I refer to them collectively as Theft of the Commons and celebrate World Theft of the Commons Day on April 26. … Celebrate may not be the right word.

I fully acknowledge that this is also a loaded phrase, but I believe it helps me keep things in balance.

It’s one thing to just get out there and use pooperty, but for me this post sort of pokes at and digs around in it, which is a little weird and offputting. Just poop it out there.

PS – That comic is some nice poop.

What a waste. All the cartoon does is prove that you have no idea between poop and an original idea. You start with faulty assumption that even the proverbial 12 year old can spot, and you go from there.

Stuff like this makes me understand how you got “famous”. 15 minutes is up.

Darryl is pooping.

I prefer Intellectual Monopoly. It loses the abbreviation, but has the advantage of, instead of just weakening, going all the way into negative (most people would associate “monopoly” with something negative).

That is not enough, you need to pay Nina when you go out to eat, when you go shopping, when you go to dance, when you go to the gym and every time you see her work.

That is what you crazy people want isn’t?

Sometimes (other might say all too often) jury trials hinge on a memorable phrase or image. “If the glove does not fit, you must acquit.”

If someone unreasonably accused of IP violations could get this cartoon and maybe some of these terms (I really like the term “Imaginary Property”) in front of a jury, it might have way more influence than any drawn-out legal argument.

Nina… Next time you make a movie simply secure the
rights to the music BEFORE you use it. Then you won’t
have to try to destroy Copyright just to get your
film released.

Your entire effort is transparently and embarrassingly self-serving.

The present i.p. regime, like the present regime of law dealing with real and personal properties, provides predictability that sustains a complex economological system

Are you crazy or something.

There is no “predictability” in copyright, it turns everything to s… and create uncertainties so powerful that people are forced to spend millions in some cases just to clear things before hand, it sterilizes the eco-system killing it, it does resemble a lot the behavior of cancer.

Even in economic terms it is a foolish notion.

Learn with Coca-Cola that got all those people resealing their goods and instead of punishing them, they trained and partned with them and that is why you can go to the Sahara or Amazon and you will find Coke there to drink.

Without copyright a cascade of events conspire to bring the original creator to the forefront. People start disseminating the work, people start connecting and integrating that into their lives and start to pay for more and others will make a buck too and when they need more material they probably go to the creator and pay for it, but now that is not allowed to happen people don’t get anything in return, copywrong is just evil.

Troll is in denial

What a simplistic view. One does not have to think too hard, brilliant.

Nina, you remind me of an old friends of mine who spent years living in a hippie style commune. He too had absolutely no clue of the value of anything, and retired poor, living on a meager government handout because he hasn’t learned basic life lessons.

He spoke of things in grand terms, of trees and flowers and chirping bird (but not of basket weavers who sit and twiddle their thumbs and toes). He would go on about synergy and energy and how all things were great. He is currently spending his final years living in a very small 1 room at a retirement home, effectively penniless.

Look up Hubris.

LOL,, damn straight im still here.. just laughing (NOT) over that ‘funny’ cartoon. That I did not even bother to look at.

If they were anything like her last efforts, its not worth it, and I thought poop jokes were the realm of 10 year old boys ?

?By describing copyright as a private property right, proponents of the description hope to get policy makers and courts to believe that only private, and not public rights are implicated”

Who thinks or says its PRIVATE PROPERTY, sure Willian Patry thinks that, but he has an axe to grind with regard to copyright.

You can tell that from where Mike pulled his ‘source’ from, COPYHYPE. They are sure to be balanced in their opinion..

Just like Mike is !!!!! (NOT)..

Anyway it is not refered to as private property, and it is clear that it is MOST OFTEN owned by public corporation, so the entire premise of this ‘article’ is false.

It’s not private property, its not ‘imaginary’ or not real in any way. And it has its own value.

If it did not have its own value, then why do you want to get your dirty little hands on it ?

You say it has not value, then go on to explain how its value should be assigned to you, and not the rightfull owner of it.

Do you see how that makes no sense, unless you consider theft a viable way of acquiring wealth ?

“it has no value, but I really want it, and I cant live without it”. yea right..

What is your problem, is it that you want to use the IP of other’s without paying them or rewarding them for the money and time in the development of that knowledge.

Or is it that you are incapable of developing your own IP, and want to use the efforts of others, for your own gain, for free ?

Is it only the IP you know about that you desire so much ?

So IP that is not copyrighted, or patented, but is just secret is of no interest to you.

It’s only the stuff you WANT that you WANT FOR FREE that you seem concerned about.

Or if you like, you can explain, why it is that you desire to acquire and use for your own benefit something you claim has no value ?

So you want to gain the benefit and profit and utility of the IP without paying for its development, invention and for the people who actually took the considerable risk in the development of that technology. So you can what ?

Make some money off their backs ? nice one..

If you do not think IP has any value, then why on earth are you so keen to get your sticky fingers on it ?

