Google: If Viacom Can't Figure Out Which Videos Are Infringing, How Can They Expect Us To Do So For Them?

from the good-question dept

Following Viacom's Washington Post editorial explaining why it believes it would be easy for Google to police YouTube for copyright-violating works, a lawyer from Google has responded. He starts out first by explaining the important reasons for having a safe harbor provision (protecting platforms from the actions of its users). However, he then points out that Viacom has been making mistakes, forcing content offline that wasn't actually infringing which leads him to note perceptively: "Viacom seems unable to determine what constitutes infringing content, [yet] its lawyers believe that we should have the responsibility and ability to do it for them." If even Viacom is unable to police its own content correctly, how can they claim that it's no problem for Google?


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 30th, 2007 @ 7:27pm

    These companies have no shame. They won't even blush when they realize how obvious they are.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    icon
    Vincent Clement (profile), Mar 30th, 2007 @ 7:32pm

    That is one of the best op-eds I have read in a while. Short, simple and to the point. I love how he points out that Viacom's lawyers helped draft the DMCA and now they want to turn it on it's head. Awesome.

    Old media wants absolute control, no matter how much it hurts current and future customers.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    Chris, Mar 30th, 2007 @ 7:37pm

    Re: Article

    "If even Viacom is unable to police its own content correctly, how can they claim that it's no problem for Google?"

    Very simply as a matter of fact. All they have to do is hire a lawyer to say some legal crap and they have said it is supper easy for google to police the internet, the real world, and maybe mars....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Poster, Mar 30th, 2007 @ 7:48pm

    Finally, Google points out the obvious.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    Republican Gun, Mar 31st, 2007 @ 6:43am

    Obvious

    Viacom tried to bluff and Google called it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    Rose, Mar 31st, 2007 @ 7:10am

    Hooray!

    It's about time someone stood up to Viacom! Let the digital age reign.

    Perhaps some day Viacom will fire it's "old school" managment and hire people who understand the complicated environment they have been thrust into.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    Damn Strait, Mar 31st, 2007 @ 11:24am

    Viacom go awa

    Damn Straight.. I agree.. If viacom doesnt even know what is and isnt their own material how the hell do they expect someone else to know. Worse yet. Viacom forgets that the very users of youtube they are against are their customers as well. I now despise viacom and anything related to them. Oddly enough I've never posted a single thing to youtube.
    But I'd prob get a sudden woody if i found out viacom had demised. I hate them with a passion because every time something new and interesting "or/and free" comes to the internet you have weeny wusses with a lot of money trying to shut it down because their "a lot of money" still just isnt enough.. I'd not cry one bit if viacom collapsed completely. Does viacom actually believe their "customers" is a different set of people from the people that use youtube?? Well viacom.. GREAT way to build a repuation, or destroy it.. Good job..

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    identicon
    Damn Strait, Mar 31st, 2007 @ 11:37am

    Viacom go awa

    Damn Straight.. I agree.. If viacom doesnt even know what is and isnt their own material how the hell do they expect someone else to know. Worse yet. Viacom forgets that the very users of youtube they are against are their customers as well. I now despise viacom and anything related to them. Oddly enough I've never posted a single thing to youtube.
    But I'd prob get a sudden woody if i found out viacom had demised. I hate them with a passion because every time something new and interesting "or/and free" comes to the internet you have weeny wusses with a lot of money trying to shut it down because their "a lot of money" still just isnt enough.. I'd not cry one bit if viacom collapsed completely. Does viacom actually believe their "customers" is a different set of people from the people that use youtube?? Well viacom.. GREAT way to build a repuation, or destroy it.. Good job..

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    Modern Man, Mar 31st, 2007 @ 12:05pm

    copyright vs. billfold

    Recently my YouTube material was taken away from me. The idea of searching the internet or even stores around my community for the obscure pieces that I had saved on YouTube is ridiculous! If anything the short snippets of video people upload actually made me want to purchase the whole to enjoy at my leisure. Now not only will I not do that but I will forget about it as the hassle of least resistance.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    squik, Mar 31st, 2007 @ 12:31pm

    dissenting view

    If even Viacom is unable to police its own content correctly, how can they claim that it's no problem for Google?

    To be fair, Viacom's error rate was very small considering they were dealing with over 100,000 violations of their rights.

    Look at this from another angle:

    Google/YouTube create an infrastructure that enables hundreds of thousands of property violations. They make money off of the property violations because it drives traffic to their site and they make revenue off of that traffic. They then turn around and say to those whose property is violated: "If you want to stop the violations, you pay a lot of money to hire people to police us."

    Not only does Viacom lose revenue from having their property expropriated, they wind up spending money to police Google.

    Of course, this would all be different were Google/YouTube really just an ISP. But since they provide the service free to the violators and make money off of the violations, Google is party to the violations.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    identicon
    Damn Straight, Mar 31st, 2007 @ 12:53pm

    squik- ask Socrates

    Squik, Your dialectic terms of reasoning fatigues me with bordism. Don't waste your time "or ours" with trying to use your very obvious limitation of sophisticated reasoning. People like you "but with far more talent" are paid BIG bucks to "fancy up words" to make it their point of view sound very convincing regardless of its validity. Socrates himself called people like you Dialectic Idiots *direct English translation* - They were people who said a hell of a lot and yet said nothing at all. Your attempts work quiet well on people without the ability to foresee a bigger picture. But I see the people in this forum/blog as a bit more intelligent than the people you should angle your opinions to. Take your "Fancy" syntax to a place where your context will be vaguely understood. Then maybe you'll win a few hearts over to your view.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    Well erm..., Mar 31st, 2007 @ 1:50pm

    Copyright is for small people too

    "To be fair, Viacom's error rate was very small considering they were dealing with over 100,000 violations of their rights."

    Fair enough (if 100k is true), but ... the DMCA is framed for the little guy too, who didn't make 'John Stewart' or 'Friends' or 'Cosby show'. If they can't get it right with their main stream American recognizable product, then what chance has uTube with less recognizable product?
    WHO IS BETTER TO RECOGNIZE THE PRODUCT? THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER OR A THIRD PARTY? Google has millions of videos, Viacoms product represents a tiny fraction of those, so they can't simply say *ALL*, there are other parties involved in this other than youtube and Viacom.

    "Google/YouTube create an infrastructure that enables hundreds of thousands of property violations."
    Welcome to the internet, you just described every single ISP on the planet. The difference is YouTube not only processes DMCA notices, they will also close accounts for repeat violations. *Enabling* violation is not enough.

    "But since they provide the service free to the violators and make money off of the violations, Google is party to the violations."

