Lack Of Food Copyright Helps Restaurant Innovation Thrive

from the yet-again dept

We've discussed over and over again how a lack of copyright protection in the fashion industry helps that industry thrive, because it helps disseminate fashion trends faster, helps better segment markets and (most importantly) gives designers more reasons to keep working on the next thing to stay ahead of the competition. It's a great example of a creative industry that is highly competitive and highly innovative without copyright. Other industries where we've seen similar things include the magic industry and stand up comedy. At times, we've also mentioned the restaurant business, but haven't looked at it in any great detail.

Reader Ephraim points us to a recent post at the Freakonomics blog that highlights how the restaurant business absolutely thrives creatively, despite a lack of copyright protection. The main example: the rise of Korean taco trucks in LA. As you may or may not know (and trust me, you're better off if you are familiar with this trend), a few years back, some enterprising folks set up a Korean taco truck in LA called Kogi. It quickly became a huge sensation, in part because the food is awesome and in part through smart marketing, including being one of the first food establishments to actively embrace Twitter.

But what happened next is quite interesting. Throughout LA (and now around the country) there's been an explosion of Korean taco trucks. And, it's not just limited to trucks. As the article notes, the large chain Baja Fresh is now offering Korean tacos as well. Believers in strong copyright have trouble explaining why this happens. According to them, without copyright as an "incentive to create" people won't innovate because they can't be rewarded, but that's not what's happening at all:
As readers of our past posts know, the conventional wisdom says that in a system like this no one should innovate. Copyright's raison d'etre is to promote creativity by protecting creators from pirates. But in the food world, pirates are everywhere. By this logic, we ought to be consigned to uninspired and traditional food choices. In short, the Korean taco should not exist.

But the real world does not follow this logic. In fact, we live in a golden age of cuisine. Thousands of new dishes are created every year in the nation's restaurants. The quality of American cuisine is very high. The so-called molecular gastronomy movement has innovated in myriad (and often bizarre) ways that have filtered down to more modest restaurants all over the world. Television shows such as Top Chef and Iron Chef challenge contestants to mix and match improbable combinations of ingredients with little warning or time. Our contemporary food culture, in short, not only offers creativity; it increasingly worships creativity--and many of us worship it right back.
So why isn't the "theory" matching up with reality? The author's come up with a few theories, but it seems to me that the biggest reason is the same one why the arguments that copyright is needed to get people paid is so wrong: they're not selling copyright. They're selling a product. And you can still sell your product whether or not someone can copy you. In fact, if someone can copy you, you have incentives to keep innovating and adding extra value that the buyer can only get from you -- such as prestige or ambiance or experience.

The authors also point out another reason (similar to the one we've noted about comedians), which is that there are social norms involved as well, focused on reputation. If you're seen as just copying the works of others, you are looked down upon, and reputation is quite important in these fields. And, of course, reputation and social norms function just fine without copyright.

The authors of the blog post conclude with a dead-on assessment:
The key point is that culinary creativity is flourishing, and it doesn't depend on copyright. Like fashion, food challenges our preconceptions about the economics of innovation--and perhaps should challenge our legal rules as well.
Pretty much everywhere we look, when we find industries or fields where copyright doesn't exist or isn't relied upon, we see the same thing: much higher levels of competition, more and faster innovation and an overall thriving industry. This is the kind of actual evidence that never seems to be discussed in debates over strengthening copyright laws, but should be. It also explains the supposedly "counterintuitive" research that has shown as there has been less respect for copyright in movies, music and books... the rate of production for each of those has increased as well (again, contrary to what copyright system defenders will tell you).

At what point can we put the "without copyright no one would create new content" statement into the mythbin of history?


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 9th, 2010 @ 8:03pm

    I create content all the time and I don't get paid for it. I do it because creating content is fun! Plus, I enjoy calling myself a starving artist, because it's fun!

    I know, I know, I'm destroying creativity.

     

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

  2.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 9th, 2010 @ 8:15pm

    http://www.zeropaid.com/news/89830/tvshack-back-up-under-different-domain/

    The funny part of the article is this:

    At best, maybe copyright enforcers can scream, “Don’t infringe, or I’ll be irritating!” during their speeches – at least then enforcement bodies can stay true to their word the way things are going.


    The article is about how in the past sites where blown out of the water and today they just change domains and continue to do what they have been doing, and improvement for the pirates a shame for governments.

     

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

  3.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 9th, 2010 @ 8:26pm

    its friday on techdirt, more anti-copyright anti-patent misdirection.

    food, like many things, has been all explored and all handled in all of the time of humanity. whatever patents or copyrights might have existed as a concept expired long before the roman empire, if you know what i mean.

    however, i dare you to try to sell a big mac or a mcchicken without the clown corp approval, and see how far that gets you.

     

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

  4.  
    identicon
    geddit, Jul 9th, 2010 @ 8:43pm

    it takes about 5 seconds for someone to say "I think I'll sell Korean Tacos off of a truck!"
    But it can take a lot more time and resources to develop many other great products. But unfortunately the "everything free" movement doesn't differentiate. It's all black and white to google... er umm sorry, ummmm... the "free" movement.

     

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

  5.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 9th, 2010 @ 8:48pm

    "At what point can we put the "without copyright no one would create new content" statement into the mythbin of history? " - god mike, if this is your strongest argument, perhaps you do need to join the pirate party (i think you may have already). talk about a completely stupid argument.

    do people need music or tv to survive? nope. do they need food? yup. the base motivation to make food is survival. everything after that is discretionary, based on ones desire to make something special, and someone elses desire to eat that instead of something else.

    the concept is so laughable, i swear you put crap like this up on friday just to see who is fish enough to debate it straight.

    certainly this is no your a material, but then again, you have been having a bad run lately. oh and a few more posts, that that horrible kenya story disappears off page one and out of sight.

     

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

  6.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 9th, 2010 @ 8:48pm

    Re:

    Leave it to TAM, IP expert, to confuse trademark with copyright.

     

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

  7.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 9th, 2010 @ 8:53pm

    Re:

    Yes, people need food to survive. People do not need creativity in food to survive.

    TAM strikes out again.

     

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

  8.  
    icon
    Beta (profile), Jul 9th, 2010 @ 8:58pm

    The so-called molecular gastronomy movement has innovated in myriad (and often bizarre) ways that have filtered down to more modest restaurants all over the world."

    Did anyone else feel a loss of appetite after reading that sentence?

     

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

  9.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 9th, 2010 @ 9:06pm

    Re:

    Do people need communication to survive? Yes. Is the internet a communications platform? Yes. Is filesharing a form of communication? Yes. Is art a form of communication? Yes. Are you a moron? Yes.

    Seriously, what is your point?

     

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

  10.  
    icon
    Modplan (profile), Jul 9th, 2010 @ 9:07pm

    Re:

    The Masnick is obviously bootstrapping, he does this every Friday.

    How's that book going, the one you were buying even though it's contents was mostly available elsewhere?

    http://techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20100616/1038269856#c378

     

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

  11.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 9th, 2010 @ 9:18pm

    Re:

    "But it can take a lot more time and resources to develop many other great products."

    but what it doesn't take is govt granted monopolies. They are mostly unnecessary and usually just get in the way of innovation.

     

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

  12.  
    icon
    vrob (profile), Jul 9th, 2010 @ 9:20pm

    Now sounds like a good time

    My understanding is that the limited monopolies granted under the copyright and patent laws were intended to promote progress in the arts and sciences by encouraging artists and inventors to share their work with the public - not to incentivize creativity.

     

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

  13.  
    icon
    TtfnJohn (profile), Jul 9th, 2010 @ 9:28pm

    Re:

    Takes about 5 seconds, or less, to say, "I think I'll troll" then most this silliness, too. Though I'm sure you'll claim a crappyright on it.

     

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

  14.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 9th, 2010 @ 9:29pm

    Re: Re:

    He stopped reading it because he is busy defending the US in its war with Russia.

     

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

  15.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 9th, 2010 @ 9:30pm

    Re:

    What?

    Education is discretionary?

    Learning is discretionary?

     

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

  16.  
    icon
    Modplan (profile), Jul 9th, 2010 @ 9:30pm

    Re: Now sounds like a good time

    The 2 goals are one in the same. Reward and help creativity (promote progress) by giving artists and inventors a monopoly that in turn gets them to share that work with the public whilst being able to make money in doing so, giving rise to further creativity through having a monetary incentive to do so (and the money to continue producing).

     

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

  17.  
    icon
    TtfnJohn (profile), Jul 9th, 2010 @ 10:16pm

    Re:

    "it takes about 5 seconds for someone to say "I think I'll sell Korean Tacos off of a truck!"
    But it can take a lot more time and resources to develop many other great products."

    Which goes to show how much you know about the food business or the creation of a dish. About zero. It does take time and creativity to create both a dish and a unique location and way of serving it. (Or as close to unique as one can get.)

    The point is that for thousands of years people created goods and products without copyright or patents or trademarks. So that none of those are required for humans to be creative or to build on what came before to come up with something new and useful.

    That's the one question none of your rants have answered. And no, it has nothing what ever to do with free, it has to do with the innate human desire and ability to be creative.

     

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

  18.  
    identicon
    Fake Tam, Jul 9th, 2010 @ 10:21pm

    Wow, the last post and Mike didn't even get that embarrassing Kenya Post off the front page. Must be because I said something.

     

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

  19.  
    icon
    vrob (profile), Jul 10th, 2010 @ 12:14am

    Re: Re: Now sounds like a good time

    Except that when the laws are understood as incentivizing creativity rather than promoting sharing, the result is a tendency to favor monetary rewards for creativity over promoting progress for the public benefit. I am not arguing against financial rewards for creative efforts, I am just saying that the the underlying purpose of the law is to encourage the sharing of creative works as opposed to encouraging an increase in the production of creative works.

     

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

  20.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 10th, 2010 @ 12:35am

    Re:

    "copyrights might have existed as a concept expired long before the roman empire"

    well, what about, using electricity to cook the food? I mean, thats what most patents regarding the internet are all about.

     

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

  21.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 10th, 2010 @ 1:01am

    Re: Re: Re: Now sounds like a good time

    I am just saying that the the underlying purpose of the law is to encourage the sharing of creative works as opposed to encouraging an increase in the production of creative works.


    If that was true, the barriers would be minimal just enough a carrot to entice the mule. That is not what you see all over the place.

    What you see is cry babies like TAM trying to make people believe copyright is good.

     

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

  22.  
    icon
    Richard (profile), Jul 10th, 2010 @ 1:39am

    Re:

    food, like many things, has been all explored and all handled in all of the time of humanity. whatever patents or copyrights might have existed as a concept expired long before the roman empire, if you know what i mean.

    Try that one on Heston Blumenthal and see how far you get.

    however, i dare you to try to sell a big mac or a mcchicken without the clown corp approval, and see how far that gets you.

    You can certainly sell exact copies of any of these dishes if you want - trademark law only restricts what you can call them.

     

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

  23.  
    identicon
    Rekrul, Jul 10th, 2010 @ 3:33am

    At what point can we put the "without copyright no one would create new content" statement into the mythbin of history?

    At the point where lobbying by large corporations becomes illegal.

     

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

  24.  
    icon
    Tino (profile), Jul 10th, 2010 @ 3:41am

    Let me get this straight. 100 years ago food was boring and there was no copyright. Now food is more interesting and there is still no copyright. From this, we are supposed to conclude that food has become more interesting because of the lack of copyright?

    Oh but wait, 100 years ago there weren't a lot of patented seeds, food production equipment, fertilizers, irrigiation equipment, food transport systems, etc. and today there are. And now food is more interesting. Cause and effect? Naaah...just a coincidence.

     

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

  25.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 10th, 2010 @ 3:41am

    Re:

    Ok, now suppose this: Ham sandwiches are copyrighted.

    You can't make a ham sandwich at home because you would be violating copyright. You would have to buy overpriced sandwiched from an approved vendor. These sandwiches would come with special copy protections that disguised the bread and the ham so you would not be able to make copies. They would also be impossible to cook or modify in any way (putting butter or cheese in them for example). You would also need to install special taste buds to be able to taste them. You would also be required to eat them with your right hand while seating down and FORKS AND KNIVES ARE FORBIDDEN. Someone might try to reverse engineer the sandwich.

    Nope, don't see a problem with that (rushes to copyright office to register copyright on ham sandwich and to the patent office to register patent on ham sandwich copy protection).

     

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

  26.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 10th, 2010 @ 3:43am

    Re:

    What's so embarrassing about the Kenya post? The viewpoint in the post seems to be well thought out and presented well.

    As for the author's affiliation with the pirate party I have to say I don't see why that would matter that much. After all you debate ideas and not the person presenting them.

     

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

  27.  
    identicon
    blinddrew, Jul 10th, 2010 @ 5:29am

    Lawyers dude!

    Rekrul has it about right. At the moment there are too many people making too much money from preserving the status quo.
    Oh yes, and re: comment 23, debating the ideas might be the theory but we know how often that happens in a comments list...
    It's ad hominem all the way ;¬)

     

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

  28.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 10th, 2010 @ 5:39am

    Re:

    It's funny you mention that because the chefs that created the dishes that actually made food more interesting did so without patents.

