Personality Cafe banner

1 - 20 of 24 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
346 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Personally, I think the concept is stupid and baseless. The mind doesn't create. It perceives and innovates.
What are your thoughts?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,025 Posts
The entire concept.
Well, then I will give a very general defense of it. First of all, I think it would be great if not having IP's had no effect on the progress of them, then I would be agaisnt IP laws as well.

But the very basis of IP laws, is to protect the one who comes up with a new idea, allowing them to use their own idea to their own benefit. If there was no IP laws, there would be no incentive to create anything beyond your own personal enjoyment. As a company, the only way to protect your innovations would be to keep it a trade secret. This would result in loads of companies hiding their progress and make it impossible for society to use previous innovations to make new and better innovation. We would lose progress until it comes out and is public knowledge. This would make it very hard for small companies, who aren't able to keep up innovating and arent able to purchase recent innovations from others.

You cannot "perceive and innovate" if what you perceive is far behind the current innovations.

Progress in society would slow to a crawl, we wouldn't get as many written works, we would live without many of the innovations we have today and lastly the only argument agaisnt IP protection, is... well, when IP protection is too wide and things that are similar gets sued.

I do not see how any of this is "stupid and baseless", which is a very baseless opinion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
29,545 Posts
There are things that should not cost money and should be shared freely, specifically internet files that were made personally. If I created a .PNG file depicting a waterfall it should be absolutely shareable. If you put no money into a project, you aren't losing money when someone doesn't pay for it and "steals" it. I don't think there should be a right to make money without using money on the internet because everything can be copied virtually infinitely. If I decided to put my picture file on the internet, I won't lose it if someone else decides to download a copy. I think copyright should not be a thing on the internet unless something was made through payment, for example a video game company makes a game, it should be paid for because money was invested into making it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,025 Posts
There are things that should not cost money and should be shared freely, specifically internet files that were made personally. If I created a .PNG file depicting a waterfall it should be absolutely shareable. If you put no money into a project, you aren't losing money when someone doesn't pay for it and "steals" it. I don't think there should be a right to make money without using money on the internet because everything can be copied virtually infinitely. If I decided to put my picture file on the internet, I won't lose it if someone else decides to download a copy. I think copyright should not be a thing on the internet unless something was made through payment, for example a video game company makes a game, it should be paid for because money was invested into making it.
So indie devs who work on their project besides their own job, only using freeware engines, shouldn't get any money because they didn't use any to make it? =)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
346 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
Well, then I will give a very general defense of it. First of all, I think it would be great if not having IP's had no effect on the progress of them, then I would be agaisnt IP laws as well.

But the very basis of IP laws, is to protect the one who comes up with a new idea, allowing them to use their own idea to their own benefit. If there was no IP laws, there would be no incentive to create anything beyond your own personal enjoyment. As a company, the only way to protect your innovations would be to keep it a trade secret. This would result in loads of companies hiding their progress and make it impossible for society to use previous innovations to make new and better innovation. We would lose progress until it comes out and is public knowledge. This would make it very hard for small companies, who aren't able to keep up innovating and arent able to purchase recent innovations from others.

You cannot "perceive and innovate" if what you perceive is far behind the current innovations.

Progress in society would slow to a crawl, we wouldn't get as many written works, we would live without many of the innovations we have today and lastly the only argument agaisnt IP protection, is... well, when IP protection is too wide and things that are similar gets sued.

I do not see how any of this is "stupid and baseless", which is a very baseless opinion.
It's baseless because it's founded upon the assumption that ideas are given birth to, when in reality all one can do is perceive already available information. It's stupid because no matter what legal nonsense backs up one's claims to ownership of an idea, someone they've never spoken to or met, can, and possibly has, come into contact with the same idea.

