29-06-2002 06:42									#61
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Re length of copyright.

It is interesting to note that, in the 19th Century, the US didn't enforce copyright on non-US authors. Dickens, however, did just fine in the US by giving readings of his work. And he still churned out book after book.

	29-06-2002 09:21									#62
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by moominparatrooper In fact, it's very, very hard indeed - the general problem of positively identifying running code is NP-complete.

I don't think that's what Ned meant. He was merely referring to DRM, which will be embedded as part of M$'s *cough* Secure OS *cough* [I just found it to be an oxymoron to put MS and "secure" in the same sentence without any sort of negation in between ]

quote: Originally posted by moominparatrooper For all of these reasons I think mp3s are here to stay, and those interested in ensuring the continuation of commercially viable music will have to come up with other means of ensuring that creators get their work properly rewarded. I'm just at a loss about how such a viable mechanism would actually work.

It depends on what you mean by viable. What does "properly rewarded" entail? Right now the RIAA and MIAA are making obscene amounts of money that they do not deserve. Why should a customer pay USD20 for a CD just for two or three songs he likes? This is simply legalised robbery.

	01-07-2002 00:06									#63
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: But even if you were to prove your arguments you still don't show that there is an advantage to granting exclusive rights to inventors. At best you prove that it is no worse than eliminating patent protection. Except that you never deal with the question of enforcement cost.

Just to clarify my own posting here, I should state that there is probably some advantage to innovation and invention in intellectual property protection. My point really is that an advantage to innovation is not neccessarily an advantage to society.


Also let me point something out about demand curves. I think they are very useful. But only within a limited range. This sort of analysis is okay for comparing a couple of choices or even a whole market.

But asking a single equation to compare the entire universe of possible choices is asking too much. At a global level the ends of the curves generate more noise than signal and at some point well short of the actual economy the choice information of the curve becomes useless.

	01-07-2002 01:50									#64
	Support Apolyton

Vanguard, Rather than try to rethink whether Intellectual Property is Good. Why don't you simply make the observation that the countries with the best patent systems are the most industrialized: US, Germany, England and Japan. Japan in the last century sent observers to the West to see what made the West industrious and successful. They reproted back that a major reason for the success of the United States (and Germany and England) were their strong patent systems. Japan then adopted a strong patent system. In no time, Japan too became an industrial power.

	01-07-2002 06:41									#65
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

The US had rather poor intellectual property law protection in the 19th Century, but our growth rate was much greater then than it is now. Japan used to be famous for reverse engineering-----stealing intellectual property, in essence. This didn't seem to hurt them in the 1950s or 60s.

Germany does has strong patent protection. But the Germans aren't famous for innovation----or for high growth rates. They make their money on very solid engineering of tried and true principles.

These countries do not have strong industrial economies because of their good patent protection. They have strong patent laws because their powerful industries demand protection from overseas competitors.

The high national incomes of both the US and Japan seem to be due primarily to the long hours their citizens work. Greater economic freedom probably plays some part however. That's why I'm in favor of it.

But regardless, why would I expect that these countries would not have large IP economies? I argue that these countries subsidize their IP industries (well, actually they give them a concession, but let's just say subsidize for simplicity).

If you subsidize an industry, then sure, it will usually get larger. But just because an industry is larger or "stronger" does not mean that it is a fully efficient asset. We also have a strong sugar farming industry in this country. The only ones who are happy about it, however, are sugar farmers.

Last edited by Vanguard on 01-07-2002 at 08:12

	01-07-2002 20:35									#66
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Vanguard The US had rather poor intellectual property law protection in the 19th Century, but our growth rate was much greater then than it is now. Japan used to be famous for reverse engineering-----stealing intellectual property, in essence. This didn't seem to hurt them in the 1950s or 60s. Germany does has strong patent protection. But the Germans aren't famous for innovation----or for high growth rates. They make their money on very solid engineering of tried and true principles. These countries do not have strong industrial economies because of their good patent protection. They have strong patent laws because their powerful industries demand protection from overseas competitors. The high national incomes of both the US and Japan seem to be due primarily to the long hours their citizens work. Greater economic freedom probably plays some part however. That's why I'm in favor of it. But regardless, why would I expect that these countries would not have large IP economies? I argue that these countries subsidize their IP industries (well, actually they give them a concession, but let's just say subsidize for simplicity). If you subsidize an industry, then sure, it will usually get larger. But just because an industry is larger or "stronger" does not mean that it is a fully efficient asset. We also have a strong sugar farming industry in this country. The only ones who are happy about it, however, are sugar farmers.