     

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

  29.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 10th, 2010 @ 5:42am

    Re:

    Also, your comment on patented seeds is irrelevant as we're talking about copyright, which is a separate issue from patents.

     

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

  30.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 10th, 2010 @ 5:49am

    It's the same with music. Joe Walsh said it best "Steal my licks then record your version of them and then I will steal your licks."
    There's nothing new in music, any good player will tell you that it's all in the phrasing. So where's the copyright anyway? If it is so complicated and innovative then how come I can copy it and replay it just by listening?
    Sounds like bullshit and greed.

     

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

  31.  
    icon
    Tino (profile), Jul 10th, 2010 @ 6:04am

    Anonymous Coward

    My comment on patented seeds is not irrelevant. We are talking about intellectual property. Copyright is one species of that (and probably the worst choice for protecting food)

    The point is that it's not smart to say food became interesting because of lack of IP protection when there wasn't any much of that protection the whole time anyway. I think the argument would be a lot better if we suddenly removed IP protection on food, and all of a sudden it became more interesting. But that's not what happened is it?

     

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

  32.  
    identicon
    Sam I Am, Jul 10th, 2010 @ 7:06am

    A tangible signature meal

    Mike compares rivalrous goods to ethereal concepts to “prove” a point, then crucifies others when they make the same beginners mistake.

    The time and artistic inspiration, education, experience and cash that goes into the creation of new signature dishes to enhance a chef’s reputation is every bit as comprehensive, expensive and prone of possible failure as that which goes into the creation of artistic digital goods. The return on that investment is part of what spurs this creation at the highest levels of achievement and chef’s who pilfer each other’s signatures are just as scorned as comedians who steal the material of others.

    Of course a tangible signature meal must be purchased from the hand of the creator because it cannot be identically replicated, not even by their sous chef. But, if a couple taps on your iPhone could deliver an indistinguishable copy at no cost to the consumer, the rules of restaurants and signature dishes would change to protect that investment just as we are seeing in digital goods today. That dish would come to the table slathered in drm sauce with the added costs on the dinner check.

    Copyleft's bliss-ninnies will argue for years to come that something that can be done in secret might as well be done. So foolish, as if emotional maturity and the self discipline that it exemplifies no longer need apply going forward. More highly evolved societies and the systems under which they operate will always acknowledge, respect and protect creators rights from the unauthorized duplication and distribution of their unique products, digital or culinary.

     

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

  33.  
    icon
    Bruce Ediger (profile), Jul 10th, 2010 @ 7:10am

    Re: Big Mac or McChicken without McClown Approval!

    e e trollings writes: however, i dare you to try to sell a big mac or a mcchicken without the clown corp approval, and see how far that gets you.

    You know what? You're correct, but that would be a trademark problem, not a copyright problem. So, you're also incorrect. You seem to have willfully confused what's trademarked, and what's copyrighted.

    But you can go into a McDonald's and by a Big-N-Tasty, which is, as I understand it, a copy of Burger King's "Whopper". So, it did work the other way around: McClownCorp copied the food of PlasticKingCorp, slapped a new name on it, and started competing.

    Honestly, how can you not see the copying that McDonald's, Burger King, Carl's Jr and even (ugh!) Arby's do?

     

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

  34.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 10th, 2010 @ 7:16am

    Re: Re:

    Notice the nick was Fake TAM. My post was clearly satire.

     

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

  35.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 10th, 2010 @ 7:33am

    Re: Re: Big Mac or McChicken without McClown Approval!

    it is the point - food is in the public domain, and has been for hundreds of thousands of years. certainly combinations are covered lightly by trademark (which would likely include a name, possibly the old "two all beef patties...", etc) but not by copyright.

    copyright is a non-starter here not because the law doesnt extend to food creations, only because food is in the public domain, and has been so for so long.

    there are however copyrights in food processing, such as on the machines or processes to make certain foods. a good example would be patent 1,773,079, which was for flash freezing. it isnt a copyright on food, but on a process. the process was new.

    all mike is trying to do is create confusion by setting sort of 'non copyright' strawmen. it is almost as stupid as not mentioning a writer is an elected member of the pirate party, but that one is still the top for the week.

    "Honestly, how can you not see the copying that McDonald's, Burger King, Carl's Jr and even (ugh!) Arby's do?" - you could copy the food to some extent (buy some, take it back to your lab, reverse engineer it), but you could not replicate the trademarked look or feel of the stores, maybe not even the product names and such. there are tons of burger joints, there is only one chain called mcdonalds, and only one big mac.

     

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

  36.  
    icon
    Bruce Ediger (profile), Jul 10th, 2010 @ 7:48am

    Re: A tangible signature meal

    chef’s who pilfer each other’s signatures are just as scorned as comedians who steal the material of others.

    That's part of the anti-copyright point isn't it? That comedy, fashion, "magic" and food all manage to innovate and promote creativity despite working in fields that don't have the so-called incentive of copyright?

    Also, I think you've badly mis-used the term "copyleft". Copyleft is a sort of slang term for the use of copyright to promote computer source code sharing.

     

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

  37.  
    identicon
    abc gum, Jul 10th, 2010 @ 7:53am

    Re: Re: Re: Big Mac or McChicken without McClown Approval!

    Your argument could easily be applied to the clothing industry as well. Humans have been wearing clothes since before the roman empire. The only things subject to patent would be the machines used to make said clothing.

     

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

  38.  
    identicon
    abc gum, Jul 10th, 2010 @ 8:02am

    Re: Re:

    Clearly, home cooking is destroying the ham sandwich industry and more protects are required to save it from the sandwich pirates. It amazes me how some think that they can just make food in their own home when the kitchen copyright and patent has been made this illegal - and yet these free tards continue to violate the rights of the sandwich coalition. Sheesh, it's truely amazing.

     

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

  39.  
    identicon
    Albion Tourgee, Jul 10th, 2010 @ 8:08am

    No Shakespeare Anymore

    Actually it's pretty obvious that copyright prevents innovation and creativity. Just consider Shakespeare who took all kinds of stuff from other writers and improved on it. Hardly an original story in the lot. Today, he'd be barred from publishing it -- just consider how the heirs of J D Salinger used the law to stop a writer who wrote a novel about the same character as the protagonist of Catcher in the Rye, but many years later grown up. This is super-copyright. Not just the words used by Salinger are protected long after his death, but also even the characters he wrote about.

    Notice that the AP is trying to protect news events, not just what they write, so there would be restrictions on covering stories if AP got there first. Tell me, how does this protection increase creativity or knowledge?

    The people pushing for copyright aren't interested in creativity or originality. They're interested in branding their stuff and milking it for money. The whole idea is to stop creativity, not promote it.

    The guy who says, Macdonalds has a copyright is a good example. First, Macdonalds isn't a copyright it's a trademark. That aside, Macdonalds original, or creative? If you say so, you don't even know what the words mean. It's just the same shit as everyone else sells, with a brand for the people who are afraid to try anything new.

    People do eat this junk and Macdonalds makes more money than all the restaurants serving healthy food in the world put together. Robert Lowell said it best, "A savage servility slides by on grease." If you are putting Macdonalds up as your example of creativity or originality, well, arguments over I guess.

     

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

  40.  
    identicon
    abc gum, Jul 10th, 2010 @ 8:09am

    Re:

    Care to provide any evidence to support the claim that food was boring 100 years ago ?

    Or are we to just assume that you are correct - you know - just cause you said so.

     

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

  41.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 10th, 2010 @ 8:20am

    Re:

    "We are talking about intellectual property. Copyright is one species of that"

    No, we're talking about copyright law specifically, patents are off topic as they do not function in the same way or even have the same purpose.

    That's what I hate about the term "IP", it attempts to lump a bunch of unrelated laws into one category.

     

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

  42.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 10th, 2010 @ 8:24am

    Re: Re:

    The laws are related.

     

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

  43.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 10th, 2010 @ 8:26am

    Re: Re: Re:

    but in this context I agree that the relationship is irrelevant.

     

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

  44.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 10th, 2010 @ 8:59am

    Re: Re:

    what us embarrassing is that mike allowed someone to spout their partys political agenda in a post, and conveniently forgot to mention which party. it is the sort of oops that shows that mike is very careful with the truth, only posting what supports his point of view and nothing that makes him look like a shill.

    mike, are you a member of the pirate party? did you get paid to place that post?

     

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

  45.  
    identicon
    abc gum, Jul 10th, 2010 @ 8:59am

    Re: A tangible signature meal

    "Mike compares rivalrous goods to ethereal concepts to “prove” a point, then crucifies others when they make the same beginners mistake."
    [citation needed]

    "Signature meal ... "
    wtf

    "Copyleft's bliss-ninnies"
    This adds little credibility to your statements.

    Wow, you are really going of the deep end with that last sentence.

     

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

  46.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 10th, 2010 @ 9:20am

    Re: Re: Re:

    what?

     

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

  47.  
    identicon
    Dr. Seuss, Jul 10th, 2010 @ 9:26am

    Re: A tangible signature meal

    Dear Mr. Pirate,

    You seem to espouse respect for the work of others and yet blatantly use the creation of someone other than yourself.

    Nice hypocrisy there.

     

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

  48.  
    icon
    Thomas (profile), Jul 10th, 2010 @ 9:36am

    Re:

    Leave it to TAM to confuse a big mac with food.

     

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

  49.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 10th, 2010 @ 9:51am

    Re: Re: Re: Big Mac or McChicken without McClown Approval!

    "there are however copyrights in food processing, such as on the machines or processes to make certain foods. a good example would be patent 1,773,079, which was for flash freezing. it isnt a copyright on food, but on a process. the process was new."

    Patents are not copyrights you twit. If patents and copyright were the same thing we wouldn't need to use two separate words for them.

     

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

  50.  
    identicon
    Sam I Am, Jul 10th, 2010 @ 9:53am

    Re: Re: A tangible signature meal

    Hypocrisy? Hardly. It's a fine demonstration of Fair Use, an aspect of copyright that must be preserved and enhanced if you ask me. But only a pirate would see hypocrisy, that is, no meaningful difference between adopting a posting moniker and copying and distributing the collected works of Theodore Geisel.

     

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

  51.  
    identicon
    NAMELESS ONE, Jul 10th, 2010 @ 10:14am

    if you try adding hollywood copyright to food

    the revolution will be on and THEY know it.
    SAME with cars and other NON digital items.

    ALL copyright is , is a tax.

     

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

  52.  
    icon
    Hugh Mann (profile), Jul 10th, 2010 @ 10:16am

    Well, food is not really an apt analogy...

    There are a lot of reasons why food is not really a good touchstone for proving or disproving the incentive nature of copyright.

    Food is consumed once, and then has to be re-acquired.

    Each kitchen can only produce so much of it, and, if the food is popular, is probably not able to meet the demand for it, even if they wanted and tried to.

    Food is a very distance-limited commodity. Only people who can get to the kitchen can eat that food (yes, yes, you can freeze it and ship it, I guess, but that's sort of beyond the traditoinal restaurant/kitchen model you put up).

    There is an element of the cook's skill here. I can copy your recipe, but just because I use the same ingredients doesn't mean I'll come out with the same results.

    In general, the utilitarian nature of food FAR outweighs any artistic expression associated with it. Yes, there are dishes produced much more for the pure artistic elements of taste and presentation, but, that's really a minority, and is certainly not the goal of your Korean taco truck friends.

    So, while I would acknowledge that your descripion of the restaurant industry getting along quite nicely without some form of copyright protection for food dishes seems pretty accurate, I disagree that it says anything at all one way or the other about whether copyright protection acts as an incentive for further creativity. Two different animals.

    HM

     

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

  53.  
    identicon
    Dr. Suess, Jul 10th, 2010 @ 10:37am

    Re: Re: Re: A tangible signature meal

    "But only a pirate would see hypocrisy"
    What kind of twisted logic produced this gem?

    I find it amusing that you claim fair use when it is to your benefit.

     

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

  54.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 10th, 2010 @ 10:39am

    Re: Re: Re: Big Mac or McChicken without McClown Approval!

    there are however copyrights in food processing, such as on the machines or processes to make certain foods. a good example would be patent 1,773,079, which was for flash freezing. it isnt a copyright on food, but on a process. the process was new.

    Heh, not only does the IP troll not know the difference between copyrights and trademarks, it doesn't know the difference between copyrights and patents either. Funny, but typical.

     

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

  55.  
    identicon
    ianal, Jul 10th, 2010 @ 10:49am

    Re: Well, food is not really an apt analogy...

    "food is not really a good touchstone for proving or disproving the incentive nature of copyright."

    And yet there are those who believe "signature meals" should be allowed copyright. - (Sam I Am, I'm looking at you.)

    On a related subject, you can not copyright a recipe. It is the presenation of that recipe that can be subject to copyright.

    It is a stretch to say that cooking a meal is a presentation of the recipe.

