US Chamber Of Commerce Wants More Censorship, More IP Protectionism

from the it's-all-about-the-protectionism dept

The US Chamber of Commerce is becoming an increasingly sad and deluded shell of an organization. Its main focus these days seems to be about creating protectionist, anti-free market, anti-innovation policies that protect its largest companies from competition and newer, more efficient tools and companies. It's predictable, but sad. The latest is that it has sent a letter to President Obama with its "intellectual property agenda," which could be simplified as "more of it, please."

It asks the President to expand the role of the White House's IP Czar, whose existence mainly exists due to the Chamber of Commerce using totally debunked stats to claim that the job was necessary. And, of course, it was no surprise the other day when the IP Czar's first report was more or less a bullet point list of everything the Chamber of Commerce wants. It's as if they have their own office in the White House, so of course they want that expanded.

The report does not mention ACTA, but does mention the new, even more secretive and more ridiculous Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP), which of course the Chamber of Commerce wants to include only "the highest IP standards." Along those lines, the Chamber of Commerce also wants the Feds to send more of its copyright cops around the world to enforce US copyright laws, and to put more enforcement pressure around the infamous joke known as the USTR's "Special 301" report (which is basically a way for the lobbyists to "launder" a list of countries they don't like, and have the USTR list them as violating US IP laws based on little more than what lobbyists claim).

Finally, of course, the Chamber of Commerce supports blatant censorship and a lack of due process, in praising efforts to censor websites without any adversarial hearing, just because there might be some infringement somewhere else, but that site links to it.

Notice a pattern? Basically, the Chamber of Commerce supports policies that act as protectionism for a few large US companies, no matter what the overall harm is to the rest of the economy. Protectionist policies harm the economy and the pace of innovation. Censorship and a lack of due process should be seen as an anathema to core values of the United States. It's a shame that an organization that often presents itself as being about supporting American values and capitalism goes in such an opposite direction to protect its own special interests.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 11th, 2011 @ 12:51pm

    Censorship! Oh Yeah! Anything that stops anything at all illegal is still censorship!

    Classic Masnick.

     

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

    •  
      icon
      :Lobo Santo (profile), Feb 11th, 2011 @ 12:58pm

      Re:

      That's the best impression of a clueless anonymous coward spouting pointless ad hominem that I've ever seen. I mean, wow, you're good. Do you stand-up? 'Cause you should, you should.

      Good job.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Feb 11th, 2011 @ 1:01pm

        Re: Re:

        If LOL stands for Laughing Out Loud then what does LOLOL mean?

         

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Feb 11th, 2011 @ 1:02pm

        Re: Re:

        Read the posts for today. Anti-enforcement on IP and now this. It is clear that Masnick will stop at nothing to try to paint IP laws and their enforcement as bad things. Waving the first amendment flag is always good. He tried to do the prior restraint thing before, but that fizzled rapidly.

        Is is classic. I am only shocked that he didn't manage to get the TSA and the USPTO involved in the post somehow to really appeal to the weekend crowd.

         

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

        •  
          icon
          :Lobo Santo (profile), Feb 11th, 2011 @ 1:05pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Ah-hmm.

          Reasoned, logical arguments. That's the way to sway people to your point of view.

           

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Feb 11th, 2011 @ 1:08pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          "Criminal copyright infringement, including infringement without monetary gain, is investigated by the FBI and is punishable by up to 5 years in Federal prison and a fine of $250,000."

          They should really make it 10 years in jail and a fine of $500,000 and really enforce the shit out of it.

          100 years! $1,000,000,000!

           

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Feb 11th, 2011 @ 1:18pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          You've got it all wrong AC. He posts things like this to get YOU riled up.

          It's proven by comment numbers that pissing you off drives the discussion.

           

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Joe, Feb 11th, 2011 @ 1:21pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Too true, when we know something is wrong, nothing should stand in our way. These are just like any other criminal, they laugh at our laws, all the while destroying the innovation and culture that the human race stands on!

          Who should whistle, if they know the tune could be stolen?
          Who should light a candle, if they know someone else could see by its light?
          Who should create,if the creation cannot be wholly theirs?

          The fact that only a website is taken down without a hearing is a mercy, because if it went to court every single one of these websites, without a doubt would be revealed as the slime of humanity that they truly are.