Vanguard, put your venture capitalist hat on for a second. You have two potential opportunities for investment - both in the United States. Market analysis indicates each product will be enormously successful.

Company A has a number of patent and applications covering its new product.

Company B has none.

You choose. Where do you place your money.

	01-07-2002 22:47									#67
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Vanguard Re length of copyright. It is interesting to note that, in the 19th Century, the US didn't enforce copyright on non-US authors. Dickens, however, did just fine in the US by giving readings of his work. And he still churned out book after book.

I was going to stay out of this but on this particular point ... Dickens would spin in his grave if he knew you cited him in an anti-copyright argument. He was pirated constantly in the US and one of the reasons he made his speaking trips to the US was to argue vociferously for international copyright laws. In the accounts I've read, Dickens claimed to have never received a single penny in royalties in the US, despite that fact that he was so popular there he was mobbed on the streets whenever he ventured out of his hotel.

	01-07-2002 23:10									#68
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Echinda, surely copyright laws existed in the United States in the 1800s. Why didn't Dickens receive any royalties?

	01-07-2002 23:59									#69
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

The US didn't enforce international copyrights till IIRC the early 1900s (I think it was the early twenties, but I would have to look it up). Prior to that, it enforced national copyrights only. So Dickens, as a UK citizen, was out of luck in the US.

	02-07-2002 00:00									#70
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Dickens...grave

You're right. I didn't say he liked it, only that he did well and continued to write books.

quote: Why didn't Dickens receive any royalties?

The US didn't ratify the international copyright treaty (Bern treaty?), mainly due to opposition from publishers and copysetters.

	02-07-2002 01:47									#71
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Adalbertus ... not purchased or otherwise got the permission to use. For things in the public domain you don't have to pay.

Only things that are legally in the public domain. If I download music from the public domain that was originally stolen, I'm an accomplice to the theft. Its possible to legitimately confuse something that might be legally in the public domain for something thats not, but if you download civ3 or the latest Creed CD from a newserver, its theft.

	03-07-2002 03:58									#72
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Vanguard, put your venture capitalist hat on for a second. You have two potential opportunities for investment - both in the United States. Market analysis indicates each product will be enormously successful. Company A has a number of patent and applications covering its new product. Company B has none. You choose. Where do you place your money.

There are, like, five things wrong with this question. But I'll try to answer what I think is your point.

First of all you postulate that both products will be "wildly successful". Assuming that all other things are equal, and that both products are equally "successful", then obviously both investments are the same. "Success" cannot be postulated here because protection can have a major effect on success.

So this then is the real problem; How does protection affect the success of the product?

This is, unfortunately, a complex and, ultimately, probably insolvable question. GP asserts that economics predicts that product success depends of the value of the product to the economy. I assert that economics does not prove this, but merely predicates it, from assumptions that have nothing to do with the actual economy, and that have proven to be unreliable in practice.

So then, speaking as a venture capitalist, I would invest in the company that would, in my evaluation, generate the higher profit, regardless of patent protection. If there is a big market for the product then this would very likely be the company with patents. So, yes, I would probably invest in company A.

But how does my ability to extract monopoly profits from the economy contribute to the public good? It might not actually harm the economy, per se, but there is no reason to think that it benefits anyone except me.

	03-07-2002 06:00									#73
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Vanguard There are, like, five things wrong with this question. But I'll try to answer what I think is your point. First of all you postulate that both products will be "wildly successful". Assuming that all other things are equal, and that both products are equally "successful", then obviously both investments are the same. "Success" cannot be postulated here because protection can have a major effect on success. So this then is the real problem; How does protection affect the success of the product? This is, unfortunately, a complex and, ultimately, probably insolvable question. GP asserts that economics predicts that product success depends of the value of the product to the economy. I assert that economics does not prove this, but merely predicates it, from assumptions that have nothing to do with the actual economy, and that have proven to be unreliable in practice. So then, speaking as a venture capitalist, I would invest in the company that would, in my evaluation, generate the higher profit, regardless of patent protection. If there is a big market for the product then this would very likely be the company with patents. So, yes, I would probably invest in company A. But how does my ability to extract monopoly profits from the economy contribute to the public good? It might not actually harm the economy, per se, but there is no reason to think that it benefits anyone except me.

Vanguard, If it was your money, you made the right choice. If if was money you were managing for others, you made the right choice.

