arstechnica.com — A new report from the Institute for Public Policy Research looks at the reasons behind intellectual property rights and suggests a new way forward: thinking about knowledge as a public resource first, and a private asset second. Is this idealistic, anti-business pinko blue-skying? The group says no, and we agree.
Nov 2, 2006 View in Crawl 4
Closed AccountNov 3, 2006
ZenMojo: "What, you think Russian development just stopped for fifty years during the Cold War?"Ask the peasant who had to wait for hours in the freezing weather to collect her daily rations - I think her answer would be instructive. As HMTKSteve said, virtually all advancement they experienced was because of the West. They were an economic black hole, and your refusal to see that is both appalling and not surprising given the website we're on.
butters66Nov 3, 2006
I think the real question is not of copyright, but of a proper royalty system. Consider a fiction author, pick any you like, I'll use Stephen King for an example. He wrote a lot of his famous material 30 years ago. They are still selling quite well today. Should others be able to take his books and publish them and then not pay him royalties? They did none of the work to create the book, why should they be able to benefit from his work?I think in today's world we have overlapped copyright into too many different areas. The problems we have with DRM, the DMCA, the RIAA are really over what is fair use for the consumers. I think what we need are strong protections on royalties and cross promotion and more freedom and ability for consumers to enjoy materials in they way they want to read, watch or listen to things. One thing I have seen with books, David Webber did this with his Honor Harrington series, is to include a CD of his previous novels in the series with the hard cover versions of the new ones. I think this is very cool, especially for new fans. Does this hurt him though because he isn't getting as many sales on the older novels, or does it help lock in fans to series? Hard to know, but I know it is a benefit for the hard core fans because they now have options on how to re-read his books. It also encourages loyalty because I know he cares about his fans and wants to do a good job. Since his this a few novels ago, I have because a much bigger fan. Not sure if that is just discovering the work more, or at least a part of his imparting some good will to the fans. There are initiatives out there to create secure / encrypted books. Basically DRMs for ebooks, etc. This is an anathema for many writers. Open and honest societies have always had the best libraries in the world. That is part of what a book means. One reason repressive societies, like the Nazis, burned books is that they knew freedom and knowledge went hand in hand. We have to be very careful about this DRM technology on books and copyright in general to avoid repression. Don't get me wrong, this isn't some anti patriot act / America is repressive thing, just a comment on how books need to be available to be consumed, as well as authors need compensation for their creations. It is tough road to navigate fairly sometimes, and not all works should be catorized in the same manner.
Closed AccountNov 4, 2006
But I thought you wanted to be a philanthropist and give your IP away? Are you saying that you don't want to produce it for me? That sounds selfish.By the way, how did Bill Gates make the money which he gives to charity?
maverick1972Nov 4, 2006
I do apologize if I caused offense to anyone. That was not my intention and I guess it's a bit off topic. I am personally comfortable with 3 levels of government, Socialist (mid left), Liberal (left of center) and Conservative (right of center). I also think that a rotation of these governments is healthy at regular intervals. I was just curious as to why it's such a sensitive area. I thought it might have something to do with fallout from the cold war anti-soviet policy. I think that had the U.S. had a Socialist administration for even one or two terms in the past. It may have brought about some positive reforms such as National Health Care, increased minimum wage, better child support, etc etc.
lewieNov 4, 2006
Newton should've copyrighted his laws of physics. So that every time you F=MA you owe him a penny.- yes, I know, you can't copyright mathematical equations or other natural things like that. But then again, why is it that companies can own the rights to your DNA? <a class="user" href="http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=2133">http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=2133</a>All of you conservatives whining that public knowledge is too "socialist" piss me off. Just because YOU won't lift a finger unless you get paid for it, doesn't mean that some of us don't mind being rewarded with Pride and Recognition for helping ALL of society. There's a reason why Wikipedia works; and you're not it.
endeavorerNov 6, 2006
lol, ya philanphropists are loser. If instead Bill Gates invested the money in Africa that would make sense. Like for example the banker dude that gave out loans to poor people. I think he made some money off of that and it wasn't all selfless either, and he won the freaken Noble peace Prize (which is the most screwed up award every, after all that Palestinian terrorist got it, oh wait, he was a leader =P).
tenoqAug 25, 2007
You're right - it's not just America that considers knowledge private property, but America IS the land of the productless patent companies. It's also the land of the lawsuit regarding copyright and infringement thereof. If we're pointing fingers, the US certainly deserves a big portion of the blame for our current state of affairs.(f**king session expired bulls**t. WTF happened to Digg?)