People have the right to receive credit for guiding the world to beneficial concepts and ideas, but to assume ownership of and to deny others the use of those concepts and ideas is pretentious and arrogant. Feeding such delusions is not necessary to progress. People only need to be recognised for their efforts. They don't need to be put on pedestals.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
29,545 Posts
So indie devs who work on their project besides their own job, only using freeware engines, shouldn't get any money because they didn't use any to make it? =)
They could charge money but then be bypassed by myself and other money hoarders. There's a jailbreak guy who used the same rationale I used to crack jailbreak tweaks except that he recommends using his cracks just to try things out, then pay for the real tweaks to support the developer. I don't think anyone actually follows that though. Unless they are told that cracked tweaks are destructive to a phone which may be true of more ambitious tweaks, not cracked ones from reputable developers who are screened and quality tested, to some degree.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,025 Posts
It's baseless because it's founded upon the assumption that ideas are given birth to, when in reality all one can do is perceive already available information. It's stupid because no matter what legal nonsense backs up one's claims to ownership of an idea, someone they've never spoken to or met, can, and possibly has, come into contact with the same idea.
New ideas often requires work and investment, very rarely do significant innovations come to life without effort. The already availible information you mention, would not be as availible without IP law, it would mostly be kept a secret and thereby hinder innovation.

I do not know the proper English term for this, but there has to be a certain level of innovation 'height' for it to be considered a new invention, and if an invention is not innovative enough, it is not protected under IP law.

The only problem here is that of almost simultaneous innovation, where there are a few laws that protect, but it isn't sufficiently accommodating. Also in part because it really doesn't happen very often.


People have the right to receive credit for guiding the world to beneficial concepts and ideas, but to assume ownership of and to deny others the use of those concepts and ideas is pretentious and arrogant. Feeding such delusions is not necessary to progress. People only need to be recognised for their efforts. They don't need to be put on pedestals.
There is no access to deny others the use of their innovations in patent law, it is actually stated that it must be available for a reasonable price. So this point is entirely faulty.

They could charge money but then be bypassed by myself and other money hoarders. There's a jailbreak guy who used the same rationale I used to crack jailbreak tweaks except that he recommends using his cracks just to try things out, then pay for the real tweaks to support the developer. I don't think anyone actually follows that though. Unless they are told that cracked tweaks are destructive to a phone which may be true of more ambitious tweaks, not cracked ones from reputable developers who are screened and quality tested, to some degree.
Is the possibility of bypassing enough to warrant that they should be bypassed. I do not really see the connection here? how are phones related to IP law?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
29,545 Posts
New ideas often requires work and investment, very rarely do significant innovations come to life without effort. The already availible information you mention, would not be as availible without IP law, it would mostly be kept a secret and thereby hinder innovation.

I do not know the proper English term for this, but there has to be a certain level of innovation 'height' for it to be considered a new invention, and if an invention is not innovative enough, it is not protected under IP law.

The only problem here is that of almost simultaneous innovation, where there are a few laws that protect, but it isn't sufficiently accommodating. Also in part because it really doesn't happen very often.




There is no access to deny others the use of their innovations in patent law, it is actually stated that it must be available for a reasonable price. So this point is entirely faulty.



Is the possibility of bypassing enough to warrant that they should be bypassed. I do not really see the connection here? how are phones related to IP law?
It's not about actual jailbreaking. Say someone independently creates an app. Someone will buy that app and redistribute it for free using some method. It's really piracy, but piracy from something that was made without any resources other used than time and data. It doesn't actually rob the creator of anything tangible if it's just a copiable file.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
16,000 Posts
It is a complex question that is over my head legally, so I will reduce it to what I think is the most basic example:

I am outside raking my lawn. My neighbor is next door doing the same thing. I am not an expert on raking, or leaves. Maybe there is some greater method to it. Never really thought about it. My neighbor has a technique, that I see saves him time. It looks weird, but I try it, and it works. Is that theft?

Sports show these things truly. Can you steel another guy's batting stance or form on his jump shot? It is just the natural, and best way to do it. Like Salk said:

When asked who owned the patent to it, Salk said, "There is no patent. Could you patent the Sun?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,025 Posts
It's not about actual jailbreaking. Say someone independently creates an app. Someone will buy that app and redistribute it for free using some method. It's really piracy, but piracy from something that was made without any resources other used than time and data. It doesn't actually rob the creator of anything tangible if it's just a copiable file.
Well I would argue that time is our most valuable resource. But I see your point with the thing being immaterial, but do you then subscribe to ideas having no intrinsic value? That all ideas are a common good regardless of the effort/resource/time put into it? If that has no value, then wouldn't we have far less things than we do today?