     

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

  56.  
    identicon
    hopeful, Jul 10th, 2010 @ 11:09am

    Re:

    you could make a burger and make it look kinda like a big mac and taste like a big mac without any trouble at all. its when you try and call it a big mac when they will get their knickers in a twist

     

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

  57.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 10th, 2010 @ 11:31am

    Re: Re:

    gee, shouting down someone else now? is mike paying you extra?

     

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

  58.  
    identicon
    Sam I Am, Jul 10th, 2010 @ 11:31am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: A tangible signature meal

    "I find it amusing that you claim fair use when it is to your benefit."

    Pure sophistry. Empty provocation with no point.
    The doctrine of Fair Use is to EVERYone's benefit.

     

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

  59.  
    identicon
    Sam I Am, Jul 10th, 2010 @ 11:58am

    signature meals

    "(Sam I Am, I'm looking at you.)"

    Fair enough.
    My point was that honor still exists in some quarters of commercial/artistic creation, and the unethical coopting of a signature dishl or an original joke in the case of the comedian is very deeply frowned upon in both professional circles. There's no faster way to the bottom in either profession.

    So my point still stands. A signature meal design is like automotive or pharmaceutical, but the meal itself is a rivalrous good, and needs no protection because the original can only come from one place, or even more specifically one particular hand. Were music or movies or books so naturally protected, no rights legislation would have evolved.

    And conversely, should the time come when a couple mouseclicks can make indistinguishable replicas of a signature dish, especially one that underpins a restaurant and a culinary career, then distributes them all over the world essentially eliminating the need to go to a specific place and pay for that experience, we can reasonably expect chef's will equally lobby for and receive similar protections, to defend their artistic creations from the ransacking and price devaluation that has occurred in the world of recorded music and has constituted a huge and unethical (as well as unlawful) taking from musicians.

     

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

  60.  
    identicon
    DanDick, Jul 10th, 2010 @ 12:01pm

    Poor clearing houses!!!

    We absolutely need copyrights and patents and such.

    Think about it. How else would drug manufacturers make people on their death beds pay out their life savings if everyone else could make the same drug?

    How would the clearing houses be able to pay authors a tiny sum and sue the small college copy center out of their life savings the moment they copy something they thought was legal to copy?

    How would massively wealthy companies be able to buy off and shut down a technology that might be greatly beneficial to society and to the planet?

    The rich absolutely need something they can use to beat up the little guy. Think about it. If we had just laws, we would have to stop prostituting justice to the highest bidders, and attorneys would go out of business. What would happen if we stopped shredding the families of little children for profit. Faithful parents could no longer be dragged into court to be terrorized. Attorneys would no longer be able to get rich prolonging injustice, throwing the children into the whorehouses of adultery and divorce while throwing the faithful out of the home and strapping them to death with exorbitant child support payments under the guise of doing it for the best well-being of the children.

    No. Rich people need some kind of imaginary honor to hide behind. Tolerance. We need tolerance. We need to tie it together with concepts of racism, bigotry, and make the war between two imaginary entities--the radical left and the fundamentalist right, men against women, elderly against the young, black against white against yellow against red, people with even numbered verses odd numbered freckles, or whatever. And whatever's right has to be firmly tied to what's "wrong" so that to do right, you imagine you have to sacrifice something, even if it's a total lie.

    But, if you don't have lies, then you cannot have ill-gotten gain, and today, that is so very unamerican.

    No. We have to get rid of God in the classroom, too. See how much better we are now that we've done that? There's nobody to hold us accountable for lying any more. There's no reason for hope in times of darkness, and that helps reduce the population through depression, suicide, drug usage, and alcoholism. It leads to divorce, and that creates a cycle, too. Sexual perversion may be stupid, and people who fight for it may be stupid liars, but hey, it spreads AIDS and sort of makes them all winners in terms of the Darwin Awards. We should celebrate. Yes. Isn't it wonderful? In fact, it even takes the lives of innocent bystanders. Yes. ZPZ. Zero Population Growth. Great for society.

    Oh, but we really should take this one step further. Think of how wonderful the world would be if it were perfectly "natural" and "organic" without one human being here to mess it up. Thank God for nukes. One day we'll all be gone, and then the patent offices and the wealthy will have this whole world all to themselves.

    Well, I suppose this is all sort of stupid, isn't it. But, every time we push for it, we tell the world it's the American way and we're supporting it.

    The next time you pull money our a credit card out of your wallet or purse, ask yourself what it supports and whether you agree with it or not. Then make a deliberate decision rather than doing a knee-jerk grab for your immediate lusts of the flesh. It's amazing what good a change of policy can do. If we all think we can make a difference, we will. If we all lie to ourselves and say we can't, well, our investments will continue to support moral, ethical, religious, social, physical, and natural destruction wherever we go. Poison, or don't. Sometimes it may seem like it only takes a drop of poison to kill a room full of people, and it does. But, sometimes it only takes a drop of antidote to save a room full of people. And that is what we too often miss.

    Let's not miss it this time.

     

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

  61.  
    icon
    Hugh Mann (profile), Jul 10th, 2010 @ 12:02pm

    Re: Re: Well, food is not really an apt analogy...

    In your "and yet" comment, I'm not sure if you're attempting to refute my assertion by pointing out the opposing position, or if you're acknowledging the inherent wisdom of it, but lamenting the utter folly of those who hold a different viewpoint.

    I do agree that recipes, in the form of a utilitarian list of ingredients and preparation steps, are generally not copyrightable. As you note, if they are EXPRESSED in a creative way, then that expression IS subject to copyright protection.

    I suppose you could potentially get patent protection for a recipe if the result had some clear utility and met the other criteria for patentability. As an off-the-top-of-my-head example, if the recipe served to maximize nutritional value of the ingredients in some novel and non-obvious way, rather than merely presenting a good taste sensation.

    HM


    HM

     

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

  62.  
    identicon
    I'd gladly pay you tuesday for a hamburger today, Jul 10th, 2010 @ 12:22pm

    Re:

    "Oh but wait, 100 years ago there weren't a lot of patented seeds, food production equipment, fertilizers, irrigiation equipment, food transport systems, etc. and today there are. And now food is more interesting. Cause and effect? Naaah...just a coincidence."

    Whoa ... hold on there a sec. You are trying to tell me that improvement in food preparation is due to things totally unrelated to food preparation?

     

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

  63.  
    identicon
    Dr. Suess, Jul 10th, 2010 @ 12:27pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A tangible signature meal

    "The doctrine of Fair Use is to EVERYone's benefit."

    Until you decide a particular instance is not fair use because it suits your pupose.

     

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

  64.  
    identicon
    ianal, Jul 10th, 2010 @ 12:37pm

    Re: signature meals

    "should the time come when a couple mouseclicks can make indistinguishable replicas of a signature dish"

    I doubt that is a legitimate concern.

     

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

  65.  
    icon
    Bruce Ediger (profile), Jul 10th, 2010 @ 12:40pm

    Re: Re: Re: Big Mac or McChicken without McClown Approval!

    Reverse engineer a Big Mac in the lab!?!?

    Without prior consultation of a lawyer? e e, you're losing your touch! You have to consult an authority to decide if such action is legal!

    Besides that, I gave an example, the McDonald's "Big-n-tasty" that appears to be a duplicate of Burger King's "The Whopper. You could probably compare the ill-named McDonald's "Third Pounders" to Carl's Jr "Six-Dollar Burger", too. Oh, and what about McDonald's "Double Cheeseburger" vs Wendy's "Double Stack"?

    Looks like such "reverse engineering" takes place all over the place in real life.

    As far as "look and feel" of stores, and trademarks, you are correct, and thank you for admitting that part is in fact trademarked, but the food isn't.

     

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

  66.  
    icon
    Hugh Mann (profile), Jul 10th, 2010 @ 12:51pm

    Re: Poor clearing houses!!!

    Well, while I agree that it's a fine and admirable thing to think a little more broadly about the impact of one's personal spending, I must say your rather simplistic, yet eloquently presented, view of the world (i.e., the rich have the sole purpose of screwing the rest of the world) is a bit off the mark.

    It's interesting that your "rich people are evil" argument is included in the same monologue as your criticism of other extreme binary conflict ("the radical left and the fundamentalist right, men against women, elderly against the young, black against white against yellow against red").

    The truth is almost never at the extremes. It's almost always somewhere in the middle. It's not black-and-white. It's a lot of grey. Copyright and patent law serve legitimate purposes, but there are those who are concerned that they do not adequately address perceived conflicts with other important aspects of our society. Some people unfairly push copyright beyond its intended purposes, others completely disregard even its beneficial and fair applications. It's a mix, and just about ANY simplistic view of the situation is bound to be more wrong than right. The right approach is a balanced one.

    Let's not miss THAT.

    HM

     

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

  67.  
    identicon
    hxa7241, Jul 10th, 2010 @ 1:07pm

    Re:

    > The point is that it's not smart to say food became

    Where in the original piece is food of the past mentioned? It isn't. The point you refer to was never made.

    The actual point is that *current* food is innovative without copyright.

     

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

  68.  
    identicon
    hxa7241, Jul 10th, 2010 @ 1:27pm

    Re: A tangible signature meal

    A truly evolved society would put the deep right of people to freely communicate ideas above intellectual monopoly 'rights', which are merely fictions for one particular commercial arrangement.

     

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

  69.  
    icon
    vivaelamor (profile), Jul 10th, 2010 @ 2:25pm

    Re: Re: Poor clearing houses!!!

    "It's a mix, and just about ANY simplistic view of the situation is bound to be more wrong than right. The right approach is a balanced one."

    It's interesting that a middle ground fallacy is included in the same monologue as your deconstruction of DanDick's fallacious argument. Just saying.

     

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

  70.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 10th, 2010 @ 2:27pm

    Re: signature meals

    No stupid, maybe the original can come from only one place but people don't care as long as it is like the original which creates a whole lot of derivatives that will, lead to an explosion of ideas.

    No copyright is even good in the sense that it limits the growth of a company, those not creating white elephants that can't die because they are too big.

    No copyrights and patents means a lot of small people can do it and that approaches the principal of celular manufacturing, that is flexible and dynamic and can scale or shrink with easy.

    Copyright and your pseudo respect for creation only hampers that, creating giant zombie companies that don't produce anything new and sterilize the environment those negating innovation, creation of jobs, new opportunities and so forth.

    Want to see proof, why don't you go out to instructables and create a chart of the original post of some recepie and track the timeline for people to come up with other derivative recepies.

    The exact same things happens with music and video.

    Do you know how to plot relationships?
    http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_pT-vUOwT9QM/S8qqtDfmc6I/AAAAAAAABk4/Bp3GG7ltR8g/s400/miku. bmp
    http://www-kasm.nii.ac.jp/papers/takeda/08/hamasaki08uxtv.pdf

    Now the interesting part, people in some parts of the world don't need musicians anymore.

    Hatsune-Miku and the Vocaloid series (#1 was Hatsune Miku, #2 was Kagamine Rin & Len, #3 was Megurine Luca) created a completely new phenomena in Japan where people who had never created music (just listens or hums or sings in Karaoke etc) started creating original music using Hatsune-Miku. Just like what blogs did in text world, what Youtube did in video world, Hatsune-Miku opened up a possibility of "consumer generated music" market in Japan. Already 3 years have passed since its release, and the energy of the creators has not faded.

    I wrote a blog post about the decline in the music industry in Japan here. One of the exceptions was Vocaloid.


    People are truly creating their own music and it even getting in the top played charts, oh! the horror!

     

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

  71.  
    icon
    vivaelamor (profile), Jul 10th, 2010 @ 2:28pm

    Re: signature meals

    "And conversely, should the time come when a couple mouseclicks can make indistinguishable replicas of a signature dish, especially one that underpins a restaurant and a culinary career, then distributes them all over the world essentially eliminating the need to go to a specific place and pay for that experience, we can reasonably expect chef's will equally lobby for and receive similar protections, to defend their artistic creations from the ransacking and price devaluation that has occurred in the world of recorded music and has constituted a huge and unethical (as well as unlawful) taking from musicians."

    Are you inviting a replicator analogy?

     

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

  72.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 10th, 2010 @ 2:35pm

    Re: signature meals

     

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

  73.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 10th, 2010 @ 2:37pm

    Re: Re: signature meals

    Actually people can do that right now,

    http://allrecipes.com/
    http://www.cooks.com/
    http://www.foodnetwork.com/
    http://www.cooksreci pes.com/

    There are thousands of food pirate websites didn't you see those?

     

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

  74.  
    icon
    Red Monkey (profile), Jul 10th, 2010 @ 2:40pm

    How exactly is copyright even relevant here? Copyright is for protecting expressions of an idea? You obviously can't copyright a Korean taco. I can see maybe patenting a method of making a taco, or the combination of ingredients. But a copyright on a taco? Which of the eight categories in section 102 would a Korean taco even fall into?

     

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

  75.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 10th, 2010 @ 2:42pm

    Re: Re: Poor clearing houses!!!

    There is no balacne, and he is right on the mark there.

    Copyright is a instrument for the rich to enact control over others.

    It is a instrument for corporations to kill the competitors.

    It is the instrument that will bring down a great country because it is in fact what the USSR did to harm their own economy they tried to control everything and told everybody what to do and didn't had competitors.

