Intellectual Property rights and the threat to Enterprise

[Inigima]

I have some sympathy for Maia's argument. My interest in IP law is pragmatic, and if the choice is for someone to consume something intangible and infinite in quantity at no cost to its creator, and whether he does or doesn't it isn't possible for the creator to reap any benefit, I'm not sure I see a problem with that. Someone who can't afford to buy an MP3 listening to it anyway doesn't really affect anyone else.

I dabble in music, photography and writing and I have no inclination to ever charge money for anything I produce. This is my philosophy.

And this is the crux of it: you're a dabbler. In order to allow artists to hone their craft and become truly skilled, we should want to operate under a system that allows them to support themselves through their craft.

[Maia]

While I utterly disagree with your apparent conclusion that piracy free-for-all is A-OK, despite the effects it would have on innocent creators' income,

Way to distort my argument. I keep suggesting practical ways to get more people to pay for e-books, ways that have been already proven to work for other media, but you'd rather engage in empty rhetoric.

Piracy is here to stay. You can deal with this fact constructively and improve the situation, or you can engage in pointless finger-pointing and crying. It won't help the authors one bit, though.

humans (at least in a capitalist society in which the experimenters operated) are strongly drawn to "free", over and above the financial consequences: it's a psychological impulse to grab something for nothing.

Indeed. Which reveals the claims of that YA author you mentioned for the bogus they are. People grabbed illegal downloads of her book because they were free, _not_ because they would have otherwise bought it. Most of those people will probably never even open the file.

And again, publishers are making pretty penny on the e-books even with the current less-than-ideal system.

Also, what income are those "innocent creators" currently deriving from the Third World countries, pray? How does it affect them one way or another, if people there better their lives by pirating their works?

Or is it just that the poor unwashed masses should remain in their place, in the stone age, because the West mistakenly thinks that they'd be easier to handle and exploit that way? Small hint - they won't. So, you'd better hope that they'd like our culture and want to get into our way of life, rather than doing something more dangerous. Once they become more affluent, they'd be more amenable to paying - as seen in Russia.

If you want creators to get something from the Third World now, then you need a delivery system that is convenient for people there to use and prices that the market would bear, in local currency. But, funnily enough, I don't see publishers rushing to do that. So, them's the breaks. Nature doesn't tolerate a vacuum.

[Shryke]

Well, nobody can deny that a whole generation of software developers in the Eastern Europe sprung up due solely to piracy ;). And however some may cry that it is totally wrong and they should have remained computer illiterate, since most programs legally cost more than their parents earned in several months or even a year, I'd say that it is clearly a positive result. As well, lots of people learned English, who otherwise would have been unable to.

Also, if you look at the Third World countries, there are a lot of much more dangerous things that people could be doing in order to fill their spiritual needs, than pirating entertainment.

We are all better off if they pirate ASOIAF than if they turn to religious fundamentalism, ideological extremism or (production of) drugs. Additionally, it would help them learn English and hopefully make a better life for themselves and ideally help them contribute better to their country's economy too.

Yes, but how many pirates are this group and how many are a bunch of people just wanting to see something and don't feel like paying for it.

[quirksome]

Quick poll to confirm or refute my prejudices about younger people not willing to pay for stuff online:

-If you are Anti-IP, are you under 30?

(Arbitrary age set for Gen Y) If not, what age range are you in? 30-40, 40-50 etc.

-If you are Anti-Piracy, what age range are you in?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Quirksome,

I'm 40.

[Solmyr]

Under 30, you know my position on the matter.

[Zoë Sumra]

Over 30, but not by much. I'm pro-IP in a creators' rights sense, though I think several aspects of the way online piracy has been handled by IP owners/protectors are done so stupidly and counter-productively.

[snake]

I'm a year younger than Scott and I don't have that big a problem with piracy. If I really like something I pay for it. If I'm wondering if something is any good I'll get it for free. Although, as of this moment I haven't pirated a book. Just movies, music and some software. And i really don't do it that often but I like it that I do have that option.

[Greywolf2375]

40, haven't & won't.

[Inigima]

A few years under 30. Pro-IP, but opposed to the current structure of IP law, opposed to current enforcement mechanisms, and possessed of a seething, virulent hatred of content industry groups and lobbies and of the unethical and sometimes, IMO, illegal measures they employ.

Basically, I believe in a fair shake -- for everyone. That's a two-way street.

[Serious Callers Only]

http://arstechnica.c...cal-patents.ars

herp a derp

[quirksome]

http://arstechnica.c...cal-patents.ars

Ok that's messed up.

