Crosbie Fitch 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (937) comment rss

  • On the post: The Patent Pledge: Good Idea… But Wrong Target

    Crosbie Fitch ( profile ), 02 Sep, 2011 @ 10:12am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Compulsory Licensing

    It is impossible to 'improve' patent qua make it less unethical in the same way it is impossible to make a pregnant woman less pregnant. Either you abolish/abort, or you embrace the privilege/progeniture.

    If 'improve' means "improve patent's alleged ability to encourage useful invention without enabling patent holders to extort those who utilise patented designs" then that is also impossible since patent not only doesn't encourage useful invention, but it is all about the privilege to threaten infringers, i.e. extortion.

    You're only really left with 'improve' as in "improve patent's effectiveness as a means of extortion", which I will concede is a possibility.

  • On the post: The Patent Pledge: Good Idea… But Wrong Target

    Crosbie Fitch ( profile ), 02 Sep, 2011 @ 07:38am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Compulsory Licensing

    Sounds to me more like the 'appeal to moderation' fallacy.

    If slavery is bad, then making slavery less bad is an improvement.

    Why are people so scared to abolish patents? Is it 'better the devil you know' syndrome?

    Abolishing patents will by no means result in perfection, but it will at least bring one legal abomination to an end.

    Tell those campaigning against software patents that they should compromise with 'less bad software patents'.

  • On the post: The Patent Pledge: Good Idea… But Wrong Target

    Crosbie Fitch ( profile ), 02 Sep, 2011 @ 07:11am

    Re: Re: Compulsory Licensing

    One cannot improve patent, unless by 'improve' one means 'further enrich the monopolist' or 'enhance the measures available to the extortionist' or 'compensate patent holders for the dissolution of their unethical monopolies'.

    There is only one improvement that is in the interests of all mankind, as opposed to the privileged few: Abolish patent!

    If there is value in an inventor's talent in inventing things then the market will provide the inventor with an equitable exchange for the value of their talent.

    You should know by now that patents were never about incentivising/rewarding the inventor. That is a latter-day revisionist pretext and fairytale to placate the masses.

    Monopolies are an instrument of injustice, a corruption implemented in the interests of the state and the monopolists so beholden.

  • On the post: The Patent Pledge: Good Idea… But Wrong Target

    Crosbie Fitch ( profile ), 02 Sep, 2011 @ 12:18am

    "I pledge not to extort the weak" - so gracious!

    This is my pledge:

    I will not accept the enslavement of my fellow man, nor any imposition upon his liberty, as reward for the publication of my art.

    If you're going to reject the privileges of copyright and patent then don't quibble about it, reject them outright. They are unethical anachronisms and should be abolished.

  • On the post: Modern Art: $5 Million Worth Of Unauthorized Downloads On A Hard Drive On Display

    Crosbie Fitch ( profile ), 23 Aug, 2011 @ 08:12am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Contents of the PDF file.

    Yes, the corporatocratic state is in power at the moment and finds monopolies perfectly sound (though it's having second thoughts about patent), but human beings (when they're not busy trying to figure out why handing a $trillion from the taxpayer to the banks, or printing money to do so, is bad) do outclass the state in power terms, and so it's this majority that needs to be educated, e.g. by TechDirt as to what is in its interest as opposed to that of the corporate state.

  • On the post: Modern Art: $5 Million Worth Of Unauthorized Downloads On A Hard Drive On Display

    Crosbie Fitch ( profile ), 23 Aug, 2011 @ 05:42am

    Re: Re: Re: Contents of the PDF file.

    They've thought of that one. Ephemeral copies are exempt.

    This is why streaming is ok, but sharing is WRONG. Duh?

    Of course copyright is nonsensical, but it's very lucrative if you're powerful enough to wield it effectively. Trouble is, because it's lucrative most people think it can be all bad. This is probably why kids aren't taught the unethical and uneconomic trade-off between monopoly and liberty in high school. Monopolies enrich a few at a hundredfold hidden cost to the majority.