     

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

  76.  
    identicon
    Cjenkins, Jul 10th, 2010 @ 2:45pm

    Great article, thanks

    Great article, very interesting, thank you very much for sharing :)

     

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

  77.  
    icon
    vivaelamor (profile), Jul 10th, 2010 @ 2:48pm

    Re:

    "Let me get this straight. 100 years ago food was boring and there was no copyright. Now food is more interesting and there is still no copyright. From this, we are supposed to conclude that food has become more interesting because of the lack of copyright? "

    If you want to ignore all the nuances of the argument, which claimed not definitive conclusion beyond 'the industry thrives despite a lack of copyright', then sure. Perhaps you should learn about the differences between fact and theory, as this article has both.

     

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

  78.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 10th, 2010 @ 3:01pm

    Re:

    Exactly the point. It doesn't have IP protection.

     

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

  79.  
    identicon
    geddit, Jul 10th, 2010 @ 3:03pm

    Re: Re:

    so because there are powerful interests which exploit copyright for profit, we should completely disregard any value copyright has entirely. sound logic. do you believe that without copyright protection, big greedy co's will simply give up and not adapt to that environment? naive.

     

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

  80.  
    icon
    vivaelamor (profile), Jul 10th, 2010 @ 3:09pm

    Re: Re: Re: Now sounds like a good time

    "Except that when the laws are understood as incentivizing creativity rather than promoting sharing, the result is a tendency to favor monetary rewards for creativity over promoting progress for the public benefit."

    Copyright never had any facility designed to encourage sharing. As a monopoly its function is, at best, to provide an incentive to create by limiting the ability to share that which is inherently copyable. The Statue of Anne states, in its purpose: "for the encouragement of learned men to compose and write useful books", which seems analogous to monetary rewards for creativity.

    By contrast, patents were designed to facilitate sharing by requiring disclosure of the invention. That said, whether disclosure for patents serves any purpose in practice is debatable.

     

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

  81.  
    icon
    Hugh Mann (profile), Jul 10th, 2010 @ 3:10pm

    Re: Re: Re: Poor clearing houses!!!

    Well, I disagree that the existence and/or desirablility of a middle ground is fallacious.

    So, there you go.

    HM

     

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

  82.  
    icon
    Hugh Mann (profile), Jul 10th, 2010 @ 3:22pm

    Re: Re: A tangible signature meal

    There is no restriction on ideas in intellectual property law. Copyright protects particular expressions of ideas, not the ideas themselves. Likewise, patents protect implementation of new and useful devices/methods, and not mere ideas.

    Yes, some try to push IP law to achieve goals that were not really intended to be enabled (witness the printer cartridge and garage door opener cases brought under the DMCA), but, you know what, the courts usually come to the right decision, and so those cases are usually losers.

    You can talk about the ideas of organized crime, family dynamics, mid-20th-Century American culture all you want. That's quite a different thing from making an unauthorized ocpy of "The Godfather". The doctrine of fair use is a mechanism (albeit perhaps an imperfect one) for ensuring that communication of ideas that nonetheless makes reasonable use of the creative expression of others can still take place. Of course, no matter the definition, reasonable minds can disagree as to whether any particular use of such content constitutes a fair use under any particular set of circumstances. Hence, the need to resort to the legal system on occasion to resolve the dispute - just like any other thing two parties might disagree about.

    Of course, one might also note that in a truly evolved society, people would respect the work of others and not attempt to take more than what the creator was willing to provide.

    HM

     

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

  83.  
    icon
    Hugh Mann (profile), Jul 10th, 2010 @ 3:27pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Now sounds like a good time

    Actually, I think it's fair to say that copyright ASSUMES sharing is already taking place, else, how is it that the copier is able to make a copy?

    The disclosure requirement of a patent seems to be related to the fact that the novel elements of the invention may not be readily detectable merely by observing the finished product on a store shelf. Not so with a copyrighted work. The painting on the wall is itself the entire expression, and is disclosed to the public by it's mere display in the markteplace. No further "sharing" requirement makes sense in that case.

    Note that the disclsoure ("sharing") element of a patent does NOT grant any right to DO anything with that disclosure during the term of the patent.

    HM

     

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

  84.  
    icon
    vivaelamor (profile), Jul 10th, 2010 @ 3:34pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Poor clearing houses!!!

    "Well, I disagree that the existence and/or desirablility of a middle ground is fallacious."

    Then you misunderstand. It is not fallacious to desire a middle ground, or for one to exist. It is fallacious to base your argument upon its existence. You say: "The truth is almost never at the extremes. It's almost always somewhere in the middle.", logic by which I would guess that the majority of convicted mass murderers are only actually guilty of half their crimes.

    You would do better to provide evidence on the actual effect of copyright, from which 'too much' and 'too little' might be determined, before heading for the middle ground.

     

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

  85.  
    icon
    vivaelamor (profile), Jul 10th, 2010 @ 4:00pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Now sounds like a good time

    "Actually, I think it's fair to say that copyright ASSUMES sharing is already taking place, else, how is it that the copier is able to make a copy?"

    If allowing someone to view a painting is sharing then yes, sharing is a prerequisite to copying.

    "The disclosure requirement of a patent seems to be related to the fact that the novel elements of the invention may not be readily detectable merely by observing the finished product on a store shelf. Not so with a copyrighted work. The painting on the wall is itself the entire expression, and is disclosed to the public by it's mere display in the markteplace. No further "sharing" requirement makes sense in that case."

    Well said.

     

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

  86.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 10th, 2010 @ 4:17pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    TAM's hypocrisy continues to amaze.

     

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

  87.  
    icon
    Hugh Mann (profile), Jul 10th, 2010 @ 4:32pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Poor clearing houses!!!

    Ah, I see. Well, that's the difference between "truth" and "facts." Whether or not the accused has been determined to have met the criteria for having committed the crime of murder is not something that is usually subject to any sort of interpretation. He either committed the crime, or he did not, and the process itself is inteded to be (though perhaps sometimes falls short of being) an objective one.

    However, something more subjective, like whether copyright is "good" or "bad" I think very much falls into my personal philosophy of the truth usually being in the middle. We can readily see that there are both good things and not-so-good things that come out of it, so to label it as merely a tool of the rich to oppress the not-as-rich is rather narrow-minded.

    To carry your murderer example a bit further, this might be like trying to label him as "evil". He has committed an evil act, to be sure, but is there nothing at all about him that is anything but evil?

    I usually (not always, but usually) head to the middle ground first, while being open-minded enough to consider all the facts to determine if that is the right place to stay. The middle ground is most likely where the most accuracy in describing the problem is to be found, as well as mostly likely the place where the best answer is to be found.

    HM

     

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

  88.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 10th, 2010 @ 4:35pm

    Re: Re: Re: Big Mac or McChicken without McClown Approval!

    Shouldn't you consult a professional writer before your diatribes?

     

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

  89.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 10th, 2010 @ 4:37pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    You're a member of the Moron Party.

     

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

  90.  
    icon
    Andrew F (profile), Jul 10th, 2010 @ 4:54pm

    More patent than copyright

    I think this gives a better case for why patents are not (always) necessary rather than copyright. This isn't a case of the literal exact "expression" of the Korean taco being copied but the idea.

    The copyright analogue would be if people were innovating in food despite some Star Trek-like replicator device that made perfect copies of foods.

     

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

  91.  
    icon
    Bruce Ediger (profile), Jul 10th, 2010 @ 5:03pm

    Re: signature meals


    Sam I Am (are you authorized by the Dr Suess Estate?) says:And conversely, should the time come when a couple mouseclicks can make indistinguishable replicas of a signature dish, especially one that underpins a restaurant and a culinary career, then distributes them all over the world essentially eliminating the need to go to a specific place and pay for that experience, we can reasonably expect chef's will equally lobby for and receive similar protections,

    When that time comes, those of us of a Free Market persuasion should applaud the innovations that reduce the marginal cost of preparing such a dish to nearly zero. Because at that point, competition and the Invisible Hand of the market place will reduce the price of such a dish to the marginal cost of production.

    I'm sorry, I just can't believe that we as a society should protect particular ways or methods of making a living with artificial monopolies. The burden of enforcement of these laws alone would be enormous.

    It's a good thing that the Fabled Buggy-Whip Industry Association of America, The BWIAA, didn't have effective lobbyists at the introduction of the auto, otherwise we'd all still be driving horses in our ethnic ghettos.

     

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

  92.  
    identicon
    geddit, Jul 10th, 2010 @ 5:34pm

    Re: Re:

    Of course there are ridiculous applications of copyright law, but rejecting copyright altogether may not necessarily be the answer.
    now cue the weird, off-base, accusatory replies...

     

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

  93.  
    identicon
    NAMELESS ONE, Jul 10th, 2010 @ 6:02pm

    All i have to say is

    17.07 pop n popcorn.....

     

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

  94.  
    identicon
    NAMELESS ONE, Jul 10th, 2010 @ 6:05pm

    @3

    Nothing prevents you from getting 3 stale buns soya beans meat and mayo and some lettuce slap that together and eat it ? last i checked.....BIG NAMELESS BURGER

    SUE ME NOW so i can laugh all the way to the bank in the counter suit

     

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

  95.  
    identicon
    JEDIDIAH, Jul 10th, 2010 @ 6:36pm

    Creative Bigots

    > it takes about 5 seconds for someone to say "I think I'll sell Korean Tacos off of a truck!"

    You need to watch an episode of Heston Blumenthal's In Search of Perfection sometime. Creating a useful combination takes a bit more credit than you seem willing to give. OTOH, there is a lot of "public domain sharing" that can occur. Although this is also true for any other art or craft too.

     

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

  96.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 10th, 2010 @ 8:00pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Not because of that, but because copyright is only used to maintain business for lazy, unimaginative people who would starve other wise which is fine by me as those people don't deserve compassion or sympathy.

    Copyright is for bloodsuckers that kill economies.

     

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

  97.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 10th, 2010 @ 8:19pm

    Re: A tangible signature meal

    "Mike compares rivalrous goods to ethereal concepts to “prove” a point, then crucifies others when they make the same beginners mistake." - most of us learned long ago that mike does not hold his arguments to the same standards as comment posters. his usual trick is to either declare you a liar or that you dont understand basic economics, or that you are setting up strawmen. yet, here we are, with one of the most ignorant posts in ages, and he thinks its a good thing.

    when you see stuff like this, you have to completely question the rest of his logic, because it is likely equally as flawed.

     

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

  98.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 10th, 2010 @ 8:28pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Be careful, they might actually start a party and gain some political influence. Don't give the morons any ideas, they will probably have a decent number of voters.

     

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

  99.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 10th, 2010 @ 8:29pm

    Re: Re: A tangible signature meal

    Hello lower case coward ...

    You make accusations without substantiating evidence ...

    oh well ... just another day on techDirt

     

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

  100.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 10th, 2010 @ 9:11pm

    Re: Re: Re: A tangible signature meal

    But only a pirate would see hypocrisy, that is, no meaningful difference between adopting a posting moniker and copying and distributing the collected works of Theodore Geisel.

    "Adopting"? You mean "stealing", don't you? So you think it's OK to steal "a little", just not "a lot", huh? What about stealing a $0.99 item? Would that be OK in your book? Because that's what a song on iTunes costs.

     

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

  101.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 10th, 2010 @ 9:16pm

    Re: signature meals

    And conversely, should the time come when a couple mouseclicks can make indistinguishable replicas of a signature dish... blah blah blah

    Hey genius, copyright existed well before the advent of computers and applies regardless of how "easy" something is to copy. Your reasoning is just plain stupid.

     

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

  102.  
    icon
    Gene Cavanaugh (profile), Jul 10th, 2010 @ 9:39pm

    Copyright and the food and fashion industries

    I'm not sure you realize it (I personally think you are a person of integrity who wouldn't deliberately do this), but you are biasing the data.

    With food and fashion, etc., we take something inherently cheap and simple. It may (probably does) take many years to have the knowledge of how to throw something fabulous together, but you throw simple items together.

    If you write a book, or develop something inherently substantial, you may spend years carefully researching, etc. In the most flagrant case I know of, the author of a work did spend years - and it was stolen from him; he got nothing (except a desire not to develop anything new).

    I can say "an orange may be excessively juicy, so an apple will be excessively juicy", but that doesn't make it so.

    Of course, on the other side; you are right about copyright ABUSE (different thing altogether), and THAT needs to stop, even if we have to severely limit or eliminate copyright. As to the value of PROPERLY APPLIED copyright, to me that is undeniable - though I am not seeing any in today's world!

     

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

  103.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 10th, 2010 @ 9:48pm

    The two gentlemen, each law professors, it seems to me have way too much time on their hands.

    Seriously, fashion and food?

    I am waiting with breathless anticipation for a journal article detailing their "research". I will not, however, be holding my breath.

     

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

  104.  
    identicon
    Stanley, Jul 11th, 2010 @ 12:31am

    Re: Something about Big Macs

    I'll wager a guess that Burger King, Bob's Big Boy, Jack in the Box, Rally's, and thousands of other non mega-chains throughout the US didn't all get McDonald's corporate blessing to make their versions of "two all-beef patties, special sauce [thousand island dressing], lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions, [and] a sesame-seed bun."