    An ISP charges for the service and makes a profit if there are violations. The only difference is free vs not free.
    So it comes down to 'does free make it different'?

    Does Viacom promise not to sue ISP's who charge money? If not then that argument collapses. Because then Viacom sees no distinction bewteen free sites like YouTube and other free sites. If I send friends a John Stewart video via free email are the free email providers also liable?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    identicon
    mister yes, Mar 31st, 2007 @ 2:56pm

    Google has snowed everybody

    The small/mid size artists out there had better hope that Viacom wins this battle. How all artists get paid for copyrighted work is at stake. If Viacom can't get paid for its stuff, do you think small labels will?

    The artists employed by viacom are waiting, ready to sue Viacom if they don't exploit their properties and pursue copyright violations in earnest. Behind them are the unions. WGA, SAG etc. They are watching intently too.

    Google has cast itself as the david, but they might quickly become the new goliath. In general, i think its good when big corporations fight. Good for all of us.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    identicon
    Patrick, Mar 31st, 2007 @ 4:59pm

    Viacom is right..no one else sees it?

    Now, no one else sees the fact that viacom even though their actions were stupid commenting about Google as they did were in the right, they hold copyrighted material and its is Google's responsibility that YouTube, because they own them, doesn't show copyrighted clips, Viacom is basicly stating that Google(Youtube) should screen all videos before being uploaded...if they don't then viacom is going to spend there own money policing sites for their coprighted information because of companies such as google don't believe it's their job to police their own site..turn the tables have viacom's subcompany like Comedy Central release something about google copyrighted and Google will flip on them...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    identicon
    Sanguine Dream, Mar 31st, 2007 @ 5:37pm

    Blame shifting...

    It would seem that Viacom is trying to put the blame on Google. That way when the next round of copyright violations come up on youtube viacom can skip the removal requests and go straight to suing google instead of trying to defend it copyright.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    identicon
    Jonathan, Mar 31st, 2007 @ 5:39pm

    googleyed

    I'm reading many of the comments here and thinking to myself, "seriously, do these people really think google has no responsibility here?"

    google provides a service that allows copyrighted content to be shared with millions of other users. they have as much responsibility in removing and restricting infringing content as do copyright holders, and they have the technology to do so.

    more at Opinion #1: Googleyed.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    identicon
    Pip31594, Mar 31st, 2007 @ 6:31pm

    Re: Copyright infringements

    Why oh why does everyone panic about copyright? Piracy does not destroy the fabric of a business. It enhances, free advertising if you will.

    Example: I had never watched the Daily Show until I saw a clip on YouTube. Now I watch it. I try out software before I buy, listen to music on the radio and the computer before I buy, I also test drive autos before I buy. The fact that Viacom's material is being shown should make them happy that it getting this free advertising. Microsoft as another example would be nothing if it was not for a little piracy. The internet has provided the world with the means of getting any kind of information to the masses don't destroy it, welcome it. So what if I can see a clip or two of a show I would not normally tune in to watch. Who does it hurt? What revenue are they really losing? If I am ignorant of a show or just never been that interested to tune in. They have lost. If I see a clip or a series of clips that gains my interest then they win. Simple isn't it, someone thought that something they saw was interesting enough to share with the world. FREE ADVERTISING! So grow up get wise and let us all share.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    identicon
    |333173|3|_||3, Mar 31st, 2007 @ 9:41pm

    Intelligent Sharks

    Google would hire intelligent enough sharks to realise that this was a blatant attempt to trick google into making a statement which could be used to support viacom's claims, and so warn Google off of fighting the case. Instead, Google should, in such a hypothetical case, make a public statemnet about the hypocrisy of Viacom, and prominently link to it on both the main page and the search results page. LEt viacom do thier worst in the face of the large body of public opinion which Google would easily mobilise against them.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    identicon
    Al Beeman, Mar 31st, 2007 @ 11:45pm

    BOYCOTT ALL VIACOM copyrighted material

    Viacom's lawsuit against YouTube deserves a response from all of us. BOYCOTT ALL VIACOM copyrighted material and let them take their all consuming greed to bankruptcy court. Obviously they have too many hungry lawyers on board that are too stupid to see that YouTube showcases Viacom and increases its revenue. If Viacom doesn't want the free publicity they don't have to have it.

    BOYCOTT VIACOM! I will do so until they come to their senses or go under and I am hoping for the latter!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    identicon
    squik, Mar 31st, 2007 @ 11:45pm

    Re: squik- ask Socrates

    blah blah blah... tell me when you have something more than an ad hominem in response.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    identicon
    squik, Apr 1st, 2007 @ 12:05am

    Re: Copyright is for small people too

    Does Viacom promise not to sue ISP's who charge money?

    ISPs are exempted from liability by the DMCA as long as they comply with the takedown provisions.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    identicon
    Paul`, Apr 1st, 2007 @ 1:00am

    Re: dissenting view

    Please tell me how people uploading small snippets from their programs to the internet can lose them money? I don't see them selling DVD's or digital downloads of those highlights and snippets.

    If i see something from a TV show on Youtube that i find funny or interesting i make a point to watch that show when it is on. Im sure most other people would do the same. Wouldn't that be getting them an audience?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    identicon
    diginova, Apr 1st, 2007 @ 1:26am

    Google

    It's not like Google is just walking and giving out pirated DVDs of Viacom properties; they allow people to watch streaming videos that people put up. They also have a TOS that clearly states that uploading videos that you do not own the copyright to is illegal. Google/YouTube acts like an ISP or webhost... they give people a service, and it's up to the users to follow their terms. If the users don't, they take down the offending content and ban the account. Removing the infringing content is all that they should be required to do... it's not Google's job to continually police the millions of videos for the small percentage that violate copyright.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    identicon
    squik, Apr 1st, 2007 @ 3:01am

    Re: Re: dissenting view

    Please tell me how people uploading small snippets from their programs to the internet can lose them money?

    Viacom makes money by selling advertising, which is presented when people view their media. Expropriated content shown on Google/YouTube reduces the number of viewers who may watch the media on Viacom's site. In any event, unfettered expropriation of Viacom's content will reduce the overall value of the content both to those who steal it and to Viacom.

    Wouldn't that be getting them an audience?

    That is one possibility. But since Viacom owns the content, it is their right to determine its use. You are not allowed to force someone to do something with their property merely because you think it is in their best interests. Even if you can prove they would make more money doing one things instead of another with their property, you cannot force them, unless you change our laws concerning property rights.