          It is not censorship, it is justice.

           

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

          •  
            icon
            Kirk (profile), Feb 11th, 2011 @ 1:45pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            The fact that only a website is taken down without a hearing is a mercy, because if it went to court every single one of these websites, without a doubt would be revealed as the slime of humanity that they truly are.

            Not quite "every single one of these websites":
            http://www.rojadirecta.org/
            They've already been to court.

            I think many of these sites, if given a choice, would decline the "mercy" offered by ICE.

            But I encourage you to believe what you want and perhaps attack me personally. I trust you'll have no trouble with that.

             

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

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Feb 11th, 2011 @ 1:51pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            did it _ever_ stop the artists and inventors from doing there thing?

            i do not want to even think where we'd be if you maximalists existed in the beginning


            if the pirates are the slime of humanity... cripes! holy crap! i'd like to hear your views on murderers and rapists.

             

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

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Joe, Feb 11th, 2011 @ 2:10pm

              An easy question to answer

              did it _ever_ stop the artists and inventors from doing there thing?

              Certainly!

              History has proven that the motivation of the creative is money. People only create because the hopes of gainful personal income.

              Photography, steam engines, heck, The Aeneid! None of these things would never have seen the light of day if their creators knew that they wouldn't make a penny off it.

              IP laws need to be strengthened. Artists and inventors deserve protection from having their own ideas, which could come from nowhere else, enjoyed by freeloaders without compensation or stolen and used against them by unoriginal thieves.

               

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

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Feb 11th, 2011 @ 2:46pm

                Re: An easy question to answer

                no, no, you don't understand. I'm supposed to be entitled to all my entertainment for free. I think all those people already have enough money.
                In fact everything should be free for me. I want a sandwich. Go make me one and bring it to me free of charge right now.

                 

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

              •  
                icon
                Jeremy7600 (profile), Feb 11th, 2011 @ 2:49pm

                Re: An easy question to answer

                I can't decide if you are serious or sarcastic.

                I'm guessing sarcastic.

                 

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

          •  
            icon
            Kirk (profile), Feb 11th, 2011 @ 2:23pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            “Who should whistle, if they know the tune could be stolen?”
            Who should whistle, if they might be infringing performance rights by doing so because someone else may have whistled a very similar tune already?

            "Who should light a candle, if they know someone else could see by its light?"
            Really? Really? You choose a candle, the quintessential metaphor for sharing knowledge, as an allegory for copyright? That's funny. And by funny, I mean fucked up.
            For the record, lots of people might still light a candle even if it might help someone besides themselves. That’s kind of the reason it’s a great metaphor for sharing.

            "Who should create, if the creation cannot be wholly theirs?"
            Someone who wants more fulfillment than simply patting himself on the back, that’s who. The minute you allow someone to experience your creation, it exists in his or her mind and is no longer just yours. Or maybe you mean, “if they cannot control every single reproduction, performance, or mention of it.” In that case, that dumbass William Shakespeare would. As for Metallica: they’re too smart to fall for that.

            Well done, Trolly. I really can't tell if you're serious with these.

             

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

          •  
            icon
            cc (profile), Feb 11th, 2011 @ 2:43pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            I'm marking this as funny, because the man is obviously being sarcastic.

            Come on guys, no need to get riled up over a missing sarcasm tag :)

             

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Feb 11th, 2011 @ 1:33pm

      Re:

      Classic shill for these companies being protected posting under AC.

       

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

    •  
      icon
      weneedhelp (profile), Feb 11th, 2011 @ 1:35pm

      Re:

      Sorry Mike.

      AC you fucking asshole. Even if a site is blatantly infringing, selling counterfeit goods etc, there is DUE PROCESS. What is happening now is a slap in the face to every American, and just pissing on everything this country stands for. Yeah asshole they may be outright guilty, but you still have to follow the law. Ever hear of lead by example?

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous, Feb 11th, 2011 @ 1:39pm

        Re: Re:

        You're apparently very confused.

        Are you referring to the ICE seizures? There was due process there. Sorry.