    If you're saying that they can't call something a Big Mac (Bob's calls theirs the Big Boy, by the way), well then I can't really argue that, but that's a trademark issue, not an actual food item. Also, I dare you to show me a burger-based fast food joint that doesn't have the basic ingredients of a McChicken sandwich: mechanically separated chicken patty, oil, mayo, lettuce, breading, bun.

     

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

  105.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 11th, 2010 @ 12:39am

    What copyright is:

    Copyright is like someone trying to collect rain with a cup, but if someone else collect rains too the guy gets upset and try to stop him from getting water for free, even though he can stand in the rain like all the other and collect his share.

    But that isn't good enough is it, he has to collect all the rain for himself and others are stealing from him when they try to collect the water. Yah I can see how that works.

     

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

  106.  
    icon
    vivaelamor (profile), Jul 11th, 2010 @ 3:49am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Poor clearing houses!!!

    "Ah, I see. Well, that's the difference between "truth" and "facts." Whether or not the accused has been determined to have met the criteria for having committed the crime of murder is not something that is usually subject to any sort of interpretation. He either committed the crime, or he did not, and the process itself is inteded to be (though perhaps sometimes falls short of being) an objective one."

    Admittedly my example was piss poor, but you miss my point, which was to point out the absurdity of your statement. Had you offered something more substantive to base your argument on then I would have taken your statement to be a mere expression, and not interpreted it so literally.

    "However, something more subjective, like whether copyright is "good" or "bad" I think very much falls into my personal philosophy of the truth usually being in the middle. We can readily see that there are both good things and not-so-good things that come out of it, so to label it as merely a tool of the rich to oppress the not-as-rich is rather narrow-minded."

    Techdirt is rife with examples of the negative effects of copyright, both anecdotes and studies. By what are you even measuring the positive effect of copyright? The copyright industries tend to point to their own success as the primary evidence, ignoring the fact that building an industry is not the supposed purpose of copyright.

    'To carry your murderer example a bit further, this might be like trying to label him as "evil". He has committed an evil act, to be sure, but is there nothing at all about him that is anything but evil?'

    I fail to see how that is analogous, but then my example was crappy in the first place. A better analogy would have been one pinched from Wikipedia: "Some would say that arsenic is a delicious and necessary part of the human diet, but others claim it is a toxic and dangerous substance. The truth is somewhere in between...". The difference there being that I have seen more evidence that arsenic is necessary than copyright.

    "I usually (not always, but usually) head to the middle ground first, while being open-minded enough to consider all the facts to determine if that is the right place to stay. The middle ground is most likely where the most accuracy in describing the problem is to be found, as well as mostly likely the place where the best answer is to be found."

    That isn't the issue here, I don't have a problem with guessing. I have a problem with people making arguments without anything substantial to back them up.

     

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

  107.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 11th, 2010 @ 5:11am

    The RIAA and MPAA are corporate vampires -- parasites sucking the blood (money) out out the US economy that could be spent on better things. We all know they screw over their artists every way they can. Also, they get ridiculous IP laws passed that make a mockery of the original intent of IP. In the process they make the laws and government of the USA ridiculous and less relevant. They are hurting us! If the food and fashion industries can thrive w/o copyright the entertainment industry can, too.

    Wake up America! Support Free Culture and Copyleft!

     

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

  108.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 11th, 2010 @ 6:56am

    Re: Well, food is not really an apt analogy...

    If we're talking about what is fair instead of the current law, I think the issue of resource investment needs to be considered.

    Korean tacos - brilliant idea that costs very little to implement if you already are in the food business. It costs about the same for a competitor in the food business to copy it. The originator gets the credit as the first one to do it, and in some cases that causes people to seek them out over their competitors, ala the Anchor Bar in Buffalo for wings. It doesn't take much edge over your competitors to recoup the initial investment.

    The movie Avatar - in some ways less creative than the Korean taco, but millions of dollars were invested to produce and distribute it. The cost to copy it is a fraction of the originator's investment and there's no real incentive to choose the originator's expensive version over the cheap copy. In this case an artificial incentive like copyright can turn a potential bankruptcy into a profitable venture.

    In some cases copyright hinders innovation, and in some cases it promotes it. The key is to have the law recognize the difference, and honestly I'm not all that optimistic that any group of beaurocrats will be able to make the distinction.

     

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

  109.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 11th, 2010 @ 7:00am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    4 posts. talk about an attempted shout down.

     

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

  110.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 11th, 2010 @ 7:01am

    Re: Re: Re: A tangible signature meal

    i love answers like this. in other words, i am right, but you want me to cite examples to prove the point? here is your example:

    http://www.techdirt.com

    everything you need to understand my post is right there on that site. go for it. you will understand if you open your mind (and stop taking your salary from mike).

     

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

  111.  
    icon
    Red Monkey (profile), Jul 11th, 2010 @ 7:26am

    growing your business

    So if you want to expand your taco business, and the conversation goes like this"

    YOU: "Hi banker, can you lend me money to buy more trucks and to hire more workers"
    BANKER: "Hmmm, OK, but what assurance do I have that you'll be able to pay me back"
    YOU: "Well, everybody loves my tacos. Here, try one!"
    BANKER: "Yup, it's good. But what stops some big guy like Taco Bell from just copying what you do and driving you out of business"
    YOU: "Gee, nothing I guess. Anonymous Coward says anyone should be able to copy my stuff"
    BANKER": "Well, I'm not sure I can risk our depositors' money on this one. Thanks for the taco by the way."

     

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

  112.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 11th, 2010 @ 7:32am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    TAM, stop complaining about your attempts to shout everyone else down with all your posts. Instead of complaining about your behavior why not seek behavioral therapy.

     

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

  113.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 11th, 2010 @ 7:33am

    Re:

    At the point that it doesn't help them make money and at the point that they stop contributing campaign contributions to help politicians get elected.

     

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

  114.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 11th, 2010 @ 7:34am

    Re: Re: Re:

    I'm sure he gets paid overtime.

     

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

  115.  
    identicon
    hxa7241, Jul 11th, 2010 @ 8:00am

    Re: Re: Re: A tangible signature meal

    > ... ideas ...

    (I mean ideas in a casual colloquial sense of any abstract thing.)

    My point is that, given the indulgence of an imagined improved society, we can look at the underlying elements and see:
    1. Communication of abstracts is good.
    2. Production of abstracts is good.
    3. Production of abstracts has no necessary dependence on restricting communication; in fact, the opposite.
    4. So the best aspiration is to support both production and communication in a way that doesn't enforce restriction of either -- i.e. not copyright-like.

    Copyright may be popular, it may even be somewhat expedient in current circumstances. But it is not necessary given the basic character and logic of the elements -- in fact the opposite: it contains an intrinsic flaw. And so in a better world (i.e. where the practicalities are more advantageous) we can expect to obsolete it.

    > people would respect the work of others and not attempt to take more than what the creator was willing to provide.

    This has much weaker grounds when copyright is not assumed. Communication doesn't take anything away.

    Copying may greatly benefit the copier, and is also done within the scope of their personal freedom. Whereas copying has no direct effect on the creator: only some emotional effect perhaps, and that only if the creator is even aware of the copy. How do these balance? Should the creator really be in command here? Surely a material restriction of someone else needs more than the creator's feeling of offense, or mere wish to control, to justify it.

    There is a sense that something like politeness is due, but scarcely more, and that leaves plenty of latitute for differences of opinion, and maybe doesn't even give the final word to the creator.

     

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

  116.  
    icon
    Bruce Ediger (profile), Jul 11th, 2010 @ 8:28am

    Re: Copyright and the food and fashion industries

    Gene Cavanaugh writes:With food and fashion, etc., we take something inherently cheap and simple. It may (probably does) take many years to have the knowledge of how to throw something fabulous together, but you throw simple items together.

    You wrote a very polite article, but I fear I must disagree vehemently. One man's "cheap and simple" is another man's lifetime of labor to understand. Let's take another contentious (in terms of copyright) area, computer programming. Programs are very simple in theory, consisting of instructions, sequences of instructions, loops of constructions and if-then decisions. Simple things like "Combinatory Logic" or "lambda Calculus" can emulate programming, at least on a theoretical level.

    Suppose I point at a human, say, Donald Knuth, who has devoted a lifetime to these simple, simple constructs. Is his composition of simple items not worth protecting?

    I'm not at all certain it's a good idea to judge some activity "simple", and deny it government protection. Are Alexander Calder's "simple" mobiles less deserving of artistic protection than Rowland Emmet's fiendishly complex contraptions?

     

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

  117.  
    icon
    Bruce Ediger (profile), Jul 11th, 2010 @ 8:40am

    Re: growing your business

    That's a bit of straw man, given that we know that investors don't really want to invest in something with just a good idea, but rather in a concern that has people with a history of *executing* ideas well, theirs or others. The taco truck company should present itself as a successful business, with efficient processes and procedures and methods and people, who can give a return on the loan.

    Secondly, isn't that sort of decision exactly what a lender should make? Your script leaves that part out. Perhaps a patent or copyright ownership could make some deal a bit more certain for a lender, but shouldn't a lender look at everything before making a decision?

    Third, why should I be unhappy about Taco Bell competing with J. Random Taco Truck? Isn't that what the Sacred Free Market is all about? Korean Taco Trucks can compete on price, quality, convenience or some other factor. The price that both Tack Bell and Korean Taco Truck Co. put on their products has to come closer to the marginal cost of production, they're more efficient, I spend less money for lunch, and we're all happy, at least the consumers are.

     

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

  118.  
    identicon
    abc gum, Jul 11th, 2010 @ 9:04am

    Re: Re: Re: A tangible signature meal

    "Of course, no matter the definition, reasonable minds can disagree as to whether any particular use of such content constitutes a fair use under any particular set of circumstances. Hence, the need to resort to the legal system on occasion to resolve the dispute"

    This may seem like a resonable statement to those with large amounts of discretionary cash, however it becomes a showstopper for those who lack such funding. In the latter case, there is little choice other than to take down what would be considered fair use by the court. This amounts to bullying by the plantif who knows full well the defendant lacks funds to adequately defend the use in court. In the end it becomes suppression of free speech and our society as a whole suffers as a result.

     

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

  119.  
    identicon
    abc gum, Jul 11th, 2010 @ 9:07am

    Re: Re: A tangible signature meal

    Debating the person rather than the topic - again -
    Somethings never change.

     

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

  120.  
    identicon
    ianal, Jul 11th, 2010 @ 9:15am

    Re: Re: Re: signature meals

    Sam I Am -> "should the time come when a couple mouseclicks can make indistinguishable replicas of a signature dish"

    AC -> "Actually people can do that right now,"


    I do not think I need to click any of your provided links in order to determine that there is no such thing as a replicator, but thanks anyway.

     

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

  121.  
    identicon
    abc gum, Jul 11th, 2010 @ 9:32am

    Re: Re: Copyright and the food and fashion industries

    "Let's take another contentious (in terms of copyright) area, computer programming. "


    Software has copyright protections, as it should. I do not recall reading any assertion to the contrary. What you will find is that there are many who feel software should not be patentable.

     

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

  122.  
    identicon
    abc gum, Jul 11th, 2010 @ 9:37am

    Re:

    Interesting analogy, not sure I understand it completely.

    It did remind me of laws against the collection of rain water, some have recently been rescinded.

     

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

  123.  
    identicon
    big clown, Jul 11th, 2010 @ 9:41am

    Re:

    What if you called it a Korean Clown Burger?

     

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

  124.  
    icon
    Red Monkey (profile), Jul 11th, 2010 @ 9:45am

    growing your business

    "shouldn't a lender look at everything before making a decision?"

    True enough, and without some IP protection, the borrower has one fewer thing going in its favor. Thus, you can't deny that not having IP protection has made things a little harder for the borrower. The only question remaining is how much harder.

    "Third, why should I be unhappy about Taco Bell competing with J. Random Taco Truck? Isn't that what the Sacred Free Market is all about? "

    Sure, if you believe there is no such thing as unfair competition. Under those circumstances, I'd suggest that J Random buy a second truck, dress it up with the Taco Bell logo, park it next to his real truck, and start selling really crappy tacos. Or he could just put a Taco Bell sign on his truck and pass off his tacos as theirs, and get a free ride on their advertising. No IP protection means no law against either of these. Viva la free market!

     

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

  125.  
    icon
    Bruce Ediger (profile), Jul 11th, 2010 @ 9:55am

    Re: growing your business

    You're confusing trademarks (Taco Bell logo) and copyrights or patents on the food.

    Trademarks are essentially consumer protection. Copyrights and trademarks are a government-enforced monopoly, as you've pointed out.

    I'm not sure about "unfair competition". I see the emotional appeal, but I don't know that there's a distinct, logical place to draw the line, any more than a logical place to draw the "this is IP and this isn't" line exists.

    One person's "unfair competition" is another's arbitrage. We as a society need to consider all the issues involved with "IP" and "unfair competition" without the simple straw man you posit.