For two decades, the software industry has struggled with the harmful effects of patents on software. In contrast, doctors have traditionally been free to practice medicine without worrying about whether their treatment decisions run afoul of someone's patent. Now the Supreme Court seems poised to expand patent law into the medical profession, where it's unlikely to work any better than it has in software.

...The case focuses on a patent that covers the concept of adjusting the dosage of a drug, thiopurine, based on the concentration of a particular chemical (called a metabolite) in the patient's blood. The patent does not cover the drug itself—that patent expired years ago—nor does it cover any specific machine or procedure for measuring the metabolite level. Rather, it covers the idea that particular levels of the chemical "indicate a need" to raise or lower the drug dosage.

...Also opposing the patent was a broad coalition of medical providers led by the American Medical Association. "If claims to exclusive rights over the body's natural responses to illness and medical treatment are permitted to stand, the result will be a vast thicket of exclusive rights over the use of critical scientific data that must remain widely available if physicians are to provide sound medical care," the medical organizations' brief argued. "Conscientious physicians will be unwilling and unable to avoid considering all relevant scientific information when reviewing test results," the doctors wrote. "Thus, as medical knowledge accumulates, patent licenses increasingly will be required for physicians to conduct even well established diagnostic tests."

...Unfortunately, the justices seemed oblivious to these arguments. And the man who should have been making them, Mayo counsel Stephen Shapiro, completely ignored them. Instead, he seemed to concede the legality of medical patents in general...

ARGH, Pharma IP is so crazy, if this goes ahead it's going to hurt patient care even more! :angry:

[Serious Callers Only]

it's just arguments yet

[felice]

Anti-piracy ad uses pirated music *ROTFL*

(NB the ad in question is a Dutch one, not the English one frequently associated with articles on the topic)

[Forderz]

http://arstechnica.c...cal-patents.ars

herp a derp

I have yet to read a novel with a future so dystopian that medical knowledge is patented. That is how fucked up that is. And SCOTUS seems completely oblivious that it's even an issue!

[A wilding]

I have yet to read a novel with a future so dystopian that medical knowledge is patented.

Total Eclipse by John Brunner is not far off this subject.

[SpicyTurkey]

So you think we should order our economic/legal system based on something that is unlikely to happen during the life of the universe?

In any case, if the trillion monkeys on a trillion keyboards beat Martin to the punch, they are free to copyright their book, the same as Martin did. But they didn't, nor did they apparently publish their "idea" even without a copyright. And as you concede, the likelihood of anyone actually doing that is infintesimal. Couple that level of probability with the fact that they did not publish their book, and the conclusion that they did not write the book already is inescapable.

And theoretically, even if those trilliion monkeys developed their book after Martin, or developed it before but failed to publish, and could prove that they developed it completely separate from Martin, they'd have a good argument for the copyright not applying to them. Of course, because of your "life of the Universe" concession, the claim from the trillion monkeys would very likely be fraudulent, so they would not be able to prove it anyway.

To say that taking away Martin's copyright would "in no way affect Martin" is simply ludicrous

I based my arguments on the notion of scarcity. Ideas can be replicated with no loss to Martin himself. You have the right to claim ownership over something scarce. In other words property is equivalent to the usage of a specific scarce material. An idea is not a specific material, and hence lacks scarcity. If for example I manage to duplicate a car, then does that in any way effect the original? Other than the fact that we have more of it. The obvious answer is no.

Except under your theory, you reduce the economic value of writing the content of a book to virtually zero, because anyone could take a copy of his book, copy the text (even just scan it), publish it, and sell it. The value becomes equal to the physical cost of production, with author content having little or no value at all. After all, given the negligible costs of converting a book to electronic format, sellers who expended virtually nothing to acquire the book and convert it to electronic format could sell it very cheaply. They'd have to, because the ease of entering that market would mean that there could be thousands of potential sellers who profit even if they only charge $.05/book.

Now we enter the crux of the problem. Your contention is that Martin will have to compete, and god forbid that should ever happen. Before you make such a claim you have to understand the market. The market allows Martin to reach the consumer first, and hence allow him consume most of the market share. For him to continue to stay in competition he has to continue to offer products that are much efficient and cheaper than his competitors.

Like you said. With the internet it is much harder to protect IP, and Martin must either adapt or face extinction.

[SpicyTurkey]

ST,

But without the knowledge of how to fix the sink in the first place paying the plumber for his labor would be rather foolish. Knowledge and ability to perform the labor desired is a necessary condition precedant of any contract.

So are you paying him for the knowledge? Or for the labor? You're not paying him for both. I can assure you that much. Of course his knowledge concerning his task is important, but you also discount the fact that some other plumber will offer is services at a cheaper price despite the fact that both are suitable for the job.

I agree with the bolded 100%.