         

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Joe, Feb 11th, 2011 @ 1:51pm

          That's right. Homeland Security processed the request, and the crooks with all of their content were duly shut down. If the law says that DHS can act without letting a criminal know about them, so we can prosecute them and protect our property, I see absolutely nothing wrong with that.

           

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Feb 11th, 2011 @ 2:51pm

        Re: Re:

        Due process is just that: A process. The first steps of the process have been taken. Due process does not mean instant process, the real world runs at a slightly different pace than the internet.

        The only "fucking asshole" here is someone jumping the gun without understanding the basics of legal action.

         

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 11th, 2011 @ 12:57pm

    I've always hated the Chamber of Commerce, because it acts publicly like a public organization even though it's only a lobby group for corporate shills.

    Like the shill^W person above me, writ large.

     

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

  •  
    icon
    Mike42 (profile), Feb 11th, 2011 @ 1:13pm

    You know what?

    I say, give 'em everything they want. Copyrights on everything, and execute infringers.

    People are risk-adverse in general, and business people in particular. If you have a copyright-free picture next to a copyright-encumbered picture, which will you download? The chamber is not going to coerce people into buying their members products, they are going to coerce people to shop elsewhere.

    There's plenty of creative commons and public domain media, and it's easy to find. Maximalist legislation will simply drive people to it.

     

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

  •  
    icon
    ervserver (profile), Feb 11th, 2011 @ 1:16pm

    US Chamber of Commerce

    I'm trying to figure out what exactly the US Chamber of Commerce is and what if anything they have ever accomplished. Seems to me an unnecessary organization that's desperately trying to be pertinent

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous, Feb 11th, 2011 @ 1:36pm

    Remember the Techdirt house rules, kids:

    1.Copyright is bad.

    2.Any attempt at enforcing copyright law is censorship.

    3.Piracy hasn't had any negative economic impact.

    4.Anyone that disagrees with rules one through three is a troll or paid industry shill.

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Feb 11th, 2011 @ 1:44pm

      Re:

      1. Copyright is good.

      2. Any attempt at enforcing copyright law is not censorship.

      3. Piracy has had a negative economic impact.

      4. Anyone who agrees with rules one through three is not a troll or industry shill.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous, Feb 11th, 2011 @ 1:55pm

        Re: Re:

        What? Do you live in the real world or something?

         

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Joe, Feb 11th, 2011 @ 2:16pm

        Hear, Hear!

        2. Any attempt at enforcing copyright law is not censorship.

        That's right. The only problem with Bills of Attainder was that they were executed by Kings, and not by democratic consent.

        We should bring those back, and really show pirates that we mean business on protecting our precious ideas.

         

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 11th, 2011 @ 2:00pm

    Tried to view the link but the meat of the article is behind a paywall?

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    droslovinia, Feb 11th, 2011 @ 2:06pm

    Remember?

    While you're "remembering" things, let's remember that the US Chamber of Commerce is the same organization that fought tooth and nail to keep Congress from passing laws that would keep the US from doing business with companies that shield rapists. It's also the group that got cited from taking millions in foreign money to spread around on getting certain candidates elected to congress last year. Given their recent activities, censoring and protectionism are pretty small potatoes. Still, if an organization this heinous is proposing such things, I'm against them on general principles.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 11th, 2011 @ 2:11pm

    Wow is that fear I smell? After egypt fell the shills are out in number

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Joe, Feb 11th, 2011 @ 2:29pm

    I'm no shill. I just know that Free is wrong, and that anything our government can do to prevent people from exercising their minds freely is for their own good, and for the good of Art and Invention.

    And if you really can't tell by now?

    ;)

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 11th, 2011 @ 2:51pm

    It amazes me how people can spew out rhetoric like "no one would create if IP laws weren't here".

    Yeah, IP laws that were created in the late 1800's? I wonder what humans were doing in the millenia before that...sitting in caves and hunting woolly mammoths no doubt (oh wait, they didn't invent spears yet either, because no IP laws).

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Feb 11th, 2011 @ 3:04pm

      Re:

      Well, a couple of things:

      The speed of human progress has only increased over the ages. It took a long time to get from a simple telephone to an automated exchange (the chunk chunk dialers were amazing to see in action). It took a shorter amount of time to go from there to touch tone, and short still to the cell phone. Shorter than that to a pocket sized phone, and even shorter to a pocket sized phone / computer combo with about the same processing power as an early Cray supercomputer.