If you want to change the system, don't do it with you money - do it with your votes. But until the system changes, you should simply try to maximize your returns.

The patents make the Company A the more secure investment.

	03-07-2002 10:49									#74
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Only things that are legally in the public domain

"In the public domain" is a legal state. Something is or is not, but "illegally in the public domain" isn't possible. Something that is stolen is not in the public domain even if it can be downloaded from PD sites. And Freeware or Shareware is not in the PD even if the way to distribute is that of PD channels.

	03-07-2002 23:38									#75
	Suffering from ads?

quote: If you want to change the system, don't do it with you money - do it with your votes. But until the system changes, you should simply try to maximize your returns.

Okay. So I should copy mp3s then? That certainly maximizes my returns better than paying for music.

That's what I thought, but thanks for your approval!

	04-07-2002 08:07									#76
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Vanguard Okay. So I should copy mp3s then? That certainly maximizes my returns better than paying for music. That's what I thought, but thanks for your approval!

You better watch out, Big Brother is watching you.

No, but the above example is a what has happened again and again, every day, for the last two centuries in all the major industrialized countries - people making decisions about where to invest. Patents are important for developing new products and markets. This is why, more than any other reason, the US, Japan, Germany and the UK are so developed.

	04-07-2002 08:45									#77
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

When it comes to those things that are not a basic necesity for your survival, you can complain but you can't whine about it.

An artist create something that you don't HAVE to have it. If he ask money for his work and you are not willing to pay, then don't use his work.

My position is a little hypocritical since I don't owe a single software/song original. I just can say that if I couldn't buy pirate copies, I would buy at all, therefore nobody lose anything . But I don't try to convice myself or others that stealing software/song is OK.

	04-07-2002 22:21									#78
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: No, but the above example is a what has happened again and again, every day, for the last two centuries in all the major industrialized countries - people making decisions about where to invest. Patents are important for developing new products and markets. This is why, more than any other reason, the US, Japan, Germany and the UK are so developed.

I give you credit for stating the principle clearly and eloquently instead of trying to hide it behind a bunch of jargon. Let me generalize the statement:

"Individual economic actors, each trying to maximize his own self interest, collectively produce a system that generates the greatest wealth for everyone."

That is basically your idea, correct? It is also the idea underlying GP's assumptions.

But if this idea is true, then it applies to all economic actors, not just inventors or investors in record companies. It should be just as beneficial for an individual consumer to "decide" to copy a song cheaply for his own use as it is for a record company to "decide" to invest in copying songs to sell them dearly to consumers.

Actually it should be more beneficial. It is clearly cheaper for an individual consumer to copy a song off the internet than it is for a record company to maintain lawyers, corporate officers, cd pressing plants, payola and a distribution system.

The same thing is true for patents. Classically patents should not help innovation, they should hurt it. And while there are empirical studies that indicate that strong patent law does increase the number of patents, there is no evidence that these extra patents represent valuable innovation.

By your own assumptions you are being anti-capitalist if you support patents. You are creating an artificial legal obstacle to competition, an obstacle that requires signifigant costs to maintain.

	04-07-2002 22:22									#79
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

dp

	05-07-2002 01:15									#80
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Vanguard I give you credit for stating the principle clearly and eloquently instead of trying to hide it behind a bunch of jargon. Let me generalize the statement: "Individual economic actors, each trying to maximize his own self interest, collectively produce a system that generates the greatest wealth for everyone." That is basically your idea, correct? It is also the idea underlying GP's assumptions. But if this idea is true, then it applies to all economic actors, not just inventors or investors in record companies. It should be just as beneficial for an individual consumer to "decide" to copy a song cheaply for his own use as it is for a record company to "decide" to invest in copying songs to sell them dearly to consumers. Actually it should be more beneficial. It is clearly cheaper for an individual consumer to copy a song off the internet than it is for a record company to maintain lawyers, corporate officers, cd pressing plants, payola and a distribution system. The same thing is true for patents. Classically patents should not help innovation, they should hurt it. And while there are empirical studies that indicate that strong patent law does increase the number of patents, there is no evidence that these extra patents represent valuable innovation. By your own assumptions you are being anti-capitalist if you support patents. You are creating an artificial legal obstacle to competition, an obstacle that requires signifigant costs to maintain.

Actually, If company b cannot use company's a's inventions because of patents, company b can compete by coming up with a better product that company a's patented product. In this way, patents incent invention to leapfrog their competitors patents. Patents promote innovation even with competitors.