    If you want to argue it is in Viacom's interest to allow limited use of their video on YouTube, then have at it. In the end, though, it is Viacom's right to determine what is in their best interests. If they make a mistake, then so be it. The vehemence and anger thrown at Viacom shows that most people here are arguing from either an ideological standpoint (e.g. anti-property rights), or a selfish standpoint (e.g., "I want their property when and where I want it and if they don't give it to me then I hate them").

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    identicon
    squik, Apr 1st, 2007 @ 3:16am

    Re: Google

    Google/YouTube acts like an ISP or webhost... they give people a service, and it's up to the users to follow their terms.

    They are unlike an ISP because the user who uploads content to the site is not charged for the bandwidth used when someone views the video.

    They do act like a television station, showing content to attract viewers to whom they can show advertisements. They make their revenue from advertisers who pay for the traffic coming to YouTube. That traffic is attracted by the content.

    it's not Google's job to continually police the millions of videos for the small percentage that violate copyright.

    To allege that Google had no idea their service was being used to violate the law would be disingenuous. I know people at YouTube and they have played for me content that they knew the uploader didn't have the rights to upload. Their attitude was: "As long as we don't receive a DMCA notice, we don't care." Why didn't they care? Because they were making money off of the content.

    It would be different if Google/YouTube were not making money directly off of the traffic brought to the site by expropriated video.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    identicon
    Joe LePeep, Apr 1st, 2007 @ 12:22pm

    oh man...

    Viacom just got pWn3d!!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    identicon
    mister yes, Apr 1st, 2007 @ 12:46pm

    Google is playing everybody

    Its true that as of this moment, Viacom is probably losing very little money in ad revenue to Gootube. But this fight is not about now, its about 5 years from now. TV ad revenue is falling and Internet ad revenue is soaring. Follow that arc out for a couple of years and you realize that Viacom and the other big content owners must do something now to protect themselves and all the people and artists employed by them.

    Also for all you Google lovers, consider this... Youtube does not allow you to upload a piece of content with ads embedded. Why? Because THEY want the ad money. It is NOT an awesome organic community free-for-all. You can't find someone, even on a small scale, to sponser your art and then embed one of their commericals in your show. Google cannot play the small-guy victim in this fight. It's silly. They are not standing up for free expression.

    Small artists and producers should be behind Viacom. Big content owners will have to muscle distributors (Gootube) to get themselves the most money. Then everyone else can follow. Do you think a small video production alone is gonna get any kind of deal out of Gootube?

    What if MTV suddenly took videos off of youtube, strung them together, and aired them with 8 minutes of ads per half-hour and kept all the money. Youtube gets great exposure! Freedom of expression! Who cares about copyrights?!

    The only losers in the Google victory is artists and, by extension, consumers of art. Copyright law in this country will have to keep evolving to keep up with these changes.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    identicon
    Effeminem, Apr 1st, 2007 @ 1:28pm

    Yall just don't want to face the fact that it's the users who are violating copyright and TOS. I blame the little guy.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29.  
    identicon
    Mike H., Apr 1st, 2007 @ 1:46pm

    hey 'Damn Straight' - Ask Kant

    Bashing squik did absolutely nothing except make you out to be a complete idiot. He brought up some interesting counterpoints and you can only quote Socrates from your first and only year of college. You're the kind of Digg-ing nubs I hate to see on a blog, and you probably waste your life away commenting on videos on YouTube. STFU and GTFO. And while you're at it, read Kant. His thought process is far more flawless that Socrates' was.

    I personally believe that both Viacom and Google are both responsible and should have worked together in a think-tank and just came up with a kick ass solution. Whining about it and pulling out the lawyers don't solve shit for the common man (only with money does this work, but in this case, we also have videos to worry about). Viacom needs to stop being such a overpowering, world dominating media asshole and realize that there are people that want to watch their shows on youtube. And that if they don't want others to see them, then they should work WITH google.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30.  
    identicon
    Damn Strait, Apr 1st, 2007 @ 2:06pm

    Mike H

    I would seem you are a hypocrite. You tell me not to do something that you in turn are doing to me in your own post. And I've read Kant btw, and what I said specifically about Socrates was in no relation to who was the better philosopher. If you'd actually read what I said you wouldn't have wasted your time making any comments about Kant because Kant, Plato, Socrates or Buddha had nothing to do with my point. But you were too dumb to see that. As well as you probably ARE squik posting under a different name. Brilliant idiot. NOT!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31.  
    identicon
    guy, Apr 1st, 2007 @ 2:18pm

    Re: squik- ask Socrates

    This may be the most annoying post that I have ever seen on the internet. While your appeal to Socrates and bizarre grammatical structure may work "quiet" well on dumb-asses, accusations of trying to "fancy up words" is retarded. You are a pretentious fucking idiot.

    I hate you. I hate you so much.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32.  
    identicon
    Damn Strait, Apr 1st, 2007 @ 2:28pm

    apparently

    Apparently I was correct due to your rapid response. Mike H is squik. Your were someone pretending to be two different people to seem more convincing. First your choice of words to confuse some people in to believing the validity of your opinion. Next you posted using a 2nd name here to make it seem as if you have other people taking your side. And btw, I use flames and "bashing" as you call it to sift out the morons here. Those that get enraged and lose their cool reveal their true level of intelligence. Those who can respond to a critic in a civilized manner are the intelligent ones. You my friend responded like a child, with senseless anger and rage. My attempts to test your mentality worked. You failed.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33.  
    identicon
    guy, Apr 1st, 2007 @ 2:35pm

    damn strait? straight?

    Mike H, I would seem you are a hypocrite, too. Damn Straight is absolutely right. Damn Straight, you are so smart with your book reading and philosophizing. As Socrates once said, not that he has anything to do with my point, you ARE a brilliant idiot! NOT!!!!11!!1!!1!!!!!!!!11!!!!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34.  
    identicon
    squik, Apr 1st, 2007 @ 4:05pm

    Re: apparently

    My attempts to test your mentality worked. You failed.

    Seeing as I am not Mike H, you tested nothing. All you've offered are more empty ad hominems.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35.  
    identicon
    Ayal Rosenthal, Apr 1st, 2007 @ 5:50pm

    Hurray for squik

    Squik is absolutely right. In issues like this you need to make a choice between harm done and relative error-rates. Viacom is the ultimate sufferor from this fiasco, not Gootube and not an individual Gootube uploader.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36.  
    identicon
    reed, Apr 1st, 2007 @ 6:54pm

    Re: hey 'Damn Straight' - Ask Kant

    "Bashing squik did absolutely nothing"

    Squik adds nothing intelligent to the conversation.

    His rhetoric is old and tired and relies on the concept that digital media is in some way like physical property. Guess what? It isn't! 0101010011001 a couple million times is not the same as a physical DVD, CD, or any other media for that matter. We must first address this issue before trying to apply the same tired old laws.

