7 ms·

> But how does this happen? IMO both the patent and the copyright laws, at least in the US, are broken. The original goal was good: encourage individual invent

by ptero 9y ago

> But how does this happen? IMO both the patent and the copyright laws, at least in the US, are broken. The original goal was good: encourage individual inventors to make technology that the whole society will benefit from at a price of some limitation on use by society for a short period of time. In the current system, "the whole society will benefit" part does not work because time limits are too high -- at the modern technology pace, in 20 years most inventions are obsolete. I think the best way to fix it is to drastically shorten the time the invention is protected, which would require major compromises. Unfortunately, the discussion now seems very polarized: it seems to be "all information should be free" against "copyright everything and it needs to last longer, longer, longer" as major camps with little in the middle.

wu-ikkyu 9y ago
>The original goal was good: encourage individual inventors to make technology that the whole society will benefit from at a price of some limitation on use by society for a short period of time I know this is the common belief of the origin of patent law, but is there actually any evidence that this is the case? As I understand patent law originated as a way for monarchy to maintain control over innovation and intellect: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_roll https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_roll
- kbutler 9y ago
  The Congress shall have power...To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries; https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section8 https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section8 Yes, patents existed before the US Constitution, but the reason the practice was formalized in the US was to promote progress.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - adrianratnapala 9y ago
    Or at least that was the already well-known public justification put in the US constitution there at the end of a lobbying process.
    - kbutler 9y ago
      There doesn't seem to have been much of a lobbying process. It was accepted with little debate, and other options to promote progress were rejected. Copyright was a well-established practice inherited from British common law, and viewed by Madison to be clearly in the public interest: "The utility of this power will scarcely be questioned. The copyright of authors has been solemnly adjudged in Great Britain, to be a right of common law. The right to useful inventions seems with equal reason to belong to the inventors. The public good fully coincides in both cases with the claims of individuals. The States cannot separately make effectual provisions for either of the cases, and most of them have anticipated the decision of this point, by laws passed at the instance of Congress." Federalist 43 For more background: http://www.copyhype.com/2010/09/copyright-and-the-constitution/ http://www.copyhype.com/2010/09/copyright-and-the-constituti...
      - adrianratnapala 9y ago
        At least with regards to copyright, it is pretty well known that Noah Webster was lobbying powerfully for it [1]. The quote you have from Madison no doubt reflects his real opnion, and well the established view in Britain. But the reason he needed to write it in his letters was that he had to argue against the opposite view among other founders. You can guess which side Webster supported. And this is the kind of thing I mean about it being a "well-known public justification". [1]: http://www.thejanuarist.com/noah-webster-father-of-the-american-copyright-system/ http://www.thejanuarist.com/noah-webster-father-of-the-ameri...
      - dragonwriter 9y ago
        The Federalist Papers were campaign propaganda for the ratification of the Constitution; a comment in the Federalist Papers is not a basis for rejecting the possibility that the position put forward in that comment is a public rationalization rather than the real motivation, any moreso than would be the case for any argument put forward in any other work of political campaign propaganda.
  - hrktb 9y ago
    I think we should recognize there can be a strong misalignment between what’s written in a text and its actual purpose or how it will be enforced. For instance the patriot act surely was filled with feel good vocabulary about protecting the public good, net neutrality’s repel “to increase investment”, and I’m sure the coming up “save the children” act that will aim at giving better education and critical thinking to younger generations.
- alex_stoddard 9y ago
  That is not my understanding. The current use of the word "patent" has become rather ironic compared to its historical meaning. "Patent" just means "open", in this case openly declared, not secret. Ideally "patenting" an invention provides an alternative to an inventor hoarding a trade secret that dies with him or his company. The quid pro quo for the public good of making a technology open knowledge is a temporary government granted monopoly. The ideal and reality seem to have parted company a long time ago...
- typeformer 9y ago
  The first intellectual property fight was over the ability to copy a bible. It lead to a multiyear war where many were killed and later to the schism in the church.
Chardok 9y ago
CGP Grey also did a fantastic video on the history of copyright and Disney's constant involvement. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tk862BbjWx4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tk862BbjWx4
- cup-of-tea 9y ago
  CGP Grey's is short and easy to digest for most people, I imagine. What really made me think about copyrights, patentds and trademarks is Richard Stallman's excellent talk called Copyright vs Community. Many recordings can be found online. I wonder if anyone might recommend what the best recording of this is? It's also about two hours long when he gives it, I wonder if there is a shorter version?
tripzilch 9y ago
That is patents. While it may seem similar, patents actually are "some kind of privileged status that you have to pay for", or at least have to officially register (I'm not sure if you have to pay for a patent, doesn't matter). Patents are troublesome, in particular software patents, and in particular in the US due to the way patent trolls work. But that is an entirely different discussion. Different groups and people behind it, different power struggle. Let's focus on copyright. Copyright. The way the US enforces it and exerts influence over it--which is what the article is about--makes it a worldwide problem. Another weird thing is, even from the "copyright everything" camp, it must seem that the US is disproportionately represented+enforced. But you don't hear them about that. There's a few reasons for that, larger non-US studios/distributors often have deals with US studios/distributors. But those deals are mainly with the US, so on the whole it is still disproportionately represented. I kind of wonder, but have never seen any clear evidence for this so this is just speculation: Even outside the US, a very large percentage of media (pop songs, films, TV series) are of US origin. At least in the Netherlands: Domestic films are considered "niche", the hit charts are dominated by US pop songs and the majority of TV series broadcast and/or watched are US-based. Of course a large driving force behind this phenomenon is that (in NL) we all speak English, but how do you think it became that way? It's not education; We also learn German and French in school, but the Dutch people speak way better English than they speak the language of our neighbours (Germany), let alone French. And such is the case for a large part of Europe at least (I won't try to speak for places that I don't have much knowledge about). That's some strong cultural influence. It is power. The US probably wants to keep it that way, it's an amazing way to influence thought in western culture everywhere. Anyway it is power, so there must be forces that want to keep it. But the anti-piracy movements seem kind of antithetical to that, right? They are restricting distribution. So how does that add up? There doesn't seem to be a (public) fight between the "global cultural influence" forces in the US and the "content industry" forces. Again, I'm just speculating, but I can think of a few reasons: It's not about restricting distribution per se, it's about controlling distribution, and control is power. Another way is that by restricting supply (and with a lot of show), it is perceived as valuable, which legitimises. But that doesn't seem to be enough, considering the enormous amount of influence and power on cultures and thought all over the world, the US has control over. Restricting supply is just a trick and controlling distribution is not enough, there must be a force that pushes, too. But what is it? (I'm probably overlooking something extremely obvious because the alternative would be a world-wide psyops-campaign). I mean, unless US pop-culture is just that much superior, that good, that everybody wants it, everywhere. But that also seems unlikely (and I don't mean that by hating on pop-music or anything, because non-US pop-music is really just as "shit", the "main stream" is still art IMHO, even when I don't like it myself, and that's a whole other discussion again).
setr 9y ago
>encourage individual inventors to make technology that the whole society will benefit from at a price of some limitation on use by society for a short period of time I always imagined it was more along the lines of encouraging inventors to open-source their technologies, by giving them greater legal defenses for doing so. To avoid the "apple does research, and archives it secretly, lost forever if it doesn't reach market" scenario; instead we now see Apple publishing anything and everything it thinks it can lay claim on, to tune of absurd claims today, but in (80) years, the research is still available to all