     

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

  126.  
    icon
    Red Monkey (profile), Jul 11th, 2010 @ 10:15am

    growing your business

    OK, ley's leave the TM issue aside as it sounds like you believe in the status quo on TM law. and focus on food patents (I hope we can all agree that you can't get copyright on food because it doesn't fit in one of the 8 categories in section 102 of the copyright statute).

    It sounds like you are comfortable with the idea that Taco Bell could use J. Random's taco recipe and incorporate it into its own menu. In your view, this is a good thing because it would allow people nationwide to enjoy J. Random's tacos without having to wait around for J. Random to grow his own business. Is this the case?

    I don't see what's wrong with a simple straw-man. If your proposed system of running the economy can't even manage to deal with a simple straw-man in a satisfactory way, it sure wouldn't work too well in a complex problem.

    By the way, there is a body of law called unfair competition, mostly based on the Lanham Act.

     

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

  127.  
    identicon
    Michael Rossiter, Jul 11th, 2010 @ 10:26am

    Two points that limit the general applicability of this finding.

    Interesting post and definitely something to chew on.

    I had a few thoughts:

    1. All the example are (relatively) low fixed cost business with short innovation cycles. I'd like to see an example of this phenomenon in the electronics hardware or pharmaceutical industries (where high fixed costs and long time to market require a very specific innovation-development-commercialization cycle).

    2. People REALLY enjoy being stand up comics or chefs. There's something unique to these pursuits in that people enjoy them. Practioners receive alternative compensation than just money.

     

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

  128.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 11th, 2010 @ 12:02pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Wouldn't moron therapy be more beneficial?

     

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

  129.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 11th, 2010 @ 12:05pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: A tangible signature meal

    Here's proof that you're a fucking moron:

    http://www.youareamoron.com

    Everything you need to know, well, that's a lot, so just take it slow . . . .

     

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

  130.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 11th, 2010 @ 12:24pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    i dont know about tam (i am not tam), but i have no issues, except idiots who try to shout people down. if you want to make one post and have four items, go for it. but tagging post after post like this makes you look like a raving loon, like you are "oh yeah, and..." over and over again.

    get a grip dude, its a chat board.

     

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

  131.  
    identicon
    NAMELESS.ONE, Jul 11th, 2010 @ 1:03pm

    @105 @111 @115 @121 @124

    @105
    to continue your analogy
    he wants to have a giant pool while your allowed a small cone shaped cup. HE wants you to pay for the pool , the installation the lawyers and insurance and then pay to get in his pool or to drink from it...

    @111
    Well then you say because i have a better marketing plan , i get all my ingreidients locally and thus can also say im more eco friendly and i live in community and hire a few employees which give back to the community....

    thats a just off the top of my head....and you can continue to get more creative and if you try hard they will see the value. IT IS SMALL BUSINESSES THAT TRULY DRIVE THE ECONOMY.

    @115 how the flying hell to you derive the sense copyright is POPULAR...what with the 50000 actors in north America out of the 450 million other people that detest it?

    @121
    because you can write
    1+1 =flipp_myBurger;
    and it is unique
    BUT to patent 1+1 is ridiculous....

    @124
    and remember the bigger the business the more corporate over head it will begin to have too, those CEO pay offs are not cheap.....Shipping pre cooked meet and stuff is also expensive , while a smaller store can buy with the times.
    ALSO a small business could use open source and do even better as the corporate climate still favors paying for software ( changing but this gives lil guys an edge too )

     

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

  132.  
    icon
    Red Monkey (profile), Jul 11th, 2010 @ 1:59pm

    @111

    OK nameless, you can try that sales pitch to the banker. But you'd be a lot more likely to close the deal if you could say "by the way, in addition to all that, I can assure you that nobody can copy my products." You have to admit that by taking away this protection, you've made it a little bit harder for the guy to get his loan. Why do you want to make it any harder for small business than it already is?

    Like you say, small business drives the economy, investors and banks drive small business, and there's nothing like some kind of intellectual property protection to make those guys have a warm feeling about providing the capital you, the small business, needs to "drive the economy" like you say.

    Small business needs all the help it can get.

     

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

  133.  
    icon
    Red Monkey (profile), Jul 11th, 2010 @ 2:02pm

    @124

    nameless

    Why are you talking about open source all of a sudden? @124 concerns a taco business not a software provider.

    And if shipping pre-processed food is so cheap and smaller store, like our taco guy can buy with the times, how do you explain cheap fast food? Why is the cheapest burger in town from macdonalds?

     

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

  134.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 11th, 2010 @ 2:51pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    See, total moron.

     

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

  135.  
    icon
    Niall (profile), Jul 11th, 2010 @ 3:29pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    I think the point is aimed at the ridiculous-level copyright maximalists, especially those who say that "you CANNOT create without copyright", rather than saying "let's get rid of all copyright".

    Not that it stops the usual knee-jerk responses - but kudos for a much-better thought-out/written one!

     

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

  136.  
    icon
    Niall (profile), Jul 11th, 2010 @ 3:33pm

    Re:

    And just what do you base the idea on that 'food was boring' 100 years ago?

    If food is only interesting because of 'patented seeds' and 'fertilizers' (because no-one had invented /those/ before!) then I really dread to imagine what your palate considers 'interesting'. Soylent Green anyone?

     

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

  137.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 11th, 2010 @ 3:48pm

    Re: Now sounds like a good time

    This is true (at least that this is one of the incentives).

    Mr. Masnick's article creates a straw man (people who like copyrights/patents argue that nobody will create anything new without it) and easily knocks it down.

    The tougher question is whether copyrights/patents help to maximize creativity and distribution/availability of creative works/inventions.

    People will create new things without any IP protection, but maybe there would be more creation or more/better distribution/availability of those things with such protection. That, of course, is a harder question to answer.

    Much easier to say "if somebody created something new in an area unprotected by IP, then that disproves the need for IP," even if it neglects important points.

     

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

  138.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 11th, 2010 @ 3:51pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Now sounds like a good time

    "Copyright never had any facility designed to encourage sharing."

    But by creating (or enhancing) a financial incentive, it encourages proprietors to make and distribute copies of their works (for a price).

     

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

  139.  
    identicon
    abc gum, Jul 11th, 2010 @ 3:52pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I do not see anyone shouting.

    THIS IS SHOUTING.

    The lowercase coward thinks that proper capitalization is shouting - heh.

     

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

  140.  
    icon
    Red Monkey (profile), Jul 11th, 2010 @ 3:52pm

    Niall

    The thrust of the article seemed to be that food was boring before, and better now, and it was all because you couldn't copyright food. So I just went with that assumption. Actually I'm sure food was just fine 100 years ago. Anyway, if you're hungry, whether it's today or 100 years ago, most food seems pretty interesting. Maybe the whole premise of the article is wrong.

     

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

  141.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 11th, 2010 @ 3:54pm

    Re: Re:

    You might want to re-read the article title. It says lack of copyright "helps" the industry thrive, not merely "the industry thrives despite a lack of copyright."

     

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

  142.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 11th, 2010 @ 4:02pm

    Re: Re: Now sounds like a good time

    first off, you are correct. this is one of the weakest strawmen posts i have seen on techdirt,and there have been a few.

    if is safe to say that copyright (or lack of) has little or nothing to do with the food industry, and in fact is a better representative of what happens when everything has been in the public domain for thousands of years.

    "The tougher question is whether copyrights/patents help to maximize creativity and distribution/availability of creative works/inventions." - the question isnt just maximizing creativity, but also when that creativity happens, and of course, the difference between real creativity and just paint by numbers replication (mike thinks this is innovation).

    overall, you have to ask: without copyright (and the ability for an artist to profit from their works) will the artist have the time to work on new stuff? If a musician is unable to sell their work and must provide it only for free, it is likely he or she will end up with a 40 hours a week job to pay for their actual life. worse yet, many might not even be bothered to practice their art, because they are too busy just trying to make a living. why would anyone want to be a professional musician if there is no real money in being a musician to start with? copyright defines their work, and creates a way to measure it such that it can be sold, licensed, or (if they choose) given away. without copyright, there is no reason to pay the musician anything.

    mike always makes the mistake of thinking that enough people would do it only as a labor of love, and that would be enough. the sad part is the labor of love people are often profiting from the more mainstream (copyright) marketplace for music and movies, and often sell their wares in these ways to be able to afford to make more. remove the larger structure, and those clinging to the edges of it fall off.

    i would dare anyone here to spend the next six months only watching movies, tv shows, and listening to music that is freely given away. that means no commercial tv, no video with pre-roll commercials, nothing with any ads. just stuff that is 100% free with no get back - not even collecting you email. after about 3 days, when you go mental, come back and tell us how it felt.

    oh mike, that would mean you would have to cancel your netflix account and stop feeding the hollywood mpaa system you hate so much.

     

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

  143.  
    icon
    Red Monkey (profile), Jul 11th, 2010 @ 4:32pm

    no incentive to create

    OK, I took your advice and re-read it and found this bizarro quote:

    "But what happened next is quite interesting. Throughout LA (and now around the country) there's been an explosion of Korean taco trucks. And, it's not just limited to trucks. As the article notes, the large chain Baja Fresh is now offering Korean tacos as well. Believers in strong copyright have trouble explaining why this happens. According to them, without copyright as an "incentive to create" people won't innovate because they can't be rewarded, but that's not what's happening at all:"

    Well duh, this is not people innovating, it's people copying! This is EXACTLY what absence of copyright would predict. Then the article goes on to say:

    ""In fact, if someone can copy you, you have incentives to keep innovating and adding extra value that the buyer can only get from you"

    Well, where is all this innovation? All we hear about is more Korean taco trucks all over the country doing the same old thing.The only thing different is that some people have taken to selling them in restaurants instead of trucks. Big deal.

     

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

  144.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 11th, 2010 @ 5:06pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    You've already admitted to being tam for several times, responding to posts addressing as such. If you're going to rail against everyone under the accusation of irresponsible freeloaders, showing some responsibility might aid what's left of your shredded credibility.

     

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

  145.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 11th, 2010 @ 5:20pm

    Re: Re: Re: Now sounds like a good time

    STRAWMANIA!!!

     

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

  146.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 11th, 2010 @ 5:25pm

    Re: no incentive to create

    This is EXACTLY what absence of copyright would predict.

    Huh? People are going to copy, with or without copyright, because it's in our shared DNA. Exhibit A: Reality.

     

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

  147.  
    icon
    Red Monkey (profile), Jul 11th, 2010 @ 5:33pm

    Re: Re: no incentive to create

    Sure they'll copy. The only question is will they copy for free, or will they pay to copy.

    Exhibit B: Laws for dealing with reality

     

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

  148.  
    identicon
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Jul 11th, 2010 @ 5:59pm

    Re: Big Mac or McChicken without McClown Approval!

    ... food is in the public domain, and has been for hundreds of thousands of years. certainly combinations are covered lightly by trademark ... but not by copyright.

    So since written language has been in the public domain for thousands of years, and every possible word in every language has already been written down thousands of times, by the same reasoning, combinations of written words should not be covered by copyright?

    So since music has been around as long as humanity has been around, and every possible note on every possible instrument has already been played, by the same reasoning, combinations of musical notes should not be covered by copyright?

     

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

  149.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 11th, 2010 @ 6:10pm

    Re: Re: Re: no incentive to create

    Wrong question, people won't pay for something that is akin to listening to radio or watching TV.

    Exhibit C: Everyone break those laws daily. Those laws are just for window dressing.

     

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

  150.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 11th, 2010 @ 6:17pm

    Re: no incentive to create

    You are so easy.

    The innovations are tinny and progressive, there is an explosion of trucks, so there is an explosion in consumed products, so there is an explosion in commerce and if you go look at every truck you will notice that they are doing things a bit different from each other, they are in fact testing all possible roots and probably some of them will find different ways to succeed using the same platform and each innovation adds up in the long run.

    Go to the field and do the research, I doubt you will see everyone doing the exact same thing, because there is no barriers they get the basic and improve upon, that is what make markets vibrant, that is why music labels are dying and it will be catastrophic for some people because they killed the environment that could help them thrive.

     

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

  151.  
    icon
    Bruce Ediger (profile), Jul 11th, 2010 @ 6:55pm

    Re: Re: Re: no incentive to create

    As Mark Twain once said, "They might make it illegal, but they'll never make it unpopular."

     

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

  152.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 11th, 2010 @ 6:59pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Poor clearing houses!!!

    Well, I disagree that the existence and/or desirablility of a middle ground is fallacious.

    I suppose then that if someone wanted to shoot you in the head a couple of times, and you didn't really want them to at all, that you'd be willing to settle on the middle ground and let them shoot you in the head just once. It's the middle ground, so it must be reasonable, right?

    So, there you go.

    ditto

     

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

  153.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 11th, 2010 @ 7:01pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    you got it wrong. too bad. mike shouldnt pay you so much, you fail as a troll.

     

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

  154.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 11th, 2010 @ 7:14pm

    Re: Re: Re: A tangible signature meal

    There is no restriction on ideas in intellectual property law. Copyright protects particular expressions of ideas, not the ideas themselves. Likewise, patents protect implementation of new and useful devices/methods, and not mere ideas.

