In my opinion, more protectionism would be a good thing, i.e. it would make better sense than what we've got now.Originally Posted by BetterSense
However, that debate brings us into the realm of politics, so discussion of it is prohibited here.
In my opinion, more protectionism would be a good thing, i.e. it would make better sense than what we've got now.
I'm with you, BetterSense,
Copyright laws are vestiges of another time, and don't apply to the modern world. That copyright laws benefit, or might benefit an individual or an industry is irrelevant. Copyright laws were created to benefit society as a whole by "Encouraging men of learning to write useful books". We don't need to privilege the activities copyright laws seek to protect, and society as a whole is more harmed by copyright laws than it benefits by them. We need to change the way we think about creativity and ownership and say goodbye to ill-conceived concepts of Intellectual Property. We need to think bigger, and better.
Protectionism is political, but copyright is not? That's an interesting perspective!In my opinion, more protectionism would be a good thing, i.e. it would make better sense than what we've got now.
We certainly do, but it would be unlikely to happen all at once and boldly. I'm not ready to do away with copyright, but it needs radical change. It should be less restrictive for all media and drastically shorter not longer for new works after ___ date. The shortness should be based on an expected reasonable lifecycle suitable for the 21st century.
If a pro musician can't make his expected $ on a song in 20 years, he should be either produce more new stuff or do it for fun. If a photographer loses copyright after 20 years, the ability to reproduce the image for sale super long term would be based on an appreciation for originality/authenticity rather than law, favoring analog reproduction rather than digital where a computer file would allow countless identical perfect copies to be made until WW3.
Software patents lock up building blocks of computing; sort of like re-patenting the nail, 2x4 and hammer. Little is new for ways of organizing and calculating data in a computer and it shouldn't receive a patent for that. The software merely takes advantages of better hardware, better Internet, etc.. to do things that were impractical or too costly before.
As a programmer, I believe in very-short-term copyrights (5 years for software maybe - if you can't commercialise it in that time you don't deserve it and/or it's become irrelevant) and certainly not software patents. I am of course a fan of (and contributor to) free/open source. Copyrights that go for death-of-author plus 75 years (only if owned by a corporation, wtf?) are unarguably a chilling effect on innovation in any creative realm, be it photography or software.
You yanks with your WIPO, ACTA and money-in-politics are really buggering up the IP landscape for the rest of us.
Actually there is much that is new and very clever in software but that doesn't mean it should be patentable. In fact, most of the best stuff is published in academic journals.
Of course most software patents are issued for old / well-known / obvious things but that's a side-effect of USPTO underfunding/incompetence, which is of course immediately and heavily taken advantage of.
ex-Pic-A-Day (slowed after 2 years)
on flickr
Analogue Photo and Film FAQ (for APUG)
Open Source F/Stop Timer
My son who is a high end web developer and complains about this too. But why wouldn't this force you to be more creative and reinvent the wheel? I'm seriously asking.Copyrights that go for death-of-author plus 75 years (only if owned by a corporation, wtf?) are unarguably a chilling effect on innovation in any creative realm, be it photography or software.
Thanks,
Kirk
at age 73:
"The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep"
On the other hand, if software works go public domain after 5 years that might induce software makers to make things that obsolesce quickly. They tend to do that now but a 5 year copyright term could make it an existential priority.
Mike → "Junior Liberatory Scientist" ✌
Why the hell would I want to reinvent a wheel? There are perfectly good wheels available off the shelf and what I want to do is make racing cars. We buy commercially-produced film so that we don't have to hand-pour our own plates. Those who want to play with goo can while the rest of us get on being productive with making creative images instead.
Of course, there is a big group of open-source people reinventing the closed-source wheels - boring work but valuable. Sometimes they improve on it, sometimes they get it wrong. I prefer to create new things but I realise that I owe that opportunity to the free-software people who went before me and made their wheels available for free.
Two answers to that: open standards and trade secrets. Standards and interoperability are hugely valuable to society as a whole because they promote competition and prevent arbitrary obsolescence. The other thing is that commercial software is generally published only as a binary and therefore its operation is a trade secret. You can keep a trade secret for as long as you like. Doesn't matter if copyright expired if you're the only one holding the source code! The flipside to relying on trade secrets is that if what your product does is so obvious that someone else can figure out how it works, you have no effective protection... which is as it should be. Anyone can make a bicycle, therefore many companies do so.
ex-Pic-A-Day (slowed after 2 years)
on flickr
Analogue Photo and Film FAQ (for APUG)
Open Source F/Stop Timer
I would say the exact opposite, remembering that most items that are copyrighted are essentially entertainment - i.e. books, music, tv and video. The world doesn't need more Mickey Mouse cartoons or covers of 60's music or Movie and TV reruns. Create something new. Innovate, don't copy.
Simple: the wheel has been patented. Any other round device used for transportation or movement is an infringement of that patent. Any device moving in a circular motion for transportation or movement is also an infringement of that patent. Tread locomotion has also been patented. Leg-like locomotion has also been patented. Etc, etc. Seriously, there is a patent for swinging on a children's playground swing using a side-to-side motion.
Real case: the patent for web shopping carts is owned by a doctor down in Florida. All shopping cart software must pay fees to the aforementioned doctor. The doctor never developed any software, he just has a patent.
NPR's This American Life ran a story called, When Patents Attack.
Fighting patents is very, very expensive. Once upon a time I worked as a programmer for a little company which connected mainframes to PCs and Unix workstations. A fellow who held a patent sued us for patent infringement. The company owner said, "OK, we'll pay you." The patent holder then decided to up the settlement fees. The business owner got PO-ed, and decided to fight. He spent millions fighting the patent, and sank the company into heavy debt. In the end, and after firing his first lawyers and getting the best patent lawyers in Seattle, he won, and the patent was tossed out on a technicality. However, the judge said that he had never seen so much prior art presented at a trial before.
The technicality was that the patent office had initially rejected the patent, and required the holder to refile the patent within a specific time period. The patent holder missed that deadline by six months, and the patent office granted the patent regardless of the missed deadline.
When a patent holder loses a patent, the holder must then pay back everybody that was hit for fees. That's the rules of the game.
I have read an estimate that about 1/3 of the patents are invalid. But it takes so much money to fight that companies normally roll over and pay.
"It's the way to educate your eyes. Stare. Pry, listen, eavesdrop. Die knowing something. You are not here long." - Walker Evans
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks