting may need an overhaul that would send the prior meaning to the dustbin of history.

I can agree with that. When you move into the realm of software (particularly with non-deterministic relationship between object and source code), a lot of traditional thought on intellectual property goes (or ought to go) sailing out the window.

[Dominick]

Did you incorporate to run this site, Michael?
If he did, he doesn't pay his employees :mad:
JK, carry on ;)

[drgoodtrips]

If he did, he doesn't pay his employees :mad:
JK, carry on ;)

That might only be worthwhile as a tax shelter. I had a conversation with my father the other night (who is a CPA and executive with years of experience in personal and corporate finance) about the merits of declaring an S Corporation, naming my cat as the Chief Operating Officer, and writing off everything I buy as a "business loss" :cool:

(This actually arose out of a serious question I asked which is whether I can write off things I purchase for my home automation somehow)

But, none of this has anything to do with copyright, at least unless I get big enough that Microsoft notices me and threatens to squash me like a bug with dozens of IP lawyers for some violation that no one could really fathom (especially given that I'm using Linux for all development)

[Michael]

What if copyright is detrimental to revenue ?

I'll take the example of computer games. It's by now pretty clear that increased copy protection is counterproductive for the publisher. Games such as Spore or Red Alert III have loosened their protection to increase sales. Like it nor not, moral or not, that's the way it is.
Relaxing 'copy-protection' is not the same as relaxing 'copyright'. These same companies will fight tooth and nail against reproducing the game logo without permission (which is copyright).

Indeed, it doesn't take a genius to notice that Microsoft got their market postion by giving away their product for free for a long time and letting anyone copy it. That strategy can be clever marketing - certainly in the case of computer/video games/software. It has paid of in billions for Microsoft.

In a more and more digitalized society, the whole concept of copyright and patenting may need an overhaul that would send the prior meaning to the dustbin of history.
Yes, that's likely part of what's driving the present interest in reforming patent laws.

Did you incorporate to run this site, Michael?
No. Incorporation is a rather expensive undertaking and requires an annual cost of filing (notarized) financial statements that would exceed the cost of operating this site.

That might only be worthwhile as a tax shelter. I had a conversation with my father the other night (who is a CPA and executive with years of experience in personal and corporate finance) about the merits of declaring an S Corporation, naming my cat as the Chief Operating Officer, and writing off everything I buy as a "business loss"

(This actually arose out of a serious question I asked which is whether I can write off things I purchase for my home automation somehow)
As far as I know, you do have to demonstrate the attempt to make a viable business in order to claim losses against that business. To do otherwise would likely be considered tax fraud.

[drgoodtrips]

As far as I know, you do have to demonstrate the attempt to make a viable business in order to claim losses against that business. To do otherwise would likely be considered tax fraud.

That's the reason for taking the important step of naming my cat "Chief Operating Officer". Any business with a COO is certainly a business!
:angel:

[Michael]

That's the reason for taking the important step of naming my cat "Chief Operating Officer". Any business with a COO is certainly a business!
:angel:
Chief Accounting Technician I think might be more appropriate! ;)

Or Chief Assistant Treasurer!

[drgoodtrips]

:rofl: That's definitely much better!

[Michael]

I came back to post here because I realised that my post was just about copyright when you were saying you did not care so much about copyrught.

I know less about patent, or it is mostly theoritical, but I can say this :
1) If copyright is about money, then patent is only about money . No moral right, no reputation to be saved ...
2) What is protected is less the idea then the investment. A company must spend a lot of money in years of research before this research gets to a product - and this is what is protected.

Of course, there is something very "immoral" about the whole story. The best example is the story about anti aids medicines sold for free in South Africa and these big corporations whining about it ...
It has long been alleged that patents are the weapons used to keep high quality batteries off the market. As soon as some small company achieves a breakthrough with battery technology, they get bought out and you never hear a word about them again. The new owners use the patent to prevent others from using that technology that might interfere with oil company profits.

More often than not, patents are used to prevent production as much to profit from it.