    That's on of the most misleading arguments I've read in some time. Restricting the implementation or expression of an idea is a restriction of an aspect of an idea. What good are ideas if they can't can't be expressed or implemented? In other words, there certainly are restrictions and to claim otherwise is truly duplicitous.

     

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

  155.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 11th, 2010 @ 8:19pm

    Re: growing your business

    So if you want to expand your taco business, and the conversation goes like this"
    ... blah blah blah


    If that were based on reality, banks would never lend anything to any business that wasn't based on copyrights or patents, which certainly isn't the case. But what's reality other than a minor inconvenience to a copyright troll?

     

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

  156.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 11th, 2010 @ 8:37pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: signature meals

    I do not think I need to click any of your provided links in order to determine that there is no such thing as a replicator, but thanks anyway.

    I think that's why he said that *people* can do it. He didn't say *replicators*.

     

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

  157.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 11th, 2010 @ 8:44pm

    Re: growing your business

    ...I'd suggest that J Random buy a second truck, dress it up with the Taco Bell logo, park it next to his real truck, and start selling really crappy tacos. Or he could just put a Taco Bell sign on his truck and pass off his tacos as theirs, and get a free ride on their advertising. No IP protection means no law against either of these. Viva la free market!

    No, that would be fraud and that's very different from copyright. Of course, IP supporters often like to disingenuously conflate the two. It's not very honest, but hey, what do you expect from that camp?

     

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

  158.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 11th, 2010 @ 8:47pm

    Re: growing your business

    By the way, there is a body of law called unfair competition, mostly based on the Lanham Act.

    Yeah, it has to do with monopolies and things like that which, by the way, are exactly what copyrights and patents create: government granted monopolies. Talk about "unfair competition".

     

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

  159.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 11th, 2010 @ 8:56pm

    Re: no incentive to create

    Well, where is all this innovation? All we hear about is more Korean taco trucks all over the country doing the same old thing.The only thing different is that some people have taken to selling them in restaurants instead of trucks. Big deal.

    The Korean taco itself. It is a combination of Korean and Mexican foods. However, if Korean and Mexican foods were all protected by government monopolies, they could not have been freely combined in this way.

     

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

  160.  
    identicon
    the Dude, Jul 11th, 2010 @ 11:26pm

    In a truly evolved society, invention can of course be predicated upon prior works, but with no fear of infringement. Innovation is its own end, legal structures that hinder it are are artificial constructs that inhibit the natural human order of progression.

     

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

  161.  
    identicon
    The Dude, Jul 11th, 2010 @ 11:31pm

    Re: no incentive to create

    You disprove your own point Pinhead! Copying without consequence spurs innovation! Loser!

     

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

  162.  
    icon
    Red Monkey (profile), Jul 12th, 2010 @ 2:45am

    Re: Re: no incentive to create

    What? Do you have a learning disability?...Where's the innovation? All I see is lots more of the same old Korean Taco?

     

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

  163.  
    icon
    Red Monkey (profile), Jul 12th, 2010 @ 2:51am

    Re:

    Nothing hinders the innovation, what gets hindered is business development. Whose going to feel safe giving you money to build a business when they know copying is a threat?

     

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

  164.  
    icon
    Red Monkey (profile), Jul 12th, 2010 @ 2:51am

    Re: Re: no incentive to create

    Nothing hinders the innovation, what gets hindered is business development. Whose going to feel safe giving you money to build a business when they know copying is a threat?

     

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

  165.  
    icon
    Red Monkey (profile), Jul 12th, 2010 @ 2:57am

    Re: Re: growing your business

    Will you get over this copyright thing? You can't even get a copyright on food. Go read the statute itself. Which part of section 102 would food fit into?

    And by the way, what is the specific law that punishes this thing you called fraud on these facts? The Lanham Act. Oh, isn't that the same Act that governs trademarks? Darn, I guess Congress conflated IP and fraud again.

    Go study some law or something.

     

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

  166.  
    icon
    Red Monkey (profile), Jul 12th, 2010 @ 3:05am

    Re: Re: no incentive to create

    That's old hat. According to the article, some guy sells Korean tacos from his Kogi truck, and the next thing that happens, everyone is copying.

    By the way, you're assuming that Kogi guy actually invented this new taco. The article doesn't say that. How do you know he didn't copy it from someone else?

    Now if Kogi had some protection, those other guys would pay him a small royalty. And instead of wasting his time selling tacos, he could go back to inventing new foods.

     

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

  167.  
    icon
    Red Monkey (profile), Jul 12th, 2010 @ 3:12am

    Re: Re: no incentive to create

    You're making up stuff up that isn't in the article. It doesn't say the trucks are doing anything new. They are just copying the same old thing.

    Besides, just because a copy is slightly different from the original doesn't mean there's innovation going on. A fake Gucci and a real one aren't identical to the last stitch, but there's no innovation in making a counterfeit.

     

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

  168.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 12th, 2010 @ 4:24am

    Re: Re: no incentive to create

    no, copying without consequence spurs copies. actual innovations only occurs when people stop copying and start actually thinking.

     

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

  169.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 12th, 2010 @ 4:29am

    Re: Re: no incentive to create

    "The innovations are tinny and progressive, there is an explosion of trucks, so there is an explosion in consumed products, so there is an explosion in commerce" - you make a common error. is there any truly explosion in commerce, or is money moved from one place to another? do people suddenly start eating two lunches, or do they just stop eating at one truck and eat at another? you see, this sort of "bread type (or sauce flavor)" innovation isnt really innovation at all, just replication. worse yet, it doesnt make any more money, it just moves it around.

    there is no proof through all of this that any more money or any more actual commercial activity comes. if anything, in a competitive market, the actual income would drop, as they would fight not only on product, but on price point. the grand benefit would be hundreds of bad korean tacos, and possibly a smaller market (and more people making less money each). sort of sounds like mikes music industry utopia!

     

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

  170.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Jul 12th, 2010 @ 4:29am

    Re:

    The two gentlemen, each law professors, it seems to me have way too much time on their hands.


    I am confused by your regular assertion that somehow professors who are going through the evidence and can speak in great detail about that evidence, often having done peer reviewed research on the topic... have no right to speak to what they have found.

    It seems like the height of arrogance to assume that only those with anecdotal experience can speak to an issue, while those with the actual data cannot.

     

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

  171.  
    identicon
    ianal, Jul 12th, 2010 @ 4:30am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: signature meals

    Those people could even call themselves replicators, but they still could not recreate the signature meal at the click of a mouse button.

     

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

  172.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Jul 12th, 2010 @ 4:34am

    Re: Two points that limit the general applicability of this finding.

    1. All the example are (relatively) low fixed cost business with short innovation cycles. I'd like to see an example of this phenomenon in the electronics hardware or pharmaceutical industries (where high fixed costs and long time to market require a very specific innovation-development-commercialization cycle).

    Well, that may be cause and effect... Due to the lack of copyright, it has set things up that those industries innovate with short cycles.

    As for the pharma industry, you should look at the history of the Swiss and German dye industries (which became pharma eventually). They did quite well with a lack of patent protection. In fact, they used it to their advantage to beat out the UK and French...

    2. People REALLY enjoy being stand up comics or chefs. There's something unique to these pursuits in that people enjoy them. Practioners receive alternative compensation than just money.

    But the same could be said of most of the industries that are regularly cited as needing copyright: music, movies?

     

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

  173.  
    identicon
    abc gum, Jul 12th, 2010 @ 4:36am

    Re: Re:

    "Nothing hinders the innovation,"

    You're new here aren't you?

     

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

  174.  
    icon
    Red Monkey (profile), Jul 12th, 2010 @ 5:17am

    Re: Re: Re: no incentive to create

    Well, that may be true but it sure didn't happen in this case. People just kept copying the same old Korean tacos. Here, people didn't "stop copying and start actually thinking"...

     

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

  175.  
    icon
    Red Monkey (profile), Jul 12th, 2010 @ 5:22am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Well, that's what Dude's post suggested, innovation is "the natural human order of progression." People will always innovate...the laws people complain about here just tend to drive the innovation underground, so that not a lot of people benefit from it.

     

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

  176.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 12th, 2010 @ 5:25am

    Re: Re:

    finished is ages ago, thanks. pj orourke is always a laugh, from his original more liberal stories to his more current conservative lean.

    oh and get the story right: the content was published elsewhere over something like 25 years. its availability is questionable (anyone know where to find 20 year old rolling stone articles?). more importantly, it brought together stories published in different publications into one easy to read format, giving them both focus and a time line for their occurrence.

    but then again, i am guessing like most people here, you have a hard time reading anything with more than a couple of paragraphs.

     

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

  177.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 12th, 2010 @ 5:36am

    Re: Re:

    nor has it ever had copyright protection. this is not alternate side to see if it would work better or not. mike just created a strawman, and a pretty poor one at that. he offers no real proof that copyright on food (which would have expired generations ago) would have any effect on situations today. it is a pretty vapid attempt to prove a point, and one that he would jump all over if it was used in the other direction.

    when all is said and done, the entire post is an attempt to create confusion amongst the techdirt readers, who will be soon saying "look at what the lack of copyright did for food!" like a bunch of lemmings, rather than actually thinking about it. mike must get such a kick out of knowing he can so easily mislead so many people (just read the comments on this post).

     

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

  178.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 12th, 2010 @ 5:55am

    Re: Re: Re: no incentive to create

    By the way, you're assuming that Kogi guy actually invented this new taco.

    I'm assuming no such thing. I'm assuming that someone came up with it.

    The article doesn't say that.

    Nor did I say it did.

    How do you know he didn't copy it from someone else?

    I don't. Do you know that he did?

    Now if Kogi had some protection, those other guys would pay him a small royalty. And instead of wasting his time selling tacos, he could go back to inventing new foods.

    If foods had "protection", he could not freely invent and sell new foods in the first place.

     

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

  179.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 12th, 2010 @ 6:10am

    Re: Re: Re: growing your business

    Will you get over this copyright thing?

    What part of the title, "Lack Of Food Copyright Helps Restaurant Innovation Thrive", makes you think this article has nothing to do with copyrights?

    You can't even get a copyright on food.

    Thank goodness. However, there are some IP nut-jobs out there that would really like to change that.

    Go read the statute itself. Which part of section 102 would food fit into?

    Luckily, none. Which one would you try to shove it into?

    And by the way, what is the specific law that punishes this thing you called fraud on these facts? The Lanham Act. Oh, isn't that the same Act that governs trademarks? Darn, I guess Congress conflated IP and fraud again.

    There you go again. That still doesn't make trademarks and copyrights the same thing.

     

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

  180.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 12th, 2010 @ 6:12am

    Re: Re: Re: no incentive to create

    "What? Do you have a learning disability?...Where's the innovation? All I see is lots more of the same old Korean Taco?"

    You know, your little monkey might not be so red if you'd quit spanking it quite so much.

     

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

  181.  
    identicon
    Michael, Jul 12th, 2010 @ 6:13am

    Re: Two points that limit the general applicability of this finding.

    "1. All the example are (relatively) low fixed cost business with short innovation cycles. I'd like to see an example of this phenomenon in the electronics hardware or pharmaceutical industries (where high fixed costs and long time to market require a very specific innovation-development-commercialization cycle)."

    The movie industry regularly sits on films to release them months or years after they are complete for various reasons. It could certainly speed up the release process if they ran the risk of a very similar movie being released first. The types of protectionism we are talking about take away incentive to produce quickly and immediately begin to innovate. You can simply sit back and wait for a product to completely flush through the market before having to innovate to beat out competitors.

    "2. People REALLY enjoy being stand up comics or chefs. There's something unique to these pursuits in that people enjoy them. Practioners receive alternative compensation than just money."

    Very little invention / innovation is done by people without a passion for what they are doing. To say that the pharma industry is not filled with doctors passionate about producing medication that will help people and that they have no motivation beyond money is simply wrong. Money may be driving the big companies, but perhaps some of the big companies dying off and being replaced by passionate startups would not be such a bad thing.

     

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

  182.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 12th, 2010 @ 6:17am

    Re: Re:

    Whose going to feel safe giving you money to build a business when they know copying is a threat?

    It happens all the time today. I don't know why you seem to think it doesn't.

     

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

  183.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 12th, 2010 @ 6:21am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: no incentive to create

    Well, that may be true but it sure didn't happen in this case. People just kept copying the same old Korean tacos.

    Just how old do you think Korean taco trucks are, anyway?

     

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

  184.  
    icon
    Modplan (profile), Jul 12th, 2010 @ 6:21am

    Re: Re: Re:

    So it's:

    The stories had all been published elsewhere over the years, in various different places. Despite articles having already been published, you bought the book because of added value like convenience and organisation.

    Got it. You continued to buy something which content already published or available elsewhere because of reasons to buy.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/p-j-o-rourke

    http://www.cato.org/people/orourke.html

     

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

  185.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 12th, 2010 @ 6:26am

    Re: Re: Re:

    he offers no real proof that copyright on food (which would have expired generations ago) would have any effect on situations today.

    Not if copyright zealots got their wish for copyright to last "forever minus a day".