  • On the post: Modern Art: $5 Million Worth Of Unauthorized Downloads On A Hard Drive On Display

    Crosbie Fitch ( profile ), 23 Aug, 2011 @ 03:57am

    It could just be empty though

    It could just be a demonstration that privacy ethically denies copyright holders and anyone else access to see if their monopoly has been infringed.

  • On the post: Modern Art: $5 Million Worth Of Unauthorized Downloads On A Hard Drive On Display

    Crosbie Fitch ( profile ), 23 Aug, 2011 @ 02:39am

    Re: Contents of the PDF file.

    Fortunately, it's not yet illegal to be in possession of infringing copies (though I wouldn't be surprised if it is, if there is intent to distribute).

    I'd guess that the artist of this exhibit does not claim to have manufactured the copy/copies within it, e.g. "Some bloke in Marakesh gave it to me as a freebie when I bought a rug".

  • On the post: Modern Art: $5 Million Worth Of Unauthorized Downloads On A Hard Drive On Display

    Crosbie Fitch ( profile ), 23 Aug, 2011 @ 02:04am

    Re: Re: The Total Music Vortex is nigh

    Aaron Swartz would sympathise. A pity it's still illegal to share mankind's knowledge, or be found loitering in a library with intent to do so: qv http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/07/reddit-founder-arrested-for-excessive-jstor-downloads.ars

  • On the post: Modern Art: $5 Million Worth Of Unauthorized Downloads On A Hard Drive On Display

    Crosbie Fitch ( profile ), 23 Aug, 2011 @ 01:26am

    The Total Music Vortex is nigh

    I'm reminded of The Total Music Vortex. These things 'worth $5m' are soon going to be traded on the black market for $5.

  • On the post: So How Do We Fix The Patent System?

    Crosbie Fitch ( profile ), 22 Aug, 2011 @ 09:01am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Exclude Software

    Er no. You have to show that without the patent system, Insulin would not have been discovered/invented (given no monopoly) as soon as it was.

    Anyone who discovers/invents something that is patentable is highly likely to patent it. That is not the alleged benefit of patents (to encourage patenting). The alleged benefit is that more useful innovation is delivered to the public with patents than would be without them.

  • On the post: So How Do We Fix The Patent System?

    Crosbie Fitch ( profile ), 22 Aug, 2011 @ 01:03am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Exclude Software

    Ah yes, the mythical 'good patent', that patent supporters assert exists, but like the yeti can't actually locate, bar some 'promising' footprints.

    On the same basis, I expect slavery supporters were against its abolition just in case in rare and obscure cases some slaves actually preferred good living conditions to the insecurity of liberty and having to fend for themselves.

  • On the post: So How Do We Fix The Patent System?

    Crosbie Fitch ( profile ), 21 Aug, 2011 @ 11:39am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Exclude Software

    Appeal to moderation is a logical fallacy.

    One might as well suggest that the solution to disquiet among cotton farmers' slaves is some middle ground between the status quo and the abolition of slavery.

    Why should 7 billion people on this planet be denied the liberty to utilise certain technology, or manufacture certain medicines, just to enrich one immortal corporation?

    The immortal corporation is going to scream blue murder if you abolish their patents, but fuck them. I say take off and nuke the entire canon of patent law from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

  • On the post: So How Do We Fix The Patent System?

    Crosbie Fitch ( profile ), 20 Aug, 2011 @ 04:50am

    Re: Re: Kay..

    The powerful bother, because patents are lucrative to those powerful enough to exploit them.

    The better question is: why do the people tolerate monopolies?

    Why do otherwise intelligent people refuse to see patents as the problem, instead of an ingenious solution that just needs fixing?

    Patents are a dynamo on the back wheel of a bicycle driving a motor on the front. Patents put a brake on mankind's use of technology in order to incentivise the patent holder with a monopoly rent. A hundredth of the energy lost in braking is channelled as wealth to the motors of industry. And people who don't understand thermodynamics can't understand that all these dynamo powered motors aren't actually producing any progress at all, but severely impeding it, rapidly grinding everything to a halt.