    When your hard drive crashes and every piece of digital media you owned is gone then you may begin to understand that a bunch of zeros and ones are really nothing more than a magnetic wave.

    You really think Viacom is going to work with Google? NOT! They want to be Google and they want to be You Tube. They don't want to share, they want to dominate. Thats what this is really about. They could have made a deal with Google/You Tube a long time ago, but they are too greedy.

    Viacom trying to blame Google for anything is paramount to the police trying to shutdown the phone company because they willfully allow drug dealers to make deals on the phone lines when they clearly have the technology to prevent it, right?

    Just plain stupid, if Viacom doesn't want to police everything in the world then maybe they shouldn't try to own a million copyrights.

    Maybe it is time to start breaking up these massive conglomerates in order to better protect their supposed copyrights? Something is going to have to happen and trying to blame You Tube for their own inability to be able to monitor their own copyrights is pretty lame.

    Technology does not need to adapt to our world, we need to adapt to technology. This is something Viacom seems unable to do.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37.  
    identicon
    CM, Apr 1st, 2007 @ 7:45pm

    Re: dissenting view

    Of course, Viacom, by releasing this copyrighted material, played its role in "enabling users."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38.  
    identicon
    Profit by advertising, Apr 1st, 2007 @ 8:35pm

    Why not roll with it

    You tube shows low res, low quality audio bits and pieces of work. Wouldnt it be better if Viacom took advantage of this to work with Google to push some of this content? So many old shows, old music, old content that hasnt made anyone a buck in a long time could be remarketed and the interested parties could own a piece of the original work with all the bells and whistles and packaging. Wouldnt that make a lot more sense? People not willing to pay for it werent going to buy it anyway, others who are passionate for these memories, memorabilia, might create a market for it. There is probably a ton of money to be made in Welcome Back Kotter shirts, hats, and DVD's that could be specially marketed to the people who would willingly watch a low quality, glitchy episode on youtube.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  39.  
    identicon
    squik, Apr 1st, 2007 @ 9:11pm

    to reed

    0101010011001 a couple million times is not the same as a physical DVD, CD, or any other media for that matter.

    Property law is human convention instituted to keep order within society. Whether something is physical or virtual does not change the fact that it can be defined as property and subjected to human laws.

    It is a fact that most of the technological progress that mankind has made has been under human regimes with property laws. I'm waiting to hear a good argument for why IP laws are bad. But you haven't offered one yet.

    In the meantime, I'll offer this: Our current corporate system is based on property laws in general and many thrive due to IP laws in particular. The evidence from the real world is that property laws and IP laws work well. The failure of every communist country to create a vital economy is strong evidence that a lack of property rights supresses progress. The exception that proves the rule is China -- which only started growing after it started introducing capitalist incentives. It is interesting to note that China has just recently introduced its first step towards introducing property rights as a means to keep its new found progress going.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  40.  
    identicon
    bingoboy, Apr 2nd, 2007 @ 12:47am

    I am short-movie producer. I sell my shorts online. I expect Google/Youtube to go thru all the millions of video they have and check whether anybody has uploaded my content. Everybody that agrees with Viacom will agree with me. BTW, my son made a little movie of him and his friends doing tricks with their skateboards and posted it on youtube. He's asking me to get in touch with Youtube and force them to check all their archives in case someone posted his video claiming ownership.
    Viacom is a good and honest corporation, like me and my son. We have the right to have our material protected.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  41.  
    identicon
    bingoboy, Apr 2nd, 2007 @ 1:03am

    Sorry for the sarchasm. I think reed is right. The problem Viacom is having was born by the advancement in technology.
    Me, as a citizen of the 21st century I have to deal with a governemtn that can spy my telephone conversations, emails, credit card expenditures and my whole life as it was never possible before, without ever even knowing about it. I still don't know what to do about it. I don't know yet how I can protect my self and my family from this. Viacom, which is a multi billiion dollar company is having a similar problem. They owns million of copyrights and don't know how to proptect them all because there isn't yet a technology capable of easlily pin point infringements. "Dear Viacom, welcome to the life of the layman whom everyday has to fight battles too big and too expensives for his/her status". I can agree that Youtube is more than happy , implicitly, to host interesting material even though subject to copyright. Still, as they state, they are more than happy to remove it if you let them know. Maybe Viacom could invest in developing technology to detect their material. Then they coudl either use it or demand Youtube to use it or be sued for not collaborating with their fair demands. Just an idea.
    If Viacom gets their way I'll sue my ISP for not monitoring all email databases in the US against storing and using my email address to send me unsolicited content without my permission. There's no law that states it's my responsibility to monitor who is storing my email address!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  42.  
    identicon
    4th party observer, Apr 2nd, 2007 @ 3:51am

    Re: Re: apparently

    "ad hominem" ---> legal talk.
    Squik is obviously a lawyer who has a vested interest in making these kinds of arguments, since that's were he makes his money. I wouldn't be surprised if he was found to be working for Viacom.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  43.  
    identicon
    FH, Apr 2nd, 2007 @ 6:46am

    Like a TV STATION????

    How is YouTube like a TV station? All the TV stations I know determine their own programming....

    Youtube does not. It's customers do. It would be analgousto holding hotmail responsible for an email that one of its users sent. Just because it is visible to the public does not change the responsiblilty. Youtube advertises on its members pages.

    Would you hold the phone company responsible for an illegal phone call made on its equipment?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  44.  
    identicon
    ME, Apr 2nd, 2007 @ 7:14am

    Repsonsibility

    If I post an ad in the newspaper to sell books and my copies are illegally copied it is not the responsibilty of the newspaper to determine my right to sell these. It is the reponsibility of the copyright holder.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  45.  
    identicon
    ME, Apr 2nd, 2007 @ 7:19am

    Repsonsibility

    If I post an ad in the newspaper to sell books and my copies are illegally copied it is not the responsibilty of the newspaper to determine my right to sell these. It is the reponsibility of the copyright holder.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  46.  
    identicon
    Rishi Shukla, Apr 2nd, 2007 @ 8:24am

    Google > Viacom

    Viacom should not even try. Why would you against the best company who will one day take over the world?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  47.  
    identicon
    squik, Apr 2nd, 2007 @ 12:54pm

    Re: Re: Re: apparently

    "ad hominem" ---> legal talk.

    "Ad hominem" is a term of logic. If you think such phrases are merely "legal talk", then I recommend taking a freshman class in logic. You can find it given by the philosophy department at any college or university.