by ptero 9y ago

wu-ikkyu 9y ago

>The original goal was good: encourage individual inventors to make technology that the whole society will benefit from at a price of some limitation on use by society for a short period of time I know this is the common belief of the origin of patent law, but is there actually any evidence that this is the case? As I understand patent law originated as a way for monarchy to maintain control over innovation and intellect: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_roll https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_roll

kbutler 9y ago
The Congress shall have power...To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries; https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section8 https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section8 Yes, patents existed before the US Constitution, but the reason the practice was formalized in the US was to promote progress.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- adrianratnapala 9y ago
  Or at least that was the already well-known public justification put in the US constitution there at the end of a lobbying process.
  - kbutler 9y ago
    There doesn't seem to have been much of a lobbying process. It was accepted with little debate, and other options to promote progress were rejected. Copyright was a well-established practice inherited from British common law, and viewed by Madison to be clearly in the public interest: "The utility of this power will scarcely be questioned. The copyright of authors has been solemnly adjudged in Great Britain, to be a right of common law. The right to useful inventions seems with equal reason to belong to the inventors. The public good fully coincides in both cases with the claims of individuals. The States cannot separately make effectual provisions for either of the cases, and most of them have anticipated the decision of this point, by laws passed at the instance of Congress." Federalist 43 For more background: http://www.copyhype.com/2010/09/copyright-and-the-constitution/ http://www.copyhype.com/2010/09/copyright-and-the-constituti...
    - adrianratnapala 9y ago
      At least with regards to copyright, it is pretty well known that Noah Webster was lobbying powerfully for it [1]. The quote you have from Madison no doubt reflects his real opnion, and well the established view in Britain. But the reason he needed to write it in his letters was that he had to argue against the opposite view among other founders. You can guess which side Webster supported. And this is the kind of thing I mean about it being a "well-known public justification". [1]: http://www.thejanuarist.com/noah-webster-father-of-the-american-copyright-system/ http://www.thejanuarist.com/noah-webster-father-of-the-ameri...
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      The Federalist Papers were campaign propaganda for the ratification of the Constitution; a comment in the Federalist Papers is not a basis for rejecting the possibility that the position put forward in that comment is a public rationalization rather than the real motivation, any moreso than would be the case for any argument put forward in any other work of political campaign propaganda.
- hrktb 9y ago
  I think we should recognize there can be a strong misalignment between what’s written in a text and its actual purpose or how it will be enforced. For instance the patriot act surely was filled with feel good vocabulary about protecting the public good, net neutrality’s repel “to increase investment”, and I’m sure the coming up “save the children” act that will aim at giving better education and critical thinking to younger generations.
alex_stoddard 9y ago
That is not my understanding. The current use of the word "patent" has become rather ironic compared to its historical meaning. "Patent" just means "open", in this case openly declared, not secret. Ideally "patenting" an invention provides an alternative to an inventor hoarding a trade secret that dies with him or his company. The quid pro quo for the public good of making a technology open knowledge is a temporary government granted monopoly. The ideal and reality seem to have parted company a long time ago...
typeformer 9y ago
The first intellectual property fight was over the ability to copy a bible. It lead to a multiyear war where many were killed and later to the schism in the church.