One has to look at your motives.. which are clear.

To say it has no value, therefore you want it, or access to it, means you are lying somewhere.. so which is the lie ?

Hilarious stuff!

So…I shouldn’t try to cross de bridge.

C’mon dude, any 14 yr old kid with a computer knows th- wait, no…

He was happy while he was doing it, and now deeply regrets it. He didn’t realize that the hippie dippy lifestyle would ever come to an end, leaving him with little to work with. His life’s work was to feed other people for no real return, and so on. Now he wishes he had worked a real job instead, and gotten the return on his labors.

The moral of the story is that while what you are doing right now (giving it all away, sharing is caring, copy left, whatever) seems like the right thing to do, it may not take care of you in the long run.

Moral of the story is –
if you want be admired by the AC, take what you can and give nothing back. Let greed rule your life and do not worry about the consequences because it is not your problem.
Or you can be viewed by the AC as a burnt-out hippy.
With friends like that, who needs enemies.

lol – monopoly money

http://www.hasbro.com/monopoly/en_US/

I wonder how much of the concept of ?Intellectual Property? is being buoyed up by the conflation of two different meanings of the word ?my? (at least in English, possibly other languages as well): the genitive (?my X? = ?I created X?) versus the possessive (?my X? = ?I own X?).

You start out using the phrase in its first form, and at some point you shift meaning to the second form, and suddenly the stuff you create has become ?property? that can be ?owned?, just like that.

Nina is upset because she used a song in her movie that
she didn’t license and now she can’t get her movie
released because she can’t afford to pay for the license.

She wants to punish ALL copyright creators because she
she screwed up.

She Licensed AFTER she released the movie to festivals and then had to pay 50 K for the license and 20 K for lawyers.

That is the source of her angst against Copyright.

You know it, She knows it.

No need to ‘try again’

Facts are facts.

BUT COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT!!!

Second, I realize that you and Nina do WANT the bundle of rights that we call copyright and patent to be property. But they are. Societies [throughout modern history] have decided, democratically, that it benefits them more when the creators of works of authorship and novel, non-obvious inventions w/utility are granted a time and scope-limited bundle of rights in exchange for the creators sharing their creations with the public. As opposed to those creators privately enjoying their works and either privately using their inventions or placing them on shelves for no one to use.

That is drivel, nowhere in history you see those monopolies granted democratically. If they were they would not come close to the absurd levels that we have today. Besides the world really don’t need those people to share anything, Arquimedes was using Calculus well before everyone else and his discoveries got lost and where rediscovered later, what people need is the freedom to think and produce their own solutions and that is what IP negates.

[I get it that you assume a third option: the creator begs off that bargain and publishes w/o demanding any consideration. Certainly some do. But copyright and patent exist to motivate those to publish who otherwise would not.]

History tells us that those that don’t want to share are not that important to society and they shouldn’t be able to negate a path to others. Necessity makes people develop things not financial gain alone.

These rights can be bought and they can be sold. In what way are they are not “property?”

Can you put a fence on that property? can you touch it? Can you take that property from somebody who had experience it?

Those are not qualities of imaginary property.

Ok. Believe that and live and work outside the governing structure the rest of us live and work within. But you have no right to live and work within ours and pick and chose which laws to abide by and which you won’t. Try to change them if you like. But you have no right to deny them.

It is the duty of every citizen to fight against unjust laws by any means necessary, so yes if enough people believe that they can ignore some law that law will become useless, those laws are encroaching on society and the people of that society will not be kind to such things and yes people can deny them. Squatters a century ago won a lot of laws by ignoring them, laws were changed after people fought on the streets other times. Those laws are not the what the majority wants. That is why pro-IP people have a problem because they are scared of the people.

People compete for the resources needed to acquire facts, to evaluate them, and to use them to build hypotheses, theories, inventions, works of art, etc. It is too convenient, and simplistic, to say that information is non-rivalrous when resources are need to create it.

Well to what are you referring to? music, after created it can be produced at no cost, it is so easy today that kids can do it, there is no resources used after the creation, so why do they need to be paid over and over again for more then a century?

People are trying to make real state like copyright and charge people for every transaction made on some property, do you think anyone will accept that? Is ridiculous and so is the concept of imaginary property.

Your concern about the limitation on information flow is, in my view, amply answered by the copyright rule that facts and abstractions are not copyrightable and the patent rule that theories, ideas and plans, laws of nature, and scientific principles are not patentable.

That is not true. People are patenting living organins, methods and all kind of ridiculous things, furthermore most people use copyright as a weapon against the competition, they suppress it instead of competing in the market and because it is so expensive everyone settles even if they know they are in the right but can’t show it conclusively or risk a jury that could disregard those things.

Just go to http://www.chillingeffects.org/ or talk to medical researchers and see what they have to say a lot of them are against the absurds that are going on recently.