     

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

  186.  
    icon
    Voodootree (profile), Jul 12th, 2010 @ 6:32am

    Makes sense to me

    Doesn't seem "counter-intuitive" to me at all that free people operating without the constraints of artificial laws are more innovative than people laboring under such constraints.

     

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

  187.  
    icon
    Red Monkey (profile), Jul 12th, 2010 @ 6:57am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: no incentive to create

    No idea. I've never even seen one out here on the East coast. But now I'm dying to try one. Chopped kim-chee in guacamole might go well together.

     

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

  188.  
    icon
    nasch (profile), Jul 12th, 2010 @ 8:22am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Now sounds like a good time

    Copyright never had any facility designed to encourage sharing.

    The "limited time" part means after that time the work can be freely shared.

     

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

  189.  
    icon
    nasch (profile), Jul 12th, 2010 @ 8:24am

    Re: Re: Now sounds like a good time

    It's not a strawman, people actually come on here and say that without IP protection, people would not have any incentive to create.

     

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

  190.  
    identicon
    geddit, Jul 12th, 2010 @ 9:36am

    Re: Re:

    haha, my rants? trolling? pretty standard stuff there, too standard to even copyright....

    and don't worry, your unattainable perfect utopia where there is no greed or profiteering because we abolished copyright law can still exist! If only the space-shuttle was public domain, then you could build one yourself and blast off in search of that paradise!

     

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

  191.  
    identicon
    geddit, Jul 12th, 2010 @ 9:47am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    those lazy unimaginative people will still find a way to maintain business. that's all they know, and they may adapt and monopolize in any industry just as easily, if not more easily if copyrights were removed.

     

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

  192.  
    icon
    BigKeithO (profile), Jul 12th, 2010 @ 9:50am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Shouting down? They can't try to disprove a comment they do not agree with on a message board? You do it on every single story! Who is paying you too much?

     

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

  193.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 12th, 2010 @ 10:20am

    Re: Re: Re: Now sounds like a good time

    Fine, then this article only serves to rebut the weakest argument of the most inane "pro copyright" types, and is not very meaningful for that reason.

     

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

  194.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 12th, 2010 @ 10:25am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Poor clearing houses!!!

    His statement is not "logic"; it is a statement of belief. A belief I agree with, by the way.

     

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

  195.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 12th, 2010 @ 10:27am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Poor clearing houses!!!

    He never said that the middle ground between any two extremes is always right. He said, in reference to a particular post, that the truth usually lies somewhere in between the extremes, and he's right.

     

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

  196.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 12th, 2010 @ 5:03pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    So you're saying the only thing keeping me from launching into space is the fear that NASA will sue me for copyright infringement?

     

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

  197.  
    icon
    Karl (profile), Jul 12th, 2010 @ 6:43pm

    Re:

    it takes about 5 seconds for someone to say "I think I'll sell Korean Tacos off of a truck!"

    But it takes years to earn a Michelin star. Yet restaurants do that, even though their food cannot be copyrighted.

    Are you really suggesting that if we allowed copyright on recipes, we would get better food?

     

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

  198.  
    icon
    Mike (profile), Jul 13th, 2010 @ 1:30pm

    Re: Re: Re: Big Mac or McChicken without McClown Approval!

    OK, first of all cooking/recipes is not the same concept as food.

    Given our current concept of copyright, it makes as much sense to have recipes copyrightable as it does music or books.

    Your statement is equivalent to saying stories have been around for thousands of years so stories are in the public domain and therefore are not copyrightable. Or the analogy could be that writing has been around for thousands of years...

    Next, "the public domain" is an artificial concept created by the laws defining copyright, if there were no copyright/patent laws (an artificial concept created and enforced by government) then the concept of public domain would be meaningless as all thoughts/ideas/expressions of ideas would be usable by anyone who encountered them.

    The food industry and the fashion industry are both really good examples of how copyright may be unnecessary, and perhaps counter productive to to goal of increasing creativity for the general good.

     

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

  199.  
    icon
    nasch (profile), Jul 13th, 2010 @ 2:31pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Big Mac or McChicken without McClown Approval!

    Next, "the public domain" is an artificial concept created by the laws defining copyright

    Actually public domain is the natural state of things.

    if there were no copyright/patent laws (an artificial concept created and enforced by government) then the concept of public domain would be meaningless

    It would have exactly the same meaning it does now, we just wouldn't need a word to describe it, because it would be universal.

    I don't think we're really disagreeing, I'm just playing semantics.

    The food industry and the fashion industry are both really good examples of how copyright may be unnecessary, and perhaps counter productive to to goal of increasing creativity for the general good.

    It must be hard to see that when your livlihood depends on exploiting copyright. :-)

     

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

  200.  
    icon
    Brandon (profile), Jul 13th, 2010 @ 11:01pm

    Re:

    I think the point of the article was more about the fact that you could sell a Big Mac simply by making it the same way. The difference is that you couldn't call it a Big Mac because the name is trademarked. Nobody could stop you from making a hamburger exactly the same way, but you might be hardpressed to do so in cases where "secret" ingredients are used.

     

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

  201.  
    icon
    Mike (profile), Jul 14th, 2010 @ 11:23am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Big Mac or McChicken without McClown Approval!

    yeah you're basically agreeing with me.

     

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

  202.  
    icon
    vivaelamor (profile), Jul 14th, 2010 @ 11:25am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Poor clearing houses!!!

    "His statement is not "logic"; it is a statement of belief. A belief I agree with, by the way."

    What is belief, if not blind faith, without logic? If he had merely stated his belief then I wouldn't have even bothered disagreeing. My issue was with how he portrayed his belief, as if it was backed up by statements that appeared meant to be taken literally, but were false.

     

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

  203.  
    icon
    vivaelamor (profile), Jul 14th, 2010 @ 12:57pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Now sounds like a good time

    'The "limited time" part means after that time the work can be freely shared.'

    That is not a facility of copyright, that is a limitation on copyright. Otherwise you'd have to consider a pill's maximum dosage to be a facility of the pill.

     

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

  204.  
    icon
    vivaelamor (profile), Jul 14th, 2010 @ 1:02pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Now sounds like a good time

    "But by creating (or enhancing) a financial incentive, it encourages proprietors to make and distribute copies of their works (for a price)."

    That pretty much sums up the argument in favour, yes. However, it doesn't seem very convincing without any evidence to back it up.

     

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

  205.  
    icon
    vivaelamor (profile), Jul 14th, 2010 @ 1:08pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    'You might want to re-read the article title. It says lack of copyright "helps" the industry thrive, not merely "the industry thrives despite a lack of copyright."'

    Fair enough, I don't agree with that title either.

     

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

  206.  
    identicon
    geddit, Jul 14th, 2010 @ 1:21pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    woah there big fellah... that's MY suggestion. in the future, I would prefer it if you cleared it with me before re-stating it. If you wish to continue this conversation, I would require that you sign an NDA.

     

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

  207.  
    icon
    Hugh Mann (profile), Jul 15th, 2010 @ 8:28am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: A tangible signature meal

    However, that's a reality of the legal system in general, and is not at all specifically a copyright issue.

    Yes, it is generally expensive to go to court.

    HM

     

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

  208.  
    icon
    Hugh Mann (profile), Jul 15th, 2010 @ 8:35am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Poor clearing houses!!!

    The middle ground is not always merely an "average". Your hypothetical bad guy wants to shoot me ten times, but I would prefer he not shoot me at all. Therefore we average it out to five and call it a day. Not a real good deal for me at all, eh?

    You may have noticed that I framed the "middle ground" concept as ALMOST always being preferred. I sorta doubt any reasonably intelligent reader really thought that my philosophy would apply in anything like the rather extreme scenario you posited.

    If anything, you're proving my "rule". Truth breaks down at the extremes. And your scenario was pretty extreme.

    HM

     

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

  209.  
    icon
    Hugh Mann (profile), Jul 15th, 2010 @ 8:46am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Poor clearing houses!!!

    The fact that "Techdirt is rife with examples of the negative effects of copyright" is not really supportive of your criticism of my position, since the mission of TechDirt is clearly to specifically point out the negative aspects. This blog exhibits a clear bias against the current copyright construct in the US (and around the world), and regularly reports on these issues in a blatantly slanted manner. There is no objectivity here.

    While not at all dismissing constructive criticisms of copyright that may nonetheless be found at the kernel of the rants here, you can find evidence of the "success" of copyright in every royalty check received by an artist for the sale of a work and the wide variety of works that are produced under this system.

    Might there be a better system? Perhaps. Might we get just as many great works with fewer rights granted to artists? Maybe. However, the fact that one might be able to point to improvements that can be made does not at all mean the current system is "bad". And ANY system can be criticized as "bad" because of its highly publicized failures. The criminal justice system and the immigration system are both criticized from polar opposite viewpoints, pointing to extreme examples as somehow characterizing the entire sytem. Should be just scrap these systems entirely and make do without, merely because neither one is perfect?

    HM

     

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

  210.  
    icon
    nasch (profile), Jul 15th, 2010 @ 9:30am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Poor clearing houses!!!

    Should be just scrap these systems entirely and make do without, merely because neither one is perfect?

    Can you point out anywhere Techdirt has advocated this action?

     

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

  211.  
    icon
    vivaelamor (profile), Jul 15th, 2010 @ 11:06am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Poor clearing houses!!!

    "The fact that "Techdirt is rife with examples of the negative effects of copyright" is not really supportive of your criticism of my position, since the mission of TechDirt is clearly to specifically point out the negative aspects. This blog exhibits a clear bias against the current copyright construct in the US (and around the world), and regularly reports on these issues in a blatantly slanted manner. There is no objectivity here."

    Regardless of whether your accusation has any grain of truth, Techdirt isn't a journalism site; so any bias would be irrelevant as I was referring to the numerous stories and studies on which Mike comments, rather than on his commentary.

    "you can find evidence of the "success" of copyright in every royalty check received by an artist for the sale of a work and the wide variety of works that are produced under this system."

    I fail to see how paying royalties is evidence of a positive effect of copyright, unless paying royalties is taken to be a positive outcome in itself. As for wide variety of works, a wide variety were produced before copyright. What does the continued existence of culture prove beyond the fact that copyright has not killed it off?

    "Might there be a better system? Perhaps."

    I thought 'the truth lies in the middle'. Make up your mind.

    "Might we get just as many great works with fewer rights granted to artists? Maybe. However, the fact that one might be able to point to improvements that can be made does not at all mean the current system is "bad". And ANY system can be criticized as "bad" because of its highly publicized failures. The criminal justice system and the immigration system are both criticized from polar opposite viewpoints, pointing to extreme examples as somehow characterizing the entire sytem. Should be just scrap these systems entirely and make do without, merely because neither one is perfect?"

    So, to summarise: you have no better argument against scrapping copyright altogether than pointing to completely unrelated laws and saying 'you wouldn't scrap those, would you?'. Well, if the people in favour of them were as bad at making their case as you appear to be then I might well end up wanting to!

     

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

  212.  
    icon
    Hugh Mann (profile), Jul 15th, 2010 @ 3:34pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Poor clearing houses!!!

    ...sigh... I think I had thought you were more reasonable than you are proving to be.

    I actually do not agree that there is a major problem with copyright to begin with, so do not feel compelled to "prove" its success, especially since that kind of proof is not nearly as spectacular as the controversies. In general, copyright works fairly smoothly. Artists create, they have the right to control (mostly) their work, they get paid, we get art, and we're generally OK. Short of shutting the system down for ten years or so to compare before-and-after, I'm not sure you could "prove" its success in the same manner in which this blog (which I never claimed held itself out as an unbiased journalism site) "proves" the contrary.

    I disagree with the portrayal of many (not all, but many) of the incidents reported here, and do not accept that they necessarily demonstrate any failure on the part of the copyright system. Many of them are based on assumptions I believe to be false (such as the concept of an unauthorized copy not harming the artist), and many are based more on today's rampant selfish need for instant gratification than any real economic or social balance argument.

    HM

     

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

  213.  
    icon
    vivaelamor (profile), Jul 16th, 2010 @ 1:44am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Poor clearing houses!!!

    "I actually do not agree that there is a major problem with copyright to begin with, so do not feel compelled to "prove" its success"

    Then you have basis for your argument and I am unsure as to why you even bother to comment. Perhaps you are confused as to where the burden of proof lies.

    "In general, copyright works fairly smoothly. Artists create, they have the right to control (mostly) their work, they get paid, we get art, and we're generally OK. Short of shutting the system down for ten years or so to compare before-and-after, I'm not sure you could "prove" its success in the same manner in which this blog (which I never claimed held itself out as an unbiased journalism site) "proves" the contrary."

    Again, the fact that the world keeps spinning is irrelevant. The burden of proof for the argument that copyright is needed rests with those making the argument.

    "Many of them are based on assumptions I believe to be false (such as the concept of an unauthorized copy not harming the artist), and many are based more on today's rampant selfish need for instant gratification than any real economic or social balance argument."

    How would you argue that unauthorised copying harms an artist if it weren't for the existence of copyright? The argument is based on the premise that copyright is necessary. You have already stated your unwillingness to provide evidence that copyright is necessary.

     

    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