When asked who owned the patent to it, Salk said, "There is no patent. Could you patent the Sun?
If anyone invented a way to create a sun, they would patent the hell out of it and with good reason. =P

To address your points from a legal standpoint, if something only requires a low amount of effort or could easily be reproduced by another specialist in that area, then you cannot patent it. It has to have a certain innovation 'height'.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
29,545 Posts
Well I would argue that time is our most valuable resource. But I see your point with the thing being immaterial, but do you then subscribe to ideas having no intrinsic value? That all ideas are a common good regardless of the effort/resource/time put into it? If that has no value, then wouldn't we have far less things than we do today?
I'm far from knowing from what makes something cost a certain price. But actually there is a catch here. A developer can buy a license, preventing any old person from just downloading their app for free. So I think the distinction would be the purchase or creation of a license. Like if you invented the light bulb, you can go ahead and buy a patent for it so no one else can copy the idea legally, I understand that. But without that license, I see nothing wrong with taking that app.
A different example, if I invent the quantum energy engine airplane thing and I make one for myself and protect it with a patent. Now I can go dominate the airspace using my badass airplane. But that just screws everyone else who wants to compete with that. It's a monopoly and it's overpowered. Now everyone gets their stuff delivered from the guy with a quantum powered awesome airplane, he can now make his prices pretty much whatever he wants because he dominates everything as it is. There's a nice flaw in benefitting oneself above all else. I think things would be better varied and diversified than singular and dominating.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,025 Posts
I'm far from knowing from what makes something cost a certain price. But actually there is a catch here. A developer can buy a license, preventing any old person from just downloading their app for free. So I think the distinction would be the purchase or creation of a license. Like if you invented the light bulb, you can go ahead and buy a patent for it so no one else can copy the idea legally, I understand that. But without that license, I see nothing wrong with taking that app.
A different example, if I invent the quantum energy engine airplane thing and I make one for myself and protect it with a patent. Now I can go dominate the airspace using my badass airplane. But that just screws everyone else who wants to compete with that. It's a monopoly and it's overpowered. Now everyone gets their stuff delivered from the guy with a quantum powered awesome airplane, he can now make his prices pretty much whatever he wants because he dominates everything as it is. There's a nice flaw in benefitting oneself above all else. I think things would be better varied and diversified than singular and dominating.
Well then you can just purchase a license to use his patent, which must be available for a reasonable price? He will get paid for the innovation and have a headstart on making it work, but others are not limited from using the patent. The reason patents are public, is because then other people can use them as well.

People do this a lot with phone technology, where there are loads of license fees to be paid for each part, but it still cheaper than inventing a new way to do it. Patents are also limited in time (usually 20 years).

Law seems far more reasonable than you expect it to be, common sense usually prevails =D


PS: So yeah, the boundaries you mention have already been drawn.

PPS: It seems I am making this possibly meta-level debate rather boring with legal stuff xD
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
306 Posts
It is a complex question that is over my head legally, so I will reduce it to what I think is the most basic example:

I am outside raking my lawn. My neighbor is next door doing the same thing. I am not an expert on raking, or leaves. Maybe there is some greater method to it. Never really thought about it. My neighbor has a technique, that I see saves him time. It looks weird, but I try it, and it works. Is that theft?

Sports show these things truly. Can you steel another guy's batting stance or form on his jump shot? It is just the natural, and best way to do it. Like Salk said:

When asked who owned the patent to it, Salk said, "There is no patent. Could you patent the Sun?
Not quite the same thing. You're talking about things we do, or methods by which we do them.

Positions we pose ourselves in cannot be stolen. Every conceivable pose the human body can make has been done by someone at some point, no one invents such things. Likewise, it doesn't follow that you're stealing anything from them if you copy their method of raking leaves. What are you stealing? You've taken nothing from them. It's your body and your energy, your lawn and your labor.


For this argument, I make analogies to find the root of the issue.

If saw a craft that I liked, but instead of buying it, went home and recreated it from scratch, that would be legal. If I saw an image on the net that I wanted to use for a project, but recreated the image from scratch in photoshop, that would be legal by the same logic. But someone would cry out copy right infringement because I stole their idea. I'm sure the craft creator would be sour about me copying their craft as well, but for some reason, it always seems like the digital world makes the biggest fuss. Why? Because that's what people are doing, and it's become the accepted norm to feel violated when it happens.