And as I noted previously, the two largest economic expansions in the modern world occured under 100% patent-busting regimes (USA in 19th century, China in the 20th century). This does seem to suggest that patents are not necessary to spur economic growth (indeed, they retard it - which shoots down one of the principle arguments used to defend patents).

One could probably write a book about all the useful inventions that are unavailable to the 3rd world due to strict patent defence in the 1st world.

[Sucre]

What if copyright is detrimental to revenue ?

I'll take the example of computer games. It's by now pretty clear that increased copy protection is counterproductive for the publisher. Games such as Spore or Red Alert III have loosened their protection to increase sales. Like it nor not, moral or not, that's the way it is.

In a more and more digitalized society, the whole concept of copyright and patenting may need an overhaul that would send the prior meaning to the dustbin of history.
Copyright is not adapted to softwares. Softwares are by no means literary works and the people writing them, usually employed by a large multinationals like, well, microsoft, everything but "authors" and they only get a salary anyway.

This was stupid of the legislator to have softwares protected like literary works. Good lobbying on the part of the Softwares Producers Associations on the other hand, with plenty of well paid attorneys.

This just shows that the legislator is most of the time clueless about what he is legislating about. Your example also explains why IPR has fallen in such disdain : it has been abused. This is sad though for the true authors who need to make a living.

[Michael]

What if copyright is detrimental to revenue ?

I'll take the example of computer games. It's by now pretty clear that increased copy protection is counterproductive for the publisher. Games such as Spore or Red Alert III have loosened their protection to increase sales. Like it nor not, moral or not, that's the way it is.

Your example speaks of "copy-protection" not copyright. This is a different issue. Your example is closer to the publisher allowing the stealing of books from the book store.

Essentially, your example suggests that some game publishers believe that letting some people steal their product is good for business. That is strictly a business/profit decision. Nothing to do with legal copyright or patents.

In a more and more digitalized society, the whole concept of copyright and patenting may need an overhaul that would send the prior meaning to the dustbin of history.
Yes, that's what is apparently happening and why discussions of these issues are taking place. The internet distribution format fundamentally changes the economics of some issues while copyright and patents were designed for a system based on the uniqueness or difficulty of transmission (that no longer exists).

I think the patent issue is also related to the general decline in capitalism - patents are classic "rent-seeking" behavior and it is on the rise as traditional forms of actual economic production are no longer as profitable as they once were. Now companies are rationally seeking to increase their decreasing profit margins by playing 'rentier' with patent filings (as a profit making enterprise in itself).

Indeed, I'll use this issue as a proxy for the future of capitalism. If the Americans can 'fix' the huge problems in the US patent office rationally, then yes, capitalism will be alive and well. So long as the US patent office keeps accepting all applications, then capitalism will be on its way to being well and truly dead. Long live crony capitalism, rent-seekers and fraudsters - for that is where the real profits are these days.

[Sucre]

Your example speaks of "copy-protection" not copyright. This is a different issue. Your example is closer to the publisher allowing the stealing of books from the book store.

Copy-Right is "copy-protection" - A copy is a reproduction of a work that had been fixed and copyright protects the reproduction of this work ...

Essentially, your example suggests that some game publishers believe that letting some people steal their product is good for business. That is strictly a business/profit decision. Nothing to do with legal copyright or patents.
Steal if they are ... infringing copyright. Actually the example suggests that if it too strict, copyright instead of protecting creativity will hinder creativity.

[Michael]

Copy-Right is "copy-protection" - A copy is a reproduction of a work that had been fixed and copyright protects the reproduction of this work ...
Not really. Copyright is all about selling books.

If I photocopy (or hand-copy) a published book (that I own) for my own pleasure, that is entirely legal.

There is no law against copying a book - only a law against selling the copy.

This is entirely different than the example of software-copying referenced by Dominick where some copying of a software game is being tacitly permitted. The effect of this is most similar to permitting theft from a book store since both the pubisher and the retail seller are cut out of the profit chain, but the end user still gets to possess the goods. In no way shape or form is the publisher relaxing ownership of copyright here. The publisher still owns/retains copyright and may certainly enforce it if illegal copies show up on the blackmarket.