    I've been accused of many things in my life, but never being a lawyer. For the record, I have no connection with Viacom other than a patron of their content. My interest in this issue is as an engineer and entrepreneur who is interested in keeping intellectual property ownership laws intact.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  48.  
    identicon
    squik, Apr 2nd, 2007 @ 1:01pm

    Re: Re: hey 'Damn Straight' - Ask Kant

    Technology does not need to adapt to our world, we need to adapt to technology.

    That's a scary thought. Technology is an artifact of human culture. It is created and exists to serve human values. There is no doubt, technology can have a transformative aspect on cultures, but ultimately technology serves man and amplifies his values.

    In this particular case, property rights are human values that have been encoded in law. Communism has demonstrated what happens when property rights are taken away. If adaptation to technology equates with the end of property rights.... well, let's just say there are too many dystopian novels which have described that scenario.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  49.  
    identicon
    reed, Apr 2nd, 2007 @ 1:56pm

    Re: Re: Re: hey 'Damn Straight' - Ask Kant

    Squik said,

    "Communism has demonstrated what happens when property rights are taken away. "

    You just love to bring up communism anytime someone talks about changing they way we look at copyrights. Not very fair and completely off base!

    When looking at copyrights critically you can see their faults clearly and their benefits seem to disappear.

    If you really believe that copyrights are good for our culture then please produce a peer-reviewed article that scientifically proves that copyrights encourage creation of works rather than just imagining it.

    I believe that copyrights need to be done away with. At the heart of any copyright is the idea you came up with the "orgiginal" work and you somehow need protection.

    First nothing is original, all works are borrowed/copied/influenced by our culture. Without our society nothing would be created in the first place. Copyrights ignore this important fact and give unfair rights to someone who has borrowed from our culture in order to create.

    Copyrights are really an outdated idea designed to constrict and prevent creation of new works and ideas. This is the "protection" they offer. You borrowed from human culture in order to create and now that you did no-one is allowed to do the same thing? Seems kind of silly to me.

    Copyrights now of course serve big business and not individuals. We could compare how many copyrights single entities like corporations hold compared to individuals. You would quickly discover 90+% of all copyrights in the hand of corporations and not individuals.

    This along with patents is how corporations control culture and innovation for their own personal benefit. It was a good idea at one time, but now it is a poor excuse to give leverage to the richest 2% of our society.

    A truly free market cannot exist with these kind of constraints and the fact that the governmental policies and laws protect these unfair rights shows how we continue to lean towards fascism in our country.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  50.  
    icon
    Mike (profile), Apr 2nd, 2007 @ 1:56pm

    Re: to reed


    Property law is human convention instituted to keep order within society. Whether something is physical or virtual does not change the fact that it can be defined as property and subjected to human laws.


    Squik, I believe you are confused. Property law is designed to keep people from fighting over scarce resources. That is not the case when those resources are non-scarce. So, yes, it very much changes what can and should be defined as property.

    It is a fact that most of the technological progress that mankind has made has been under human regimes with property laws. I'm waiting to hear a good argument for why IP laws are bad. But you haven't offered one yet.

    Actually, if you look at the details, you'll find that while there may be a correlation between IP laws and development, the development usually starts well before the IP laws. The IP laws actually *slow down* the development, by allowing existing providers to rest on their laurels instead of continuing to innovate.

    And if you think we haven't shown why IP laws are bad, you clearly have not been reading the site very long. IP laws *artificially* restrict resources that don't need to be restricted, shrinking the overall economic pie.

    The failure of every communist country to create a vital economy is strong evidence that a lack of property rights supresses progress

    I already pointed out to you why this was a false analogy -- yet you seem to ignore my earlier post. We're not suggesting communism as a result. Not at all. I'm a HUGE supporter of property rights and free market capitalism. However, IP laws are the opposite. They're much more like communism: a centrally planned, government-backed monopoly? How is that capitalism?

    If you want to be taken seriously in this conversation, don't confuse getting rid of intellectual property laws with being against property rights. We're not saying anything of that nature.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  51.  
    identicon
    Antilos, Apr 2nd, 2007 @ 3:00pm

    And in the end: everyone wants to get something to himself as well as Viacom does.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  52.  
    identicon
    squik, Apr 2nd, 2007 @ 4:31pm

    Re: Re: to reed

    The IP laws actually *slow down* the development, by allowing existing providers to rest on their laurels instead of continuing to innovate.

    That's an interesting assertion. The history of western technological development seems to counter it. Where is your proof?

    You act as if no one can innovate unless they can steal someone else's idea. IP laws actually force people to innovate. You aren't allowed to just copy off your neighbors paper. You are required to do your own original work or you don't have the ante to play the game.

    IP laws *artificially* restrict resources that don't need to be restricted, shrinking the overall economic pie.

    That's an interesting assertion. The history of western economic development seems to counter it. Where is your proof?

    IP law actually encourages more economic development by stimulating investment in innovation. Without it, the owners of capital have little incentive to fund new ideas because they will have little hope of making money. The new technology that costs $250 million to develop will not be funded because a company will be able to make greater return by spending it on improved marketing, sales promotions, and cut throat business manuevers. The great blockbuster films will not be made because no one will fund them if they lose all rights to it once someone makes a copy.

    However, IP laws are the opposite. They're much more like communism: a centrally planned, government-backed monopoly? How is that capitalism?

    There's another assertion. How are IP laws, which allow individuals and corporations a limited monopoly on their inventions, like central planning? Sure it is a property right secured by the government, but the government has no direct role in planning who owns what IP.

    IP law is not part of capitalism, just as anti-trust laws are not part of capitalism. These are laws made to stimulate competition and innovation.

    If you want to be taken seriously in this conversation, don't confuse getting rid of intellectual property laws with being against property rights. We're not saying anything of that nature.

    IP is property. IP laws have been part of property law in western society for over 600 years. If you advocate the destruction of IP laws you are changing property rights.

    Thanks for your admonition, but I've no worries about being taken seriously. I argue issues and facts. Those with open minds will listen and either agree or refute with better arguments. You might try it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  53.  
    identicon
    Smokin Joe, Apr 2nd, 2007 @ 4:52pm

    Communism?

    To suggest that some communist governments fell because of their IP laws, or lack there of, is ridiculous. The last I checked China is communist and is quickly becoming one of the world fastest growing economic powers. To say that Google should be 100% responsible for the content placed on it's site is also just as ridiculous. It is quite clear that the current IP laws do not fit into today's technology. They were written for a different time and place. One thing that is clear is that we cannot alow companies like Viacom to destroy our growth as a society just to protect there antiquated business methods and greed.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  54.  
    identicon
    squik, Apr 2nd, 2007 @ 5:10pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: hey 'Damn Straight' - Ask Kant

    If you really believe that copyrights are good for our culture then please produce a peer-reviewed article that scientifically proves that copyrights encourage creation of works rather than just imagining it.