Of course, there are legitimate issues regarding intellectual property, but a lot of what I've seen tossed around is fluff and tantrums.

How would laws define the difference? How would they navigate between what's important enough to have ramifications and what isn't? Whether or not profit is involved?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
16,000 Posts
Not quite the same thing. You're talking about things we do, or methods by which we do them.

Positions we pose ourselves in cannot be stolen. Every conceivable pose the human body can make has been done by someone at some point, no one invents such things. Likewise, it doesn't follow that you're stealing anything from them if you copy their method of raking leaves. What are you stealing? You've taken nothing from them. It's your body and your energy, your lawn and your labor.


For this argument, I make analogies to find the root of the issue.

If saw a craft that I liked, but instead of buying it, went home and recreated it from scratch, that would be legal. If I saw an image on the net that I wanted to use for a project, but recreated the image from scratch in photoshop, that would be legal by the same logic. But someone would cry out copy right infringement because I stole their idea. I'm sure the craft creator would be sour about me copying their craft as well, but for some reason, it always seems like the digital world makes the biggest fuss. Why? Because that's what people are doing, and it's become the accepted norm to feel violated when it happens.

Of course, there are legitimate issues regarding intellectual property, but a lot of what I've seen tossed around is fluff and tantrums.

How would laws define the difference? How would they navigate between what's important enough to have ramifications and what isn't? Whether or not profit is involved?
It is an idea you are stealing. The idea is the key. That is the magic. Not the physical motion, but coming up with it. Anybody can do the technique, it is the invention of it. One could say every idea already existed in some form, and any physical use of it is theft. The application of it anyway.

It gets into psychology and philosophy. George Harrison is a good example of this. Stole a song unconsciously perhaps.

JK Rowling is all about copyrights. Witches, magic, brooms, all this stuff, all have some sort of previous existence. The ideas have previous manifestations. She just built on them, and added her own spin. It is difficult to tell what parts she is actually "responsible" for, and can make claim to. Perhaps, if we view brains properly, everybody would be a plagiarist.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
306 Posts
It's based more around the context of the idea, how it's used, and how practical it would be to enforce copyrights on the idea.

Theoretically, if an idea can be protected as intellectual property, then yes, it would extend to all ideas of all types regardless of the specifics, but that all or nothing approach would be insane. The leaf raking example, for instance. How could your neighbor prove he invented the method? What if someone in another town was using the same method and had been using it for years? On the other hand, an author publishes their work and it's widely accessible and trackable. That's not to say that just because you can't prove it, it's okay, but it has a lot to do with why some examples don't fall into the intellectual property category. Sometimes, it's just not feasible to enforce it.

It also has to do with how much harm is done to the creator.

Personally, I'm on the fence about this issue. It has a good purpose, but can be misused.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
123 Posts
I'm generally in favor of intellectual property, copyright in particular, though they're not without their problems that need to be fixed.

I think a lot of the angst over IP, particularly among tech-savvy types, is driven by two things:

1. Patent trolling - Personally I think there should be no software patents, only copyright. Most software patents are complete nonsense and the patent office isn't competent enough to determine their merits and is far too liberal at handing them out.

2. Overzealous enforcement of digital piracy - This would be a relatively minor issue in the big picture if corporations weren't co-opting government and law enforcement to do their dirty work for them. Enforcing your claims through the civil court system is proper; criminalizing copyright violations is not. This is a political problem, and we should be putting pressure on politicians to decriminalize copyright violations and put them back in civil court where it they belong. The reason corporations want it this way is because it dumps off court costs onto the government. They wouldn't bother with small scale offenders otherwise, because the legal cost would far exceed the benefit.

Note that the important protection of copyright is not from people copying your work for personal use - trying to stop that is a quixotic endeavor - but rather preventing people from copying you work for commercial use. This protects individual creators from larger organizations who would appropriate their work for their own ends.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,464 Posts
People should be entitled to what they create. The exception for me is medicine. Any progress in medicine should be usable for anyone. Otherwise you'll just be able to exploit the ill.

I don't see why a copyright should hold after the death of the creator however. That just feels like Disney wanting to protect Mickey mouse.
 
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
Top