Photocopying for one's own use (not re-selling) a purchased book doesn't cut into the profit margins of either publisher or the retail seller. Thus, no crime is committed.

Steal if they are ... infringing copyright. Actually the example suggests that if it too strict, copyright instead of protecting creativity will hinder creativity.
Of course copyright hinders creativity. All limits do that. Copyright is about generating profits and has nothing to do with creativity. If society wanted to encourage more creativity, getting rid of copyright law is the easist way to do that.

[Sucre]

Not really. Copyright is all about selling books.

Well, no. this is not a matter of opinion or interpretion : it is the definition of Copyright. Copy - Right, reproduction rights etc.

Besides book publishing (what you call "selling books") is only a small part ot it. Copyright also covers sound recording, videos, paintings, photographs, all kinds of graphics, maps, softwares etc, i.e any work which is fixed in a way or another.

In all these cases, copyright protrects the reproduction of a work (= synomym of copy) in a physical form.

If I photocopy (or hand-copy) a published book (that I own) for my own pleasure, that is entirely legal.
Quite right. Photocopying represents one of these exceptions to Copyright, called fair use in the USA and fair dealing in the UK, and usage exception for private use in Europe.

Other exceptions to Copyright include communication to the public, publication for information purposes, usage in academic papers etc.

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

Photocopying for one's own use (not re-selling) a purchased book doesn't cut into the profit margins of either publisher or the retail seller. Thus, no crime is committed.
It would be unrealistic to ask for an authorization each time you photocopy for a one-time use. This is why the legislator has allowed for the exceptions outlined above.

However, collecting societies will fill the gap and allow authors to get their share of the profit, even when you are only photocopying for your own pleasure.

Collecting Societies will collect a small fee on copy machines and the proceeds are redistributed to the authors.
http://www.ifrro.org/show.aspx?pageid=home (http://www.ifrro.org/show.aspx?pageid=home)

In the musical filed, where tracking each single usage is simply impossible, collecting societies have been the rule since the 19th century.

There is no law against copying a book - only a law against selling the copy.
Let's rephrase this : you are not allowed to copy the book to sell it, you are only allowed to copy it for your own usage.

This is entirely different than the example of software-copying referenced by Dominick where some copying of a software game is being tacitly permitted. The effect of this is most similar to permitting theft from a book store since both the pubisher and the retail seller are cut out of the profit chain, but the end user still gets to possess the goods. In no way shape or form is the publisher relaxing ownership of copyright here. The publisher still owns/retains copyright and may certainly enforce it if illegal copies show up on the blackmarket.

No, this is a complete different situation.

The problem I see in your reasoning is that you are mixing up "work" and "copy".

If you steal a few copies of a work in a store, well, there will be a loss in revenue but it will be minor. Let say 1% of the entire revenue. Please do not forget that the revenue stream will last an entire life of the author.

If you steal a work, claiming for example that a work is your own, the revenue loss for the author is 100%.

Besides, it is not the publisher who owns the copyright, but the author of the work. All the classics published out there are out of copyright for a long time and this is where the publishers will make most of their money.

Of course copyright hinders creativity. All limits do that. Copyright is about generating profits and has nothing to do with creativity. If society wanted to encourage more creativity, getting rid of copyright law is the easist way to do that.
Copyright is about generating profit so that the creator may continue to work without starving. In this sense, it supports creativity.

Beaumarchais (author of The Marriage of the Figaro), one of the proponent/ initiator of Authors Rights in France was used to seeing his plays played everywhere ... The actors and the play director were getting money and he was famous. But he was starving too. Was it fair ?

Simply abolishing Copyright as you suggest would be going back to the system as it existed before the concept was created in the 18th century.

All limits do that.
It is a question of balance.

Copyright exists to protect the authors and exceptions to copyright exist to protect the users. Some of these users may be authors too, inspired by the ideas and the works of their predecessors.

The problem with the anti-copyright front is that it mindlessly puts the entire system into question, not for want of more creativity, 100% of the real creators support copyright of course, but because they want all the stuff for free.

