Except, that you can't compare to how many novel drinks would be created in today's context (except WITH IP protection for recipes) or to the number or quality of movies made in today's context (except WITHOUT IP protection for movies). The best you can do is compare contexts, try to generalize and measure IP's effects. You have to compare apples to oranges as best you can because you can't compare apples to apples.
People will create new things whether or not they are granted a protected monopoly on their ideas. Both the examples of movies and cocktails show this. The character of what they create may differ. We're trying to figure out the rules of what works in different contexts, and how to create a culture (and law) that supports creativity and provides the fruits (and fruity garnishes) of that creativity to the people.
Hi! Have you heard of The Open Badges Infrastructure? The open education movement has been looking at the credentialing gap for years, and one of the initiatives that have come out of that effort is the open badges project, led by the Mozilla Foundation.
Of course the community of issuers is so far small. The official release of the 1.0 specification is happening this week, mostly through the Digital Media and Learning conference tomorrow in Chicago.
The number of issuers will grow, and the number of people taking open credentials seriously will grow as well. I think though, that the most important factor in open credentials gaining steam is people like you who bravely assert that yes, my learning and skills have value and here's the evidence.
At least all those American laborers who get laid off from manufacturing copyrighted goods can go find a new job in IP-intensive industries protected by our strengthened copyright laws, like grocery stores.
The Progress of Science and the Useful Arts is not only the intent of copyright, it is the constitutional justification for making copyright laws. This clause of the Copyright Act is unconstitutional. Now, how can we tell who has the standing to challenge it?
I think it's not surprising lawsuits to stop competition make a company look weak and worried. I'm not sure how deep the sentiment this blogger noticed goes, but it makes a lot of sense for a customer to think:
"If Apple is that scared about the competition, there must be something consumers would want in there... I better take a look."
The USOC should do everything in its power to make sure the names Coca-Cola and McDonald's show up in every news article detailing some asshole thing they did. After all, they're paying good money to be associated with the Olympics.
Last night after watching the Game of Thrones finale my partner asked me if King Joffrey knew that he wasn't the son of the previous king. It's hard to tell whether he KNOWS or not. He's heard the rumors that he's a bastard, certainly, and flies into a rage when he hears them, but does he believe them even a little, when his power depends on the rumors not being true? If he ever does believe it, he isn't allowed to let it show.
Thanks for quoting my tweet. This is an important point to emphasize every chance you get.
However, like Mike C posted above, we'll have an uphill battle getting big business IP maximalists to listen to this point because they think their business depends on not recognizing it.
I pay a lot of attention to language, and I think the metaphors we choose to talk about legal concepts have a lot of power. People have long seen copyrights as "property", and I think the exclusion of the public from the "stakeholders" comes from the property metaphor, because the public is not seen as a stakeholder in your decision to put pink flamingos on your lawn. The next step in pushing the fact that the public is the most important stakeholder in copyright law is substituting better metaphors whenever we can.
I like Prashanth's post above introducing a "balance sheet" metaphor. That's moving in the right direction. We should use language that makes it clear the public has a stake here, and if we could get Prasanth's metaphor right, it could be a strong one that highlights the public's role as a partner and investor in the success of their work.
I like the metaphor "Ideas are Children" I started developing it in my thesis (sec 4.10), and I hope to continue at this year's Open Education Conference.
Chargone is right that this is a little bit tortured, but I like where you're going with it. Put some work into simplifying the language.
The public grants an artist a loan of a monopoly right in return for eventual full payment of the Progress of the Useful Arts and Sciences.
That's an interesting metaphor. "Intellectual property" "rights" are merely the proceeds of a loan and must be returned. It brings in the logic of banks setting agreeable terms (from the bank's perspective) into how IP law is structured.
I think the TSA is probably unlikely to miss something at your side. In PDX last week, they double checked a bit of fabric on my outdoorsy pants side that was just 3 thin empty pockets stacked up--about three layers of pocket-liner fabric thicker than the rest of the pants.
I'm interested in the language change in Section 102 (c)2(a)(i): "A service provider shall take such measures as it determines to be the least burdensome, technically feasible, and reasonable means designed to prevent access by its subscribers located within the United States to the foreign infringing site that is subject to the order. Such actions shall be taken as expeditiously as possible."
Besides wishing Rep. Smith had reversed the list to read "technically feasible, reasonable, and least burdensome means", I wonder if this requires or allows more than simple DNS resolution blocking, if you understand that a DNS block is quite easy to overcome. This language might open up a complying ISP to using an IP block instead if it determines that is the least burdensome means. (I believe burdensome would apply in reference to the ISP, not the user).
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by ottonomy.