    I might ask you to do the same to prove the opposite. Produce a peer-reviewed article that scientifically proves a copyright stops someone else from being creative.

    First nothing is original

    If nothing is original, then why do some works stand out above others as unique? There were a hundred shlocky space films and many hundreds of westerns before George Lucas created Star Wars. That was an original work of art even though it borrowed ideas and themes from other space stories and from westerns. The same can be said for many creations.

    The cultural context within which a work of art is created does not diminish the originality merely because the art reflects ideas and themes within the culture.

    Copyrights ignore this important fact and give unfair rights to someone who has borrowed from our culture in order to create.

    You don't like me to mention communism. But you are sounding communist here. You are asserting collective ownership of our culture and advocating that any work within our culture be subjected to the same collective ownership.

    Copyrights are really an outdated idea designed to constrict and prevent creation of new works and ideas.

    Prove this, please. How does the copyright on Mickey Mouse prevent someone else from creating a new work or idea? It only prevents them from copying Mickey Mouse as a character. It doesn't prevent them from creating a new character. It doesn't even prevent them from creating a new mouse-based character.

    Copyrights now of course serve big business and not individuals.

    The authors of books and films would disagree with you. They make their living by creating copyrighted materials and either selling copies directly or licensing/selling the copyrights to others (including big businesses).

    Your assertion that copyrights do not serve individuals is patently false.

    This along with patents is how corporations control culture and innovation for their own personal benefit. It was a good idea at one time, but now it is a poor excuse to give leverage to the richest 2% of our society.

    Again, you don't like me to mention communism. But this sounds very communist. You act as if corporations are the enemy. What do you propose as an alternative? You've already asserted collective ownership of the culture and all ideas from it.

    I myself, a little guy, have benefitted from patents and copyrights making the company I started as a one-man operation in my house worth more than you would imagine. I have many friends who have done exactly the same. They weren't big corporations; they were individuals. They used their creativity to make something new. They used IP laws to protect their creations and they benefitted from the same protections as large corporations.

    A truly free market cannot exist with these kind of constraints

    Right. We don't want a truly free market. The question is which laws do we want so that we have a market with the characteristics society desires. I don't think a market in which every idea can be immediately stolen and hammered into a commodity situation is the type of market we want.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  55.  
    identicon
    reed, Apr 2nd, 2007 @ 5:25pm

    Re: Re: Re: to reed

    Squik comments,

    "You act as if no one can innovate unless they can steal someone else's idea. IP laws actually force people to innovate. You aren't allowed to just copy off your neighbors paper. You are required to do your own original work or you don't have the ante to play the game."

    No, I think you have it wrong. Innovation and great ideas are discovered by many people simultaneously. This is seen in the creation of things like flight, electricity, and phones. If one person claims IP does this then disqualify every other idea?

    This is the paradox IP creates! How can you protect one person and not everyone? What if it is a truly great discovery, should a single person or corporation own the rights to our future?

    "IP law actually encourages more economic development by stimulating investment"

    Thanks for the generic answer, but I like to think outside the box and little here is anything but regurgitation.

    "IP law is not part of capitalism, just as anti-trust laws are not part of capitalism. These are laws made to stimulate competition and innovation."

    Great point! A free market does not include these supposed protections. Although your assertions that these laws stimulate competition and innovation has come into question by many brilliant people. I tend to agree with them that these artificial market constraints do not operate as intended. For one example, anti-trust laws actually encourage conglomerations and discourage new upstarts thereby destroying their own premise.

    Great discussion BTW, I am very impressed with everyones points so far.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  56.  
    identicon
    squik, Apr 2nd, 2007 @ 5:29pm

    Re: Communism?

    To suggest that some communist governments fell because of their IP laws

    The fundamental flaw in the communist system is the lack of property rights. It isn't IP in particular that made them fall. It is the failure of their economic system in the absence of property rights that made them fall.

    The last I checked China is communist and is quickly becoming one of the world fastest growing economic powers

    You haven't been paying attention. China's growth has come from a liberalization of their economic policies to allow capitalist incentives and partial foreign ownership of corporations within China. Three years ago, China passed laws insuring property rights.

    You can hold China up as a communist counterexample. But the fact is, China's economic boom only started when it instituted capitalist incentives, including the institution of property rights.

    One thing that is clear is that we cannot alow companies like Viacom to destroy our growth as a society just to protect there antiquated business methods and greed.

    How is Viacom destroying our growth as a society? How does asking Google to keep the Colbert Report off of YouTube lead to the destruction of society?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  57.  
    identicon
    reed, Apr 2nd, 2007 @ 6:09pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: hey 'Damn Straight' - Ask Kant

    Squik says,

    "I might ask you to do the same to prove the opposite. Produce a peer-reviewed article that scientifically proves a copyright stops someone else from being creative."

    I am sorry, I meant point me to an journal article not create one. I am interested in seeing the statistical evidence to support patents and copyrights. Do you know of any?

    "If nothing is original, then why do some works stand out above others as unique?

    Because you believe they do. I do not, the premise of Star Wars was more than just borrowed. I do not argue people can profit from their works, only that they somehow own an idea.

    "You don't like me to mention communism. But you are sounding communist here. You are asserting collective ownership of our culture and advocating that any work within our culture be subjected to the same collective ownership."

    Its not about me not wanting you to mention communism, it about the fact that you do not understand the concept and therefore are unable to apply it. What kind of communism are you talking about anyways, the high thinking concept or the military dictatorships that claim to be communist?

    Where do you then draw the line between socialism and communism? Are we communists for having socialistic programs like Medicare and Medicade?

    "The authors of books and films would disagree with you."

    They can disagree all they want, but they don't hold the majority of copyrights and patents, corporations do and that was my point.

    "Again, you don't like me to mention communism. But this sounds very communist. You act as if corporations are the enemy. What do you propose as an alternative?"

    Corporations are the enemy! Duh! You have to think outside the box. I disagree with the concept of a single entity called the corporation. I am not against business or the people involved in corporations. You have to take a long hard critical look at the institution of corporations and if you do, you won't like it. We are becoming more and more fascist as time passes and thats what I am most scared of.

    The alternative is just plain business without the giant conglomerations. You revoke the corporate charter as an illegal and immoral idea and turn businesses back over to the people.

    Corporations originally were public works, thats why they got the special rights they did. Corporate lawyers have changed the face of corporations so much that they are hardly recognizable.

    Corporations have too many protections and too many privileges that even I as a citizen of the USA do not enjoy.