Again, the proper debate is over the scope of the property rights that a government should grant to those who create. It is time-wasting to debate that those bundle of rights are not “property.”

Well I don’t think so, most people that I talk to, when they are clued in on what is happening and I explain what is IP all of them without fail ask “How can ideas be property?”, so you may think it is a waste of time, but for others the waste of time is making those absurd laws that have no resemblance with the real world and cannot even be secured.

And you can pay for and buy the skills and talents of creators, it has happend throught history. You pay them for their creations..

Yes you pay them once not everytime somebody uses something that you worked on.

Seriously why don’t you build a ghost-detector to find out who is using imaginary property.

You pay them, because they are capable of creating something you want to experience, that you yourself are not capable of creating..

Not necessarily, I paid for things mostly for convenience and I suspect most others do to, what you don’t do is pay others for things you are willing to do and have the capabilities like spreading data, who is not capable of spreading data?

Data production you say? Also can be accomplished by others without the need for the first creator to get paid.

Therefore you pay for someone elses creativity, and you pay for the risk they take to create that work.

Therefore you pay for others to do what you are not willing to do or couldn’t, not what you can do and are willing to do like distribute data or knowledge.

The option just to steal it from anywhere you like is illegal, immoral, and unethical. And market restricting.

Illegal, Immoral and unethical is the act of letting people die to make a profit, is suing a mother for posting a video of her baby dancing, or suing a mother for filming her children’s birthday, or making everybody pay multiple times for the same thing over and over and over again, or destroying the market place so you there can be only one place to get something and threatening others.

The bottom line is, if you want to use great innovations, you either have to pay for someone smarter than you to acquire it, or you have to create it yourself.

Not true, people can do it on their own today and many do, what you types do is threaten those people because you believe you can own ideas and that every similar expression of said ideas is owned by somebody that is just ridiculous.

Take for example, military IP, it is not made public, and it is kept secret, the fashion industry, it is also not protected so each ‘show’ or new release is kept highly secret until its release.

To stop people from stealing their idea’s. they HAVE to resort to security, and secrecy.

Really, when was the last time the world was astounded by the revelation of a new weapon? More importantly when was a secret weapon used as a deterrent to anything? If people don’t know about it most people don’t care, that is why armies disclose and parade their arsenals so to display to others “You see my guns, I will f. you up”.

That is all that Mikes concept of copyright reform would achieve, not the utopia he pictures.

The only thing Mike does is to start the debate he doesn’t offer solutions here most of the time and that is good, he is like a search light.

You want to see real solutions go see how the hippies of the 70’s are doing today, most failed, but some came on top of things and did something that is truly amazing. Some became Steve Jobs other became the urban homestead a family that live like kings on a budget of $20 K a year.

Now that is incredible, if it was you, you die famished and pennyless because you would not be able to cut it on the real world.

But you see, me and others are no happy with governments today, but I don’t see the need for violence or more laws the only thing I need is to learn how to produce something, that is why I believe we as a people can deal with rising medical costs learning how to produce our own medicine at home, creating local healthcenters, I don’t understand why we pay for insurance, when it its the same thing to just pay and build a new hospital to practice medicine for free, we pay when we are healthy and working and we don’t when we are sick, why would people pay for other people to do that for them and have all the incentives to negate service to them at the same time? That is just dumb, and it doesn’t work, that is why people complain so much.

Self made knowledge for all(shameless plug I know).

http://www.patientslikeme.com/
http://www.patchadams.org/
http://www.urbanhomestead.org/
http://tropicaldisease.org/
http://www.dndi.org/
http://www.iowh.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_open_source_healthcare_software
http://nursingassistantguides.com/2009/50-successful-open-source-projects-that-are-changing-medicine/

For 2011 lets get rid of trolls like darryl and start taking charge of our own destinies. darryl’s want us to be slaves to them, it is time to show them what we are made of.

We can build a better world.

Repeating a lie over and over again won’t make it true

No, but it keeps techdirt on the internet.

BUT COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT!!!

Ugh, this is so misguided. Yeah, if someone else uses the abbreviation “IP”, I suppose you can get some humor out of making it stand for something else. But the solution is not to use “Imaginary Property”, “Intellectual Privilege”, “Intellectual Pooperty” or anything else with those initials. The solution if you really want to reframe the discussion is a brand new term which does not have those initials. There isn’t a chance in hell that the average Joe is going to see IP and think “Intellectual Pooperty” instead of “Intellectual Property”. Those initials are firmly claimed by big content.

Instead, use a new term. Use words with negative connotations. “Content Monopolies”. Yeah! People hate monopolies! “Content Usage Restrictions”. I don’t want to be restricted! I’ve posted many more options in the past, and I’m sure others could come up with better ones. The bottom line is that nobody on our side of this fight should EVER be using the term “Intellectual Property”, or the initials IP. Doing so is letting your opponents frame your debate.