5 ms·
> Because that person made it? Are you saying people have no right to own the things they make? "I can only see so far because I'm standing in the shoulder of
by vibrunazo 14y ago
> Because that person made it? Are you saying people have no right to own the things they make?
"I can only see so far because I'm standing in the shoulder of giants."
Imagine if you had to pay for every one of the thousands little concept that your own idea (inevitably) derives from. That system would be unsustainable. We can only make progress because we can expand and improve on what were created before.
- crusso 14y agoWho is arguing that one should pay for every previous idea that a new idea is derived from? That's a straw man. The argument for paying people for new IP is that for a limited time we should offer rewards for people to add to the collective knowledge of our society. So really in terms of your argument, the consumer isn't paying for "standing on the shoulder of giants" either. The consumer of IP is only paying for the incremental value added by the creator of the content. As a society, we discovered that rewarding producers adds to the useful aggregate more than just hoping that they'll add the same amount of content without compensation.
- vibrunazo 14y ago> Who is arguing that one should pay for every previous idea that a new idea is derived from? IP limits production to create artificial scarcity. No matter how you look at it, after you copyright or patent something. You are limiting what can be created in the world. > As a society, we discovered that rewarding producers adds to the useful aggregate more than just hoping that they'll add the same amount of content without compensation No we did not. Historically, Intellectual property was created as one more monopoly privilege for the monarchy. [1] Together with the monopoly selling rice, and other commodities, were the monopoly of printing books. At no point in history did we, as a society, conclude that if we limit reward producers it would add to the useful aggregate. That excuse was only invented after the "monopoly privilege" over copying books were renamed to "copy rights". At the same time that other monarchy monopolies were destroyed. Society never discovered that it's worth in the aggregate. You cannot prove it's worth in the aggregate. Any attempt so far to measure the aggregate has been absurd. [2] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright_law [2] http://www.ted.com/talks/rob_reid_the_8_billion_ipod.html http://www.ted.com/talks/rob_reid_the_8_billion_ipod.html
- crusso 14y ago> You are limiting what can be created in the world. Not really true. You could say that IP limits some forms of use that could produce new creations. But that would ignore the fact that often IP is licensed, thus not preventing the creation of some content. Further, providing a reward for the creation of new IP dramatically increases the overall creation rate of what society considers to be "useful" IP. > No we did not. Historically, Intellectual property was created as one more monopoly privilege for the monarchy That's just an ad hominem. > At no point in history did we, as a society, conclude that if we limit reward producers it would add to the useful aggregate. See, this is just factually incorrect. All you need to do is to look at US history and the motivations for creating copyright and patent law as part of the new nation to see that you're wrong. The saddest thing is that I actually think that our system of IP is in serious need of a rewrite. The way that big media companies abuse our legal system and the power of our government should be criminalized. At very least, we should be using statistical models and the Scientific method to determine the ideal values for copyright and patent lengths rather than basing new IP laws upon the lobbying efforts of Disney. That said, as an advocate for changing the situation, you're not being effective. You make totally unfounded arguments and in at least one other place in this same thread I saw where you were using cheap online debating tricks to try to get your point across. When I read the original article this thread is based on, I felt some legitimate annoyance at the professor since what he's doing is unethical. But then I read a couple of your posts and felt I needed to respond to arguments that were remarkably uninformed and disingenuously constructed.
- chris_wot 14y agoWho is arguing that one should pay for every previous idea that a new idea is derived from? Oh, I don't know. The USPTO?
- crusso 14y agoIf you read the context of that quote then you're telling me you think that the USPTO is arguing that an effectively infinite amount of money should be paid for every new piece of IP since you'd also need to pay something for all the IP that it was built upon. The USPTO is certainly NOT arguing that when you pay for IP you also must pay something for everything that the IP is built upon.
- chris_wot 14y agoPerhaps not. But let's say that I patent some technology that uses as it's basis another idea that is patented. Then I develop some technology based on this. I then license that technology. Then someone else creates a patent based on my patent and then licenses it from me. So here is where I perhaps get a little confused. Is this allowed? If you can't refine an idea, then this restricts innovation. If I can refine the idea and then patent it, does this mean that any license costs must go only to me? Or do I have to pay a portion of these license costs to the original patent I have derived my ideas from? Option 1: Can't refine a patent. Result: restriction of innovation and trade. Option 2: You can refine a patent, but don't have have to license this to the original patent author. Result: you can bypass patents. The whole system becomes pointless. Option 3: You can refine a patent, but you must pay part of the license you charge to the original patentee. Result: Costs increase for each patent license.