ITT, we discuss IP and freedom. DMCA, DRM, GNU, FSF, Microsoft, RIAA, MPAA etc.
In todays technocentric society, the sharing of information has never been easier. We are reaching a critical time, though, as big corporations try to limit our freedoms.
I have my own opinions, but what do you, the people of the world think? Can we have true freedom? How much freedom should we have?
How do you define freedom? Freedom to invent without fear of it being ripped of by someone else?
I think things will still have to become worse than they are now - with lots and lots of intrusive copy protection, endless leasing of everything computer-related etc. etc. before things start improving.
I'm personally almost looking forward to something really stupid like patenting of plot types in stories or similar - right now, one still has to think about whether following the law is the smart thing to do or not, but if something like that happened it would be easy to decide to disobey our new corporate Nobles.
I should probably point out that I'm no libertarian: I like the state having control, but I see corporations as second-class citizens that don't get to vote and shouldn't be allowed too much other power either.
What we're seeing with digital media is the end of scarcity. Scarcity is the basis for all our economic systems, and with it gone, everything collapses. The big players are trying to introduce artificial scarcity through legislation, but that's unlikely to be a lasting solution. New economic models are what's needed, but those aren't going to be easy to find. It'll be a rocky ride from here on.
See it as a preview of what will happen to everything if the nanotechnology futurists' predictions come true (I don't really think that will happen, but there's a possiblity).
Ohh, instant results!
http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/05/11/04/0239221.shtml?tid=155&tid=17
http://www.emediawire.com/releases/2005/11/emw303435.htm
http://www.plotpatents.com/
Of course, it hasn't been granted yet, but it looks like it could be.....which is just silly, but this is the US patent system of course...: (
These pieces of legislation are a two-edged sword.
One the one hand, it costs money to produce IP. Silly patents notwithstanding, which are more a failing of the current patent office implementation, it isn't cheap to develop these ideas any more. Someone has to pay under our current system.
On the other hand, you can be certain that the legislation will also be used to stifle competition. It'll be abused. It reduces the potential of this medium we cherish, as well as possible future developments.
That last bit is the really interesting bit, but I'll leave it to whack futurists to guess what they might be.
>it isn't cheap to develop these ideas any more. Someone has to pay under our current system.
I don't really get what makes it suddenly much more expensive to develop ideas. Trade secrets have been around forever to deal with protection of businesses with an edge, so innovation being important is nothing new. The only difference I see is that tools for doing lots of things - in the form of computers - are now much much cheaper. So is information. Care to elaborate?
> I don't really get what makes it suddenly much more expensive to develop ideas.
Sure it is. Turn back a century, and any educated fool could pull something out their rear-end.
Nowadays, some of that IP takes years, or even decades, of teams of trained individuals to produce.
I'm not just talking about computers, although more recent programs take larger teams to develop too. Take a look at the games industry, or compare today's OS to a decade or two ago.
This thread is polluted by Alexander. Make a new thread and ban him from it.
>I'm not just talking about computers, although more recent programs take larger teams to develop too. Take a look at the games industry, or compare today's OS to a decade or two ago.
This would be a problem for anyone advocating a complete removal of copyright - which I don't. As it is, I don't see any reason to have stronger copyright and patents than we already have.
I like the idea of light protection for so-called "intellectual property" since it will filter out the inefficient people. If games cost a lot to develop - well, too bad. Don't come running to legislation for help, do something yourself.
No one has a right to profit. If something is so horribly expensive that it can't fund itself, it should either be ignored or pushed to a for-loss organization.
> As it is, I don't see any reason to have stronger copyright and patents than we already have.
Most of that legislation has nothing to do with patents. Furthermore, most of that legislation doesn't strengthen copyright either, it's a knee-jerk reaction to more strongly implements rights that already exist for the copyright holder.
Now, something needs to be done in the digital medium. If they spent X million dollars to produce something, only to have it endlessly and illegally duplicated, why should they bother? Make it cheaper, you say? Oh, but everyone will copy that too!
Yes, we all like our free shit, but warez is both illegal and immoral. If someone invests the effort, they have a right to fair compensation. Note that fair compensation precludes using and not paying for a piece of software.
> No one has a right to profit.
Well, isn't that just a nice and simplistic warez-kiddie soundbyte. Next time you use public transit, don't pay for that either. The system just sort of magically runs itself somehow!
I think you mis-read what is essentially a capitalist statement: Nobody has a right to profit. They have to work to earn it. It is not up to the law to ensure that people get a profit, it's up to those who want a profit to figure out how to get it. If they can't, then they are doing something wrong, and need to change.
>>12
Oh, I'm perfectly aware of that, but the way people use that statement is flawed. Take a look at the context within it's being used in >>10.
Tell me, if I can just duplicate anything for free, how is anybody who produces IP (software, books, music, movies, etc) supposed to be paid? How is a capitalist system supposed to work then?
All that effort, and no bread on the table. See, here's the problem: people wank off to a world with no scarcity, but that only (somewhat) applies to the digital world. Unfortunately, our bodies live in the real world. House. Food. Electricity. Education. That kind of stuff, ya know?