3 ms·

The two aren't mutually exclusive. IP needs to be enforced in order for our current system to work -- Even the GPL depends on copyright enforcement. On the othe

by ori_b 14y ago

The two aren't mutually exclusive. IP needs to be enforced in order for our current system to work -- Even the GPL depends on copyright enforcement. On the other hand, if asinine patents and overly broad copyrights are handed out, then it becomes difficult for everybody. Copyright needs to be enforced, but on a narrower set of IP. Patents should actually be innovative, unique, and original. Copyright should be specific, with broad fair use and protected status for parodies and satires.

nickik 14y ago
> Copyright needs to be enforced, but on a narrower set of IP. Patents should actually be innovative, unique, and original. Copyright should be specific, with broad fair use and protected status for parodies and satires. The problems with arguments like these is that the are talking about a perfect system. In reality you will just not get such a system, that just not where the insentives for change of the system go. There are so many goverment agencys, that have some nice intent but ultimilty end up doing nothing (or in some cases to opposite). Bringing democracy to the third world. Forign Aid helping dictators. Free Trade Agreements that ristrict trade. The list goes on. Its not the best wikipedia article but I think public choice theory clearly states that these kinds of institutional changes are just not going to happen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice_theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice_theory). Crying abolish as loud as you can together with everybody else that has the same insentives, like start ups, bigger companys that do not have as many patents and political partys that are not in the goverment. Institutional change allways hurts, or is unfair to somebody but institutonal change must happen anyway. > Even the GPL depends on copyright enforcement One could well agrue that the GPL only exists because there is was copyrights. Stallman would not have had all the trouple with the lisp maschine without copyrights. The lisp maschine code could have been used by both companys. Maybe we would all work with lisp maschines now (let a man dream).
fierarul 14y ago
>Even the GPL depends on copyright enforcement I remember Stallman saying something along the lines that GPL is using copyright against itself. So I don't think GPL "depending" on copyright enforcement is a valid point for IP enforcement. GPL is just specifically tailored for the current system and would just morph to something else if the legal climate changes.
- kd0amg 14y ago
  Without copyright protection, it would be pretty easy to interfere with two of the Four Freedoms.
  - thyrsus 14y ago
    Without copyright protection, there would be less incentive to interfere with any of the freedoms. Imagining a lack of copyright on software, the two reasons I can think of to eschew sharing are to keep for oneself/one's group an advantage provided by the program (whether that be a better search algorithm or a better nuclear weapon simulator) or to prevent exposure of assumptions made by the software to a competitor/adversary (e.g., avoid illegitimate SEO, security through obscurity). The advantages of sharing would remain: everyone with more access, a larger number of people to help improve the software. The pro-copyright claim is that the current system provides incentives for more software to be built than the absence of copyright would; but that's an economic model without experimental validation and not even as reliable as tested economic models (e.g., Keynesian stimulation/damping).

by ori_b 14y ago

nickik 14y ago

> Copyright needs to be enforced, but on a narrower set of IP. Patents should actually be innovative, unique, and original. Copyright should be specific, with broad fair use and protected status for parodies and satires. The problems with arguments like these is that the are talking about a perfect system. In reality you will just not get such a system, that just not where the insentives for change of the system go. There are so many goverment agencys, that have some nice intent but ultimilty end up doing nothing (or in some cases to opposite). Bringing democracy to the third world. Forign Aid helping dictators. Free Trade Agreements that ristrict trade. The list goes on. Its not the best wikipedia article but I think public choice theory clearly states that these kinds of institutional changes are just not going to happen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice_theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice_theory). Crying abolish as loud as you can together with everybody else that has the same insentives, like start ups, bigger companys that do not have as many patents and political partys that are not in the goverment. Institutional change allways hurts, or is unfair to somebody but institutonal change must happen anyway. > Even the GPL depends on copyright enforcement One could well agrue that the GPL only exists because there is was copyrights. Stallman would not have had all the trouple with the lisp maschine without copyrights. The lisp maschine code could have been used by both companys. Maybe we would all work with lisp maschines now (let a man dream).

fierarul 14y ago

>Even the GPL depends on copyright enforcement I remember Stallman saying something along the lines that GPL is using copyright against itself. So I don't think GPL "depending" on copyright enforcement is a valid point for IP enforcement. GPL is just specifically tailored for the current system and would just morph to something else if the legal climate changes.

kd0amg 14y ago
Without copyright protection, it would be pretty easy to interfere with two of the Four Freedoms.
- thyrsus 14y ago
  Without copyright protection, there would be less incentive to interfere with any of the freedoms. Imagining a lack of copyright on software, the two reasons I can think of to eschew sharing are to keep for oneself/one's group an advantage provided by the program (whether that be a better search algorithm or a better nuclear weapon simulator) or to prevent exposure of assumptions made by the software to a competitor/adversary (e.g., avoid illegitimate SEO, security through obscurity). The advantages of sharing would remain: everyone with more access, a larger number of people to help improve the software. The pro-copyright claim is that the current system provides incentives for more software to be built than the absence of copyright would; but that's an economic model without experimental validation and not even as reliable as tested economic models (e.g., Keynesian stimulation/damping).