    The patent system is not broken. It never worked in the first place. It cannot be fixed. Patents are a parasite that enrich the few at the expense of the many. The industrial revolution attracted these parasites because it had ample energy to be siphoned off (wealth to be redistributed). Recognise that correlation is not causation.

    If you want mankind's technology to progress then restore our liberty to use and improve it.

    Abolish patent law.

  • On the post: Dear MPAA: Stomp Your Feet And Repeat It As Many Times As You Want, But Infringement Is Not Theft

    Crosbie Fitch ( profile ), 19 Aug, 2011 @ 11:17am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lollerskates!

    Copyright infringement is the infringement of a privilege, a state granted reproduction/communication monopoly.

    Copyright annuls people's right to copy (and a few other liberties), to leave it by exclusion in the hands of a few.

    If someone violates your right to privacy (a burglar), you can call a policeman.

    If someone infringes your privilege, it is not illegal and a policeman should ignore your grievance. It's up to you to hire a lawyer to sue the infringer.

  • On the post: Dear MPAA: Stomp Your Feet And Repeat It As Many Times As You Want, But Infringement Is Not Theft

    Crosbie Fitch ( profile ), 18 Aug, 2011 @ 12:52pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Sure, but you can always provide the longer version should people need clarification.

    Art: 4.a : the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects; also : works so produced

  • On the post: Dear MPAA: Stomp Your Feet And Repeat It As Many Times As You Want, But Infringement Is Not Theft

    Crosbie Fitch ( profile ), 18 Aug, 2011 @ 12:47pm

    Re: Re: Re: Copyright & rights

    Bear in mind that on some parts of the Internet my anti-copyright views constitute spam, and even mentioning my name can cause comments to be classed as spam.

    See:
    1. http://culturalliberty.org/blog/index.php?id=282
    2. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/08/16/bbc_copyright_freudian_gaffe/
    3. http://twitter.com/#!/cococorazonloco/status/103879329892675584

    So far, I have been ejected from three mailing lists, specifically blocked from commenting on at least two websites (many comments rejected on many more), and blocked by one Twitter user.

    Support for copyright is a religion - a matter of unquestioning faith.

  • On the post: Dear MPAA: Stomp Your Feet And Repeat It As Many Times As You Want, But Infringement Is Not Theft

    Crosbie Fitch ( profile ), 18 Aug, 2011 @ 09:59am

    Re: Re: Copyright & rights

    Anon, you may only have a human right to 'kick me in the balls' if it is a proportionate/necessary defence against my initiation of lethal aggression against you.

    The human right to life is a natural law, so is the human right to liberty. We cannot abolish human rights, we can only abolish laws. We should not abolish laws that recognise human rights, but we should abolish laws that derogate from them.

    Therefore we should repeal the privilege of copyright that derogates from the individual's human/natural right to liberty.

    It is not a matter of 'like'. Human rights are determined by nature, not referendum.

  • On the post: Dear MPAA: Stomp Your Feet And Repeat It As Many Times As You Want, But Infringement Is Not Theft

    Crosbie Fitch ( profile ), 18 Aug, 2011 @ 08:38am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike is SO pleased that he's been noticed and named!

    Well, actually, it's the other way around.

    People are born with their liberty, and copyright supporters are the 'delusional entitled children' wailing because the magic of Queen Anne's 18th century privilege preventing people from copying published works has been revealed as a sham.

    You are not entitled to prevent mankind sharing and building upon its own culture. Whatever Queen Anne said, and whatever James Madison repeated.

    Individuals are born with inalienable liberty. Governments and their lobbyists cannot have it otherwise - for very long.

  • On the post: Dear MPAA: Stomp Your Feet And Repeat It As Many Times As You Want, But Infringement Is Not Theft

    Crosbie Fitch ( profile ), 18 Aug, 2011 @ 08:22am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright & rights

    You can always post your 'beat down' on my blog (a comment to a relevant article) - not that I've got anything like Techdirt's audience. You can even include apposite links.

    However, if it is indeed spam (advertising Vi4gra, essay writing services, or sommat) then I too won't let it stand.

    Try posting a comment to http://culturalliberty.org/blog/index.php?id=276 - assuming your comment is pertinent.

Next >>