Chardok 9y ago

CGP Grey also did a fantastic video on the history of copyright and Disney's constant involvement. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tk862BbjWx4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tk862BbjWx4

cup-of-tea 9y ago
CGP Grey's is short and easy to digest for most people, I imagine. What really made me think about copyrights, patentds and trademarks is Richard Stallman's excellent talk called Copyright vs Community. Many recordings can be found online. I wonder if anyone might recommend what the best recording of this is? It's also about two hours long when he gives it, I wonder if there is a shorter version?

tripzilch 9y ago

That is patents. While it may seem similar, patents actually are "some kind of privileged status that you have to pay for", or at least have to officially register (I'm not sure if you have to pay for a patent, doesn't matter). Patents are troublesome, in particular software patents, and in particular in the US due to the way patent trolls work. But that is an entirely different discussion. Different groups and people behind it, different power struggle. Let's focus on copyright. Copyright. The way the US enforces it and exerts influence over it--which is what the article is about--makes it a worldwide problem. Another weird thing is, even from the "copyright everything" camp, it must seem that the US is disproportionately represented+enforced. But you don't hear them about that. There's a few reasons for that, larger non-US studios/distributors often have deals with US studios/distributors. But those deals are mainly with the US, so on the whole it is still disproportionately represented. I kind of wonder, but have never seen any clear evidence for this so this is just speculation: Even outside the US, a very large percentage of media (pop songs, films, TV series) are of US origin. At least in the Netherlands: Domestic films are considered "niche", the hit charts are dominated by US pop songs and the majority of TV series broadcast and/or watched are US-based. Of course a large driving force behind this phenomenon is that (in NL) we all speak English, but how do you think it became that way? It's not education; We also learn German and French in school, but the Dutch people speak way better English than they speak the language of our neighbours (Germany), let alone French. And such is the case for a large part of Europe at least (I won't try to speak for places that I don't have much knowledge about). That's some strong cultural influence. It is power. The US probably wants to keep it that way, it's an amazing way to influence thought in western culture everywhere. Anyway it is power, so there must be forces that want to keep it. But the anti-piracy movements seem kind of antithetical to that, right? They are restricting distribution. So how does that add up? There doesn't seem to be a (public) fight between the "global cultural influence" forces in the US and the "content industry" forces. Again, I'm just speculating, but I can think of a few reasons: It's not about restricting distribution per se, it's about controlling distribution, and control is power. Another way is that by restricting supply (and with a lot of show), it is perceived as valuable, which legitimises. But that doesn't seem to be enough, considering the enormous amount of influence and power on cultures and thought all over the world, the US has control over. Restricting supply is just a trick and controlling distribution is not enough, there must be a force that pushes, too. But what is it? (I'm probably overlooking something extremely obvious because the alternative would be a world-wide psyops-campaign). I mean, unless US pop-culture is just that much superior, that good, that everybody wants it, everywhere. But that also seems unlikely (and I don't mean that by hating on pop-music or anything, because non-US pop-music is really just as "shit", the "main stream" is still art IMHO, even when I don't like it myself, and that's a whole other discussion again).

setr 9y ago

>encourage individual inventors to make technology that the whole society will benefit from at a price of some limitation on use by society for a short period of time I always imagined it was more along the lines of encouraging inventors to open-source their technologies, by giving them greater legal defenses for doing so. To avoid the "apple does research, and archives it secretly, lost forever if it doesn't reach market" scenario; instead we now see Apple publishing anything and everything it thinks it can lay claim on, to tune of absurd claims today, but in (80) years, the research is still available to all