      Through all of that, we have had IP laws.

      It amazing me how people can spew out rhetoric like "patents block innovation" as they sit typing on their ultra lightweight laptop with the high end display, the quad core processors, over a high speed wireless connection.

      Indeed, process has been blocked at every turn by the mythical "patent thickets" that supposedly hinder us at every turn guided by out smart phone's GPS.

      Indeed, our time with IP laws have been horrible, with absolute no advances since the 18th century at all, for fear that they might violate someone else's horded work.

      Yeah. but but Censorship!

       

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

      •  
        icon
        Kirk (profile), Feb 11th, 2011 @ 3:16pm

        Re: Re:

        Your point is that progress can still occur in presence of a patent regime. I can't think of anyone who would dispute that. However, I seen many comments here implying that IP law is the source of all creativity. Would you agree that innovation occurs both before and after the adoption of a patent system?

         

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Feb 11th, 2011 @ 3:50pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Would you agree that innovation occurs both before and after the adoption of a patent system?

          Yes, of course. But I will add the asterix that we have had significantly more progress since the IP systems have been put in place. In fact, considering that the largest countries who did not support IP (India and China) have been playing catch up because they didn't progress as much without them would be good enough for a "Masnick Effect" linking.

          We also have to remember that the speed that ideas spread (aka, the ability to pirate an idea) was very slow. A 20 year patent 300 years ago might not have been long enough for the idea to travel the world. Today, 200ms gets you almost anywhere. Such is our progress! IP becomes a larger idea when the products can be more easily duplicated, the development becomes more dear, and the time span to exploit your development is short.

           

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

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Feb 11th, 2011 @ 6:38pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Actually, we have progress because time is linear.

             

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

            •  
              icon
              The eejit (profile), Feb 12th, 2011 @ 4:20am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              People think of time as a line, but I have seen the truth; it is more like a river, with ebbs and flows.
              -Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time.

               

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

          •  
            icon
            Any Mouse (profile), Feb 11th, 2011 @ 6:43pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Patents become irrelevant in less than 10 years.
            Copyright lasts 95 YEARS, longer than the average life span in any country, even though in many cases the material will become lost and forgotten in less than 30.

            Tell me again how we need to expand IP laws? Why do they need to be even more draconian? We already see that they aren't being respected. Making the punishments more severe won't help. Increased enforcement will only piss people off.

             

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

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Feb 12th, 2011 @ 7:18am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Tell me again how we need to expand IP laws?

              I don't think anyone (even the dreaded IP maximalists) are pushing for "expanded IP laws". They are pushing for more uniform laws, and better tools to apply those laws and make them function as intended.

              in many cases the material will become lost and forgotten in less than 30

              That may have been true in the past, but the current all digital world means that it is easy to keep copyright material available if the owner so wishes. We can right now turn on the TV and watch shows from the 50s and 60s, listen to music from the 40s and read books from the 30s. Some things are lost and forgotten over time, but plenty of it lives on, and continues to be popular and in demand. That's not so bad, now is it?

               

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

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Feb 12th, 2011 @ 2:47pm

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

                That may have been true in the past, but the current all digital world means that it is easy to keep copyright material available if the owner so wishes.

                Or even if the owner doesn't wish it. God bless human nature.

                 

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

          •  
            icon
            cc (profile), Feb 11th, 2011 @ 6:51pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            But to add an obelix to that, there is of course absolutely no way to tell if the speedup of human progress was because of the patent system.

            If history can teach us anything, it's that art and science have always thrived when civilisations were at their peak. Look at the Greeks and the Romans -- they didn't have copyrights or patents.

            As for your second point, I can assure you it takes a bit longer than 200ms to bring a product to market, even if you are just copying somebody else's product.

            Though I'm glad that you seem to agree that today intellectual monopolies are only useful for halting competition for their duration.

             

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

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Feb 11th, 2011 @ 8:34pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Though I'm glad that you seem to agree that today intellectual monopolies are only useful for halting competition for their duration

              I didn't say that at all. In fact, my feeling is that patents in particular actually drive companies to find alternate solutions in order to be in desirable market places, and that often leads to advances that otherwise might never happen.