    "You've already asserted collective ownership of the culture and all ideas from it."

    I didn't assert this. It is fact that everything our society creates from our culture is part of our collective future. We all own the ideas of our forefathers, does that now make us communists? lol

    "Right. We don't want a truly free market. "

    Wrong, I want a truly free market because I am tired of corporations using our system to their advantage. They have too much power already and as long as the system continues to cater to them they will only grow. Absolute power corrupts absolutely and our corporations are absolutely corrupt already :)

    I have no problem with business, capitalism, and entrepreneurship. They are the foundations of our country. On the other hand, corporations are truly abominations that take our wealth out of our towns and cities and deposit it in offshore accounts and invest it in replacing the American worker. No-one in their right mind would agree that the way corporations have treated us in the past 20 years has been anything close to fair.

    Once again, stimulating conversation!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  58.  
    identicon
    squik, Apr 2nd, 2007 @ 6:19pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: to reed

    No, I think you have it wrong. Innovation and great ideas are discovered by many people simultaneously. ... If one person claims IP does this then disqualify every other idea?

    Innovation usually comes from one person first. More than one person may be working on a solution to the same problem, but not all approach the problem in the same way. Unique solutions may be patented by their inventors.

    What if it is a truly great discovery, should a single person or corporation own the rights to our future?

    You presume one patented innovation will change our future. I think that is a false assumption for a few reasons.

    1) IP rights are limited in duration.

    2) An innovative solution to a problem does not preclude someone else from inventing a different, and even better solution to the same problem. In fact, if another person wants to compete, they would have to invent a new solution. I've done this in the past. It is possible.

    Allowing people to merely copy patented ideas only serves to drive the value of the innovation to its recurring costs. That makes it unlike the fixed costs will be recovered, including the up front investment in creating the technology as well as the additional fixed costs necessary to deploy the technology.

    3) Governments grant (sometimes force) exceptions to IP rights when called for exigent circumstances. For instance, by international agreement, patent protections for medicines are suspendable should a health emergency require greater supply of the medicine than can be produced by the owner of the patent. (Think Bird Flu). As someone else has mentioned in one of these threads, the government has forced companies to pool and license patents to stimulate competition in areas where conflicting IP rights have put a stranglehold on an industry.

    4) Ultimately, patent rights are protected by governments and governments are subject to the will of the people. If the situation were to get as bad as you seem to think, the people can change it.

    Thanks for the generic answer, but I like to think outside the box and little here is anything but regurgitation.

    You may pooh-pooh the idea that economic development comes from investment, but you would be mistaken.

    The two most important things affecting economic growth are capital and technology. Capital drives the economic engine and technology makes workers more efficient.

    I understand your concern is that technology creation is stifled under IP laws. You correctly posit that economic growth is slowed if technology growth is slowed.

    However, technology creation is itself an economic activity that requires capital. Indeed, the more advanced our technology becomes, the more capital investment is needed to create real advancement.

    Capital chases return. If there is no return on the investment of capital in technology, or the returns on investement are collectivized by allowing everyone to benefit from the capital invested, then capital will not fund technology development. The reason IP protections have limited duration is to incentivize capital to seek returns on investment in innovation, but also spread that innovation after the period of limited monopoly to all in society.

    So, we are left with a situation where it is in the best interest of economic growth to stimulate technology innovation through IP laws. But we don't want to allow them to stifle competition, so we give them limited duration. If you want to argue that the time limits are wrong, that is different from arguing the laws should be abolished.

    I tend to agree with them that these artificial market constraints do not operate as intended.

    To advocate the abolishment of IP laws is to advocate something more than that they are not operating as intended; it is to assert they are fundamentally unsound.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  59.  
    identicon
    Damn Straight, Apr 2nd, 2007 @ 6:35pm

    Nice squirk

    Nice copy and pasting. Please, by all means, continue to amuse me.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  60.  
    identicon
    Damn Straight, Apr 2nd, 2007 @ 6:46pm

    You topped yourself

    You say we're supposed to adapt to technology? That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. We create our technology yet we have to submit to our own creation by adapting to it? No, the whole point in technology is to make it work FOR us, not us for it. I assume in fiction movies like Terminator and The Matrix you probably rooted for the machines? You're cattle buddy.. MOOOOO!! walking ignorantly and happily into Big Brothers slaughter house.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  61.  
    identicon
    reed, Apr 2nd, 2007 @ 7:27pm

    IP, Oh yeeah

    "Innovation usually comes from one person first. More than one person may be working on a solution to the same problem, but not all approach the problem in the same way. Unique solutions may be patented by their inventors."

    I disagree there are too many instances of ideas being invented across the globe at the same time. Besides this, sometimes there is only one best way to do something. Its kinda like a math problem. There is only one good way to do the problem, so what right does someone have to claim that idea as their own?

    "1) IP rights are limited in duration."

    True, but they are on the increase in the US. Does the current duration make sense in our modern world where innovation is happening at an enormous pace across the globe?

    "2) An innovative solution to a problem does not preclude someone else from inventing a different, and even better solution to the same problem. In fact, if another person wants to compete, they would have to invent a new solution. I've done this in the past. It is possible."

    Untrue in many examples of small companies forced to shut down by strong armed business tactics or patent/copyright threats. You are also not free to innovate if someone already patented or copyrighted the best solution. Then they can of course sit on that idea and keep anyone else from doing it. This is a real issue as I know several people who have come up with great ideas just to find out that they are already owned by a corporation that has not interest in developing them.

    "You may pooh-pooh the idea that economic development comes from investment, but you would be mistaken. "

    I thought it sounded like something from a basic economics course textbook.

    "So, we are left with a situation where it is in the best interest of economic growth to stimulate technology innovation through IP laws."

    You really buy that? Seems naive when critically examining the system.

    "If you want to argue that the time limits are wrong, that is different from arguing the laws should be abolished."

    I am not arguing for a change. That has already been well argued and it seems pretty clear that a change is needed. I am arguing for abolishment right now :)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  62.  
    icon
    Mike (profile), Apr 2nd, 2007 @ 10:36pm

    Re: Re: Re: to reed

    That's an interesting assertion. The history of western technological development seems to counter it. Where is your proof?

    The research of David Levine and Michele Boldrin shows this.

    For other examples, you can look at how the Netherlands turned into an industrial powerhouse after it *got rid* of patents. During the same period, Switzerland also became quite the industrial power without patents.

    More recently, (and again this is from Levin and Boldrin) Italy introduced patents on pharmaceuticals, despite having a thriving pharma industry without drug patents. After it was introduced, however, no new significant developments came out of the Italian pharma industry -- and in fact, the industry shrunk.

