Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[BorkBorkGoesTheCode]

IMO copyright is an outgrowth of Renaissance censorship, merged with monopoly interests. The one good thing, author credit, can be easily separated from copyright.

History:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licensing_of_the_Press_Act_1662

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright

Discuss if you want, but don't fight anybody.

[martinuzz]

IMO copyright, and even moreso patent laws are one of the main forces holding back global technological development. (And causing millions of deaths every year)

Over here in the Netherlands, a new law was passed in this regard recently. In a few years, scientist working at Dutch universities and science labs (at least publicly funded ones) will have to publish their studies in open access, freely accesible media instead of only in paywalled magazines like Science and Nature. They have to pay for the publications themselves too.

We've introduced the concept to the EU as well, but nationally we're ahead of that schedule.
https://english.eu2016.nl/latest/news/2016/04/05/eu-action-plan-for-open-science

[NullForceOmega]

I am megacorp A.  You have just published a program that I can exploit for my interests.  I take your program, monetize it using my large readily available infrastructure, and exclude you from the process and income entirely.

With copyright laws, you have legal recourse to prosecute me for theft of IP and claim damages i.e. lost profit.

Without copyright laws you can do nothing but watch as I use your creation as I see fit and will not ever be able to defend yourself from such abuse, thereby creating an environment that actively punishes individuals trying to create new IP.

Debate about the revisions necessary to make the system better balanced for the modern world all you want, it exists for a reason and that will not ever change.

[martinuzz]

I am megacorp A. I just designed an ultra cheap to produce medicine against AIDS. Thanks to the patent I have on it, I can ask super high prices for it. Who cares that some dumb blacks in Africa can't afford it. I'll sue anyone who tries to produce it and make it available cheaper.

[BorkBorkGoesTheCode]

That is patent law.

[BorkBorkGoesTheCode]

I am megacorp A.  You have just published a program that I can exploit for my interests.  I take your program, monetize it using my large readily available infrastructure, and exclude you from the process and income entirely.

With copyright laws, you have legal recourse to prosecute me for theft of IP and claim damages i.e. lost profit.

Without copyright laws you can do nothing but watch as I use your creation as I see fit and will not ever be able to defend yourself from such abuse, thereby creating an environment that actively punishes individuals trying to create new IP.

Debate about the revisions necessary to make the system better balanced for the modern world all you want, it exists for a reason and that will not ever change.

Do I still have access to my program in that scenario?

[NullForceOmega]

Did I not just say that it needs to be reworked for modern usage?  If I wasn't clear enough then here we go again:  The system exists for a reason and nothing in the world will change that simple basic fact, there is however a need to keep that system modern so that abusing it is more difficult and it provides better protection.

The systems we use to protect IP can be abused, that is fact, but without them the abuse will be compounded beyond imagination.

Assume you do have access to your program, how are you going to compete with the now widely distributed and commercially successful version?

[Orange Wizard]

IMO we do need some degree of copyright/patenting, but it should be much less restrictive than it is today. Nullforce and martin both bring up valid issues with copyright and it's not a one-or-the-other issue. I would not support the abolition of intellectual property but I also don't support the current arrangement. I believe a middle ground needs to be found, and we can do that the very second "protecting businesses" stops being a valid argument.

[NullForceOmega]

I agree OW, the laws would probably still be immensely beneficial to businesses if they were better structured anyway, it just wouldn't overwhelmingly favor them.

Bork: you must also assume that normal criminal laws are still in place, this hypothetical hinges on the removal of IP protections only, not the removal of rule of law.

[martinuzz]

On a wholly different level, Google's approach to combatting illegal Youtube videos of copyrighted material does have something to say for it.
They are using pattern recognition (Content ID) software to find such Youtube videos.
If one is found, instead of removing it, commercial advertisements are automatically added to the clip, and part of the income from those are sent to the artists holding the copyright. Artists can also choose to have it removed instead of this option.

Whether Youtube is paying the artists enough this way is another matter. The idea in itself isn't bad I think.

[NullForceOmega]

Their pattern recognition software is also very bad at its job due to over-generalization, a lot of what gets flagged isn't even actually protected (fair use is probably far too difficult a problem for any existing computer.)

The largest complaint I have with the system is that it is (almost) entirely automated, when there really needs to be lots of human involvement in the claims handling portion.

[Orange Wizard]

Also the guilty-until-proven-innocent approach they have, where copyright strikes are issued when the holder makes a claim, leaving channel owners to dispute it rather than Google actually making sure if the law was being broken.

[martinuzz]

I'd say that would be logistical nescessity. If Google would have to check that for every claim, we'd solve world unemployment and make internet unaffordable.

[NullForceOmega]

I don't oppose them using a program to handle the server-side issues, I just think they should handle their position as a moderator more carefully, or leave it up to the claimants and the legal system (not that that would be any better, but it removes the burden from them entirely.)

[alexandertnt]

I am megacorp A. I just designed an ultra cheap to produce medicine against AIDS. Thanks to the patent I have on it, I can ask super high prices for it. Who cares that some dumb blacks in Africa can't afford it. I'll sue anyone who tries to produce it and make it available cheaper.

I am megacorp A. Due to some drug manufactures not having to pay any R&D costs, they are able to undercut us, and as such we won't bother put money into researching something that we can't profit on. Now there is no medicine against AIDS.

(I don't understand why you decided to use an example where the patented product already exists, considering how expensive R&D is)

It would be less of an issue if there was more public money put into public research, as then profitability isn't necessarily required for research to go ahead, but given the strong capitalistic leanings of America and other similar countries, this is a whole different issue.

(Yes though, this is patent law and not copyright law, which IIRC only has a 20 year protection)

or leave it up to the claimants and the legal system

IIRC not acting on a DCMA would leave them open for legal action too, so the only way for them to remove legal burden from themselves is to act on the takedown. claimants can take it to the legal system if they wish regardless.