              It doesn't halt competition - it makes smarter, harder working competition coming to market not with a replica product, but with a new product, possibly a better product, and a product that achieves the result in a different way.

              In that respect, we got double the development and competition, with products competing on their merits rather than their ability to replicate each other.

              It's the reason why we have Ipads, Samsung Galaxy, HP pads, and everything down through the Kindle: Different technologies, different operating systems, different designs, different functionality. There is no patent or copyright getting in the way of innovation here, if anything it has encouraged people to take different paths and we are blessed in a very short time with a wide selection of products that operate in this new niche market.

              As for your second point, I can assure you it takes a bit longer than 200ms to bring a product to market, even if you are just copying somebody else's product.

              200ms is the time it takes to connect from a remote location almost anywhere on the internet today. Secrets start moving that fast. All the design and research documents for that new product you are planning can be "accidentally" transfered to someone on the other side of the world in minutes, all because the delay from here to there is 200ms or less.

              Look at the Greeks and the Romans -- they didn't have copyrights or patents.

              No, they had no need for them - they had communication at the speed of a man walking, it might take years for information to spread. They didn't have any pressing economic reasons to have IP laws. But they were also both societies and times that were filled with secrets, scientists as kept pets of the rich, and so on. The true values of a man's discoveries in that time may not be discovered until long after his death. Secrecy is many times worse that a patent system.

              But to add an obelix to that, there is of course absolutely no way to tell if the speedup of human progress was because of the patent system.

              That is true, but it is also true that there is no indication that there is any significant impediment put in place by the system. As I said, Mike will toss up his needlessly complicated "patent thicket" graphic every so often to try to make a point, but he rarely addresses the facts of rapid development of cell and smart phones. He won't look at not only competitive products, but also the competing technologies that have rapidly advanced the market place. For all the hand ringing going on by the IP deniers, progress is going gangbusters, and your two year old cell phone is already incredibly far out of date.

              Reality is right there to grasp, it is just amazing that Mike chooses to ignore it.

               

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

              •  
                icon
                Mike Masnick (profile), Feb 11th, 2011 @ 10:44pm

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

                I didn't say that at all. In fact, my feeling is that patents in particular actually drive companies to find alternate solutions in order to be in desirable market places, and that often leads to advances that otherwise might never happen.

                Good thing we don't need to rely on your "feelings." We have actual studies. And they say you're wrong.

                 

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

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, Feb 11th, 2011 @ 11:44pm

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

                  Ahh yes, those wonderful studies where there is no way toi actual turn off the rest of the world or detach them from the actual progress being made outside of their systems.

                  Yeah, scientific indeed!

                   

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

              •  
                icon
                cc (profile), Feb 12th, 2011 @ 7:21am

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

                I'm sure it's more than just a "feeling", TAM. Are you not a patent lawyer with an obvious personal interest in keeping the patent wars going on forever?

                As for finding "other" solutions, why not let competition determine which solutions are examined? Instead of forcing progress to travel laterally for 20 years before it's allowed to go forwards, why not let it go forward until there's a need to go back and revisit alternative methods of doing things?

                If companies want to improve their position in the market, simply copying others won't keep them going forever. At some point, even copycats will be forced to innovate to stay current.

                "It's the reason why we have Ipads, Samsung Galaxy, HP pads, and everything down through the Kindle: Different technologies, different operating systems, different designs, different functionality. There is no patent or copyright getting in the way of innovation here"

                The reason all those exist is because a bunch of different companies are battling to push their technologies forwards. The patent wars between them are costing billions, and that cost trickles down to the consumer. Where is the money going? To the lawyers, of course.

                "200ms is the time it takes to connect from a remote location almost anywhere on the internet today."

                Thanks very much. How long does it take to bring a product to market? Months. Sometimes even years.

                "No, they had no need for them - they had communication at the speed of a man walking"

                Not the case when they lived in the same city, as was the case in ancient Athens for example. Cue in Socrates stopping Plato from writing his dialogues... No, wait...

                "That is true, but it is also true that there is no indication that there is any significant impediment put in place by the system. As I said, Mike will toss up his needlessly complicated "patent thicket" graphic every so often to try to make a point, but he rarely addresses the facts of rapid development of cell and smart phones."