[Michael]

Well, no. this is not a matter of opinion or interpretion : it is the definition of Copyright. Copy - Right, reproduction rights etc.

Besides book publishing (what you call "selling books") is only a small part ot it. Copyright also covers sound recording, videos, paintings, photographs, all kinds of graphics, maps, softwares etc, i.e any work which is fixed in a way or another.

In all these cases, copyright protrects the reproduction of a work (= synomym of copy) in a physical form.

As noted previously, I can copy anything I like for my own use. The only prohibition is against selling or misrepresenting that copy.

The problem I see in your reasoning is that you are mixing up "work" and "copy".

If you steal a few copies of a work in a store, well, there will be a loss in revenue but it will be minor. Let say 1% of the entire revenue. Please do not forget that the revenue stream will last an entire life of the author.

If you steal a work, claiming for example that a work is your own, the revenue loss for the author is 100%.

Besides, it is not the publisher who owns the copyright, but the author of the work. All the classics published out there are out of copyright for a long time and this is where the publishers will make most of their money.
You are talking about plagarism or fraud here where ownership/authorship is misrepresented (for profit or gain).

I'm talking nothing of the sort.

Copyright is about generating profit so that the creator may continue to work without starving. In this sense, it supports creativity.
No it doesn't support creativity at all. Copyright more often than not is a method used to stiffle creativity in the name of profits.

For example, my niece is a budding artist and she's incredibly creative - she's always making fantastic drawings, writing stories (with beautiful illustrations) and designing clothes. She apparently does this all without copyright. Ergo, copyright is not needed or necessary for artistic creativity. It is only necessary if one wants to turn one's artistic creativity into an income stream.

Copyright protects income streams for whoever owns the copyright - which is usually a large corporation that didn't actually create the product in question. In the music business for example, the vast majority of music copyright is not owned by the creator of that music. Likewise with Hollywood movies.

And I respectfully submit that the dollar value of the music business and the Hollywood movie business constitutes the largest proportion of the dollar value of all copyrights held in our economy. This just demonstrates that when it comes to big business, creativity is not what copyright is all about. It is about ownership of income streams.

Simply abolishing Copyright as you suggest would be going back to the system as it existed before the concept was created in the 18th century.
I don't see much of a problem with this. Nor do I have much interest in this.

As I've said repeatedly, copyright law isn't very important to me - nor do I consider it very important to the economy. I like to critique copyright law because I think it is poorly constructed, but I really don't care one way or the other since I don't consider it very important (or all that harmful).

It is patent law that I consider the critically important issue that has massive effects on the economy - and it is this law that I believe is in need of repair/reform.

The problem with the anti-copyright front is that it mindlessly puts the entire system into question, not for want of more creativity, 100% of the real creators support copyright of course, but because they want all the stuff for free.
I don't see any basis for this argument to be made. Sure, some music-downloading kiddies might believe this, but the serious people who are making serious arguments against copyright are not motivated by the desire to have 'free' downloads of artistic content. I certainly couldn't care less about 'free content' since I don't care much about listening to music or reading fiction or poetry (nor do I patronize Hollywood movies).

But according to you, my only motivation for saying that copyright law needs to be reformed is because of my desire for downloading music and/or stealing copies of Hollywood movies. That's absurd.

I personally think copyright law is a joke when Disney has ownership of Snow White - which wasn't created by Disney at all - it was Brothers Grimm and it was in the public domain until Disney paid Congress to turn it into the private property of Disney corporation for 99 years (a date that just gets extended by Congress whenever Disney requests it).

That's the kind of travesty with copyright that I consider a problem. But overall, I just don't care much about copyright since it doesn't have a very large effect on the economy and doesn't affect me personally.

Indeed, I suspect that copyright will come under increasing pressure in the future since the process was designed for a system where all forms of content distribution was difficult and expensive. Now distribution is as easy for anyone to do as the creative part. That fundamental change in the economic structure will pose increasing pressure on old-school copyright law that is based on the fiction that distribution is unique and can be controlled.