    There are plenty more examples...

    You act as if no one can innovate unless they can steal someone else's idea.

    Don't make dumb assumptions. What I believe (and what the research supports) is that innovation is an ongoing process, not a one-off spark of genius. And, since it's a process, limiting how that process works by using patents slows down and delays important advancements to society. The steam engine is a great example. Thanks to Watt's patents, almost nothing important happened with the steam engine until after the patents expired. That slowed down the entire industrial revolution. It's not at all clear how that's a good thing.

    It has nothing to do with "stealing" ideas. It has to do with how innovation works.

    You are required to do your own original work or you don't have the ante to play the game.

    Except that innovation is an ongoing process, and it's usually driven by the market -- meaning that lots of people discover the same innovation at the same time. Giving a monopoly to one player is just bad economic planning.

    What's wrong with letting the market reward the producers in the space?

    Without it, the owners of capital have little incentive to fund new ideas because they will have little hope of making money.

    This is false (and laughably so). The market provides the incentive. Selling goods in the marketplace is how you make money.

    The new technology that costs $250 million to develop will not be funded because a company will be able to make greater return by spending it on improved marketing, sales promotions, and cut throat business manuevers.

    This also has little to no basis in reality. Smaller, hungrier companies often beat out larger more well backed companies. Microsoft beat IBM. Google beat Microsoft. It happens all the time. Don't think that just because some company is bigger and has more money it automatically wins. That's now how the world works.

    The great blockbuster films will not be made because no one will fund them if they lose all rights to it once someone makes a copy.

    This is a terrible example. Movie makers can still make a ton of money if they recognize that going to the movies is a social experience. People like "going out" to the movies with the family or friends. They like seeing a movie on a huge screen with a great sound system. You can't replicate that service with downloaded films.

    Besides, if it's really a problem, there are tons of incentives the movie industry can put in place that have nothing to do with copyrights. I've written about them at length before, so test out the search box to find them.


    IP law is not part of capitalism, just as anti-trust laws are not part of capitalism. These are laws made to stimulate competition and innovation.


    They are supposed to -- but if they are not, then shouldn't we be getting rid of them?


    IP is property. IP laws have been part of property law in western society for over 600 years. If you advocate the destruction of IP laws you are changing property rights.


    No. Just because it's called IP doesn't mean that it's property. The reality is that it's not property at all. It's an artificial restriction on ideas and knowledge. Ideas and knowledge are what drive economic growth -- and restricting such things are simply bad policy.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  63.  
    icon
    Mike (profile), Apr 2nd, 2007 @ 10:42pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: to reed

    Innovation usually comes from one person first.

    This is incredibly wrong. I'm sorry, because I'm not sure what gave you this idea, but it's just wrong. It very rarely comes from just one person -- and history is littered with multiple inventors coming up with the same or similar inventions at the same time.

    Also, you meant to use the word "invention" not innovation. The two are different.

    An innovative solution to a problem does not preclude someone else from inventing a different, and even better solution to the same problem.

    That would be true today only if the patent office didn't insist on approving such broad patents that cover entire concepts.

    Allowing people to merely copy patented ideas only serves to drive the value of the innovation to its recurring costs. That makes it unlike the fixed costs will be recovered, including the up front investment in creating the technology as well as the additional fixed costs necessary to deploy the technology.

    This shows a false understanding of economics. Yes, it does drive prices to marginal costs, but that's what drives continual innovation (rather than one-off innovation). You can keep making money by continually being the best in your space -- and you can charge a nice premium for it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  64.  
    identicon
    squik, Apr 3rd, 2007 @ 6:44pm

    Re: several above

    The research of David Levine and Michele Boldrin shows this.

    I've looked at what Levine and Boldrin assert. They use an argument of weak or no correlation between IP law and innovation to build their opinion that IP law hurts. Their mistake is to assume that weak to no correlation gives them that license. In fact, strong negative correlation is what is needed for them to make their argument.

    Furthermore, the arguments of Levine and Boldrin concentrate solely on the "monopoly" aspect of IP law, ignoring both its temporary nature and the beneficial aspects of disclosure. The limited monopoly comes at a price to the inventor. That price is disclosing the invention for all to use at the end of the limited monopoly. That disclosure happens before the innovation is available in the marketplace. This gives competing companies the details to a company's temporary monopoly, which in turn allows competitors to plan their own innovations.

    This is false (and laughably so). The market provides the incentive. Selling goods in the marketplace is how you make money.

    You demonstrate little understanding of economics. If the market is a commodity market, then you are selling at marginal cost. Any investment in technology innovation that can be immediately copied gives you no competitive advantage. You stay at marginal cost. You don't reclaim your extra investment, thus you have no incentive to make the investment.

    Oh, sure, there will be people who rush to innovate thinking they can do something better. But once it is copied, they have no advantage and they never recoup their investment.

    Movie makers can still make a ton of money if they recognize that going to the movies is a social experience. ....

    You ignore the fact that without copyright protection a movie theater doesn't need to pay the movie maker for their copy of the blockbuster. They can just download a high def copy for pennies as soon someone rips it off. The movie maker gets no royalties from the showing. The theater may make money from people seeking the "social experience", but the movie maker won't. Thus the movie maker will lose incentive to make blockbuster movies.

    They are supposed to -- but if they are not, then shouldn't we be getting rid of them?

    I agree. No one has made a compelling argument that they should be gotten rid of. There are arguments, more or less compelling, that time limits or terms might be changed.

    Yes, it does drive prices to marginal costs, but that's what drives continual innovation (rather than one-off innovation). You can keep making money by continually being the best in your space -- and you can charge a nice premium for it.

    Actually, that is quite naive. If all technology is available to all parties then in the long run there is no difference between vendors. All prices will be driven to marginal costs. Anyone who is operating in an area charging a nice premium will find themselves deluged with people who will copy their unprotected technology and offer the same service/product for less, until marginal cost is hit.

    You show little understanding of market dynamics and even less of what it takes to charge a premium price. Operational efficiency, the only advantage available when all technology is available to all customers, only allows you to compete on margin cost.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  65.  
    identicon
    injection molding, May 20th, 2009 @ 5:47am

    As we all know, nearly almost plastic products around you was made through plastic injection molding – the mouse you are using to click, the PET containers you use to store water or food, and also China printing can help us made the labels to attract potential customers and steel and aluminum made scaffolding made for the purpose of construction and renovation works.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  66.  
    identicon
    China Tent, Oct 9th, 2010 @ 12:11am

    The perfect!These articles written too great,they rich contents and data accurately.they are help to me.I expect to see your new share.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This