Re: Canon challenge.. any submissions from people here?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

sobriquet wrote:
| On 24 apr, 04:39, "Frank ess" <fr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


|> Nice try; no cigar.
|>
|> --
|> Frank ess
|
| The government is a mere extension of corporations (who pay for the
| government), so you can't expect the government to be concerned with
| individual rights (like the right to share information or even human
| rights in general).
| You can criminalize or demonize people all you like, but you can't
| hold back technological developments.
| Copyright is less and less of a feasible concept. In a few years
| devices like ipods with practically unlimited memory and network
| connectivity will be as ubiquitous as mobile phones and how exactly do
| you propose to prevent people from exchanging information, if you
| can't even do it right now with millions of people exchanging stuff
| online relatively unimpeded?
| Information doesn't become worthless by allowing it to be exchanged
| freely. It's just that it is no longer possible to express its value
| in monetary terms.
| Economic laws of supply and demand determine the price of things and
| in case of digital information, the supply is infinite (once you have
| a single copy, you can reproduce it indefinitely at no extra costs).
| Compare it to diamonds that are valuable because they are rare. If you
| could duplicate diamonds as easily as you can duplicate a software
| package like CS3, their value would drop to zero, because if there is
| an infinite supply, that means the price goes to zero. But that
| doesn't mean that diamonds are suddenly no longer useful for all sorts
| of purposes. So it's still valuable in that respect, but it's just no
| longer possible to express this value in monetary terms (because that
| requires an aspect of rarity).
| Apart from that, copyright is not the only possible way to provide a
| financial incentive to people who create things. Alternatively, we
| could tax the online exchange information, statistically monitor the
| items being exchanged and distribute some or all of the taxes
| accordingly to people who provide fresh and original material. In
| practice this is already being done with a levy on blank media to
| compensate for copyright infringement. So it's not that I think
| artists don't deserve to be rewarded for their efforts, it's just that
| I think we must strive towards a fair way to do it that actually works
| in practice and is compatible with modern technology.

You rather quaint and romantic attempt to justify your beliefs is
entertaining but founded on a totally wrong foundation... That communism
can produce productivity.

I will stop taking photographs for a living if people can copy them
instead of buy them. To stop people like you from taking my endeavorers
and destroying my business, there exists copyright, patents and
trademarks. The foundation of enterprise that encourages invention.

Before ever any of your romantic notions could have a hope in hell of
succeeding, you first will need to present people like me with an
alternative income source.

I do not like the growth of large corporation who manage to measure the
exact amount of money they can get away with charging for their goods
but I respect their right to do it. This is where your attempt to
justify anarchy and the destruction of civilization as we know it today
is fundamentally flawed.

I have no idea how you derive your income. I'll wager however that the
people who invented the CPU in the PC you are using to try to promote no
protection for them, are getting a royalty payment every time you
replace it.

The notion that a CPU or DRAM or any of the plethora of inventions - all
protected by copyright or patent - needed to build a computer would
exist if the inventors could not profit from them is absurd.

I strongly suggest that before ever you attempt to justify your opinion
that there should be no copyright, you should question and explore the
alternative. I certainly won't work for food alone. Linux is probably
the best example of why open source doesn't work.

Without patented and copyrighted goods and code (Linus Torvold owns the
patent to the core of Linux) The software would not exist. Even it's
existence came from taking someone else's patented idea and altering it.
Something which today, wouldn't be allowed. It demonstrates too, how
little incentive there has been in nearly 15 years for it to become
usable, compares to Microsoft OS.

People still pay several hundred dollars for Windows instead use the
free Linux. Why? Because there is no incentive to support what you
didn't get paid for.

- --

from Douglas,
If my PGP key is missing, the
post is a forgery. Ignore it.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)

iD8DBQFIEGF2huxzk5D6V14RAg8RAJ9AHziUn/wlFkYSh00lre5z0ZqxEwCfaQpJ
J2IpY78OMWRuizNJNm06SjM=
=o0+S
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Try to use herbs to lower your cholesterol
    ... The allocation of patent rights between the government and its employees is ... the invention is made during working hours; ... It does NOT apply to government employees. ...
    (sci.med.cardiology)
  • Re: Alternative to Invention Patents
    ... >> invention awards. ... An examiner would check to see if the idea was new and ... Let the patent be granted, and if the government wants the ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Defending the Mad Scientist
    ... someone knows of an invention which has obvious huge security ... government can technically put a secrecy order on ... the patent. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.science)
  • Re: The Great Divide
    ... government thought that patents would stimulate invention. ... How could they make money from ... >>Patent Office. ... > Stimulating publication of research. ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Huh? DAPRA GC was not a good thing?
    ... >> Yes I do know how the Wright brothers got rich. ... Wilbur was broken up in a plane crash (out ... > "Orville wins the patent battle, ... > rights and technologies by the government a few years later. ...
    (comp.robotics.misc)