Re: RIAA a bit heavy-handed you say?

In article <1128629244.938105.175040@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
shevek4@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

> Travelinman wrote:
> > In article <1128625519.619258.239380@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> > shevek4@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >
> > > TravelinMan wrote:
> > > > In article <1128619139.423818.274290@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> > > > shevek4@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > TravelinMan wrote:
> > > > > > In article <clund-A7E04F.10555006102005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> > > > > > C Lund <clund@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > In article <vwT0f.769$B14.569@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> > > > > > > "John Slade" <hitman86@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > > [..]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > They do not have the right to drag other people into court when
> > > > > > > they
> > > > > > > have no evidence that their victims are guilty.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sadly, this is false. In the United States, anyone can sue anyone
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > anything. That's your right as a citizen.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > This is true.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And it's "their" material only because they've screwed the
> > > > > > > artists.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sorry, I don't buy that. No one forces artists to sign contracts.
> > > > > > If the
> > > > > > artists don't like the contracts, they don't have to sign. There
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > other ways to release their music.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > It's "their" material only because we have fraudulent, unfair, and
> > > > > detrimental "intellectual property" laws, which hinder human progress
> > > > > and enforce inefficient monopolies.
> > > >
> > > > EVEN IF THAT WERE TRUE, how would that support his claim that the
> > > > record
> > > > companies screwed the artists? Shouldn't he have said that the
> > > > government did so?
> > > >
> > >
> > > I didn't mean to support his claim, sorry, at least not in general.
> > >
> > > Sure, record companies profit from artist's work. We all profit from
> > > the work of others before us - we stand on the shoulders of giants.
> >
> > So then why did you disagree with me when I said the same thing?
> >
>
> Sorry, it was just a comment here - not a disagreement.
>
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It's the same in other fields. If I'm an inventor and want to work
> > > > > > for a
> > > > > > big company, I will normally give them the rights to commercialize
> > > > > > anything I invent on company time. As long as they pay my salary
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > other benefits, it doesn't matter if they make $10 billion profit
> > > > > > on my
> > > > > > invention. I haven't been screwed.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The so-called rights really mean nothing. If somebody takes "your
> > > > > idea" and markets it better than you can, that's called free market
> > > > > competition.
> > > >
> > > > Not when there are intellectual property laws. SOME OF US are actually
> > > > producers rather than leeches and appreciate the fact that our
> > > > inventions can be protected.
> > >
> > > A "protected" invention? What are you talking about?
> > >
> > > Do you mean that you should be immune from free market competition for
> > > some reason? That's not a fair or realistic way to do business. If
> > > someody does it better than you, then they are doing it better than
> > > you.
> >
> > Look up 'patent' some time.
> >
>
> Patent:
>
> 1) Obvious; plain.
> 2) biology: Not blocked; open.
> 3) Of high quality. Used of flour.
> 4) Open to general inspection. Used especially of documents.
>
> > >
> > > Those of us who are producers appreciate the fact that our inventions
> > > are used, and we try our best to stay ahead of the competition in
> > > marketing them. Those of us who are leeches rely on lawsuits and
> > > stone-age legislation instead of productive work.
> >
> > Sorry, but some of us prefer to stay ahead with innovation and
> > developing new products that we can protect with patents rather than
> > depending solely on marketing.
> >
> > Patents exist for a reason. If there were no way to protect your
> > inventions, any company investing in R&D would be putting itself at a
> > disadvantage relative to the shysters who simply copy others' work. That
> > would be a huge disincentive to innovation.
>
> That is the tired soundbite of IP apologists and propogandists. A few
> moments research will convince you that the opposite is true: patents
> themselves are a huge disincentive to innovation. For example, read
> the first chapter of
>
> "Biopiracy : The Plunder of Nature and Knowledge
> Vandana Shiva, SouthPress, 1997"
>
> Patents discourage communication on current research, they encourage
> secretism and inhibit the disemination of research results. They allow
> companies and individuals to sit and collect lawsuit money for last
> generation's technology when they should be innovating. They create a
> huge unneccesary beaurocracy costing billions directly, and far more
> indirectly.

Sorry, I'll take vast amounts of real life experience against a no-name
academic. I've been in business for many years and companies wouldn't
spend money on innovation if they couldn't protect their rights.

>
>
> > The framers of the
> > Constitution realized that and allowed for patents. The result is that
> > companies can afford to put money into research - which has immense
> > advantages no only for the inventors, but for society as a whole.
>
> The result is that companies put money into the "wrong" research (e.g.
> biopiracy, DRM, "new" drug patents, etc.), and work in isolation
> instead of in communication. The result has been a huge -disadvantage-
> to society as a whole, in every field you can name!

Bull***. Virtually every significant invention was commercialized on
the basis of patentable research which allowed the inventor to profit
from their invention.

As just one simple example, it costs hundreds of millions of dollars to
commercialize a drug and only a tiny fraction of that amount to get a
copy approved by the FDA. If companies couldn't protect their
inventions, why in the world would they spend up to a billion dollars
when anyone willing to spend 10 million could steal their invention.

>
> IMHO, there's not that much the framers were wrong about, but this is

Yet the under the auspices of this patent policy, the US economy
achieved successes over the last 200 years that were unheard of and even
unimagined. Seems like it was pretty successful.

> certainly one of them. Also, US code Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2,
> (sherman act) patently contradicts (pun intended) the constitutional
> amendment you are referring to (Article 1, Section 8).
>

Why don't you cite exactly what the contradiction is?
.

Loading