                I dunno, could the rapid development of those things can be because it's driven by the market? A huge market for smart phones was discovered, and a bunch of companies are trying to fill that market. Simple as that. As for the "patent thicket", it's there regardless of what you think of Mike's (or anyone else's) diagrams.

                 

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

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous, Feb 12th, 2011 @ 4:05pm

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

                  Of course the market is there. And the ability to profit is also there, which is what drives supply.

                  Without patent or copyright, people would simply copy someone else's idea, and wouldn't have the need to be creative, original or innovative.

                  This is the simplest concept in the world, yet you people want to ignore it. Because you somehow think piracy will be saved if you can just get rid of copyright.

                  Which isn't going to happen. :)

                   

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

                  •  
                    icon
                    cc (profile), Feb 12th, 2011 @ 6:20pm

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

                    I don't think I'm getting through here. Let me repeat this point for the third time and let's hope it sticks:

                    Bringing a product to market is not done overnight. Even if you are just copying somebody else's product, it can take months until you have something for sale in shops. Keep in mind all the relevant considerations, including marketing and even the strength of your competitor's brand by the time you enter the market.

                    Also remember that the more complex a product is, the longer it takes to reverse-engineer. Simple innovations that are not really worth anything will be easily copyable, but larger innovations will take skilled labour and significantly more time.

                    And in case you haven't noticed, I've been talking about patents. :)

                     

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

                  •  
                    icon
                    Kirk (profile), Feb 13th, 2011 @ 2:08pm

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

                    "Without patent or copyright, people would simply copy someone else's idea, and wouldn't have the need to be creative, original or innovative."

                    I think you place yourself in a very tiny minority when you say that creativity does not happen without intellectual property. Are you alleging that the creative human spirit that powered ancient times and the renaissance has been killed off by patents and copyright? How, in your opinion, has human nature changed since then?


                    "This is the simplest concept in the world, yet you people want to ignore it. Because you somehow think piracy will be saved if you can just get rid of copyright."

                    Again, I think that even most supporters of the current IP system would disagree with your assertion that people "wouldn't have the need to be creative, original or innovative..." if we didn't have patents or copyright, so I hardly think that it's "the simplest concept in the world." Rather, the simplicity lies, most likely, in your understanding of the subject. Since the vast majority of recorded history disagrees with you, you might want to revise that statement so that we can begin a substantive discussion.

                    Are there any other IP supporters who want to express their support for such a simple truth?

                     

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

              •  
                identicon
                hxa, Feb 12th, 2011 @ 8:12am

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

                This has something of the flavour of those arguments saying copyright keeps prices lower -- that monopoly actually *helps* the public!

                Innovation, ultimately, is sparked and guided by our imagination and wants. And the best place to apply our efforts is in those directions. To expend work on *avoiding* artificial barriers is effort wasted, wholly unneededly.

                New things are created because people *want* to make new things. Where work is devoted to re-inventing things that could otherwise easily be copied is effort and resources wasted.

                 

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

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous, Feb 12th, 2011 @ 4:13pm

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

                  Read what I wrote above. You're saying that innovation would exist no matter what; true, but not to the exent that it is with copyright and patents.

                  In order to encourage more than just a few people from coming up with ideas on their own, incentives must exist. People demand incetives, it's human nature.

                  And the greatest incentive to the human race is money. You might not like it, but it's a cold hard fact.

                   

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

          •  
            identicon
            hxa, Feb 12th, 2011 @ 7:42am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            > IP becomes a larger idea when the products can be more easily duplicated

            A larger cost, you mean.

            Communication of info and ideas is good. So as tech allows us to do more of it that is a real gain. Yet IP, by definition, obstructs the flow and use of info. The more we *can* communicate info, the more gain IP is obstructing.

            The difference between the actual distribution and the desired possible distribution equals the loss to the public due to copyright. And as that possible distribution increases, the loss is greater.

            Of course it is completely normal to wholly ignore that side of it: IP is for paying corporations plenty of money, and that is it. But when you *do* take care to remember the basic premise of IP -- that it is a tradeoff of *two* good things -- you inevitably reach a different conclusion. The increase in ease of copying does *not* simply mean *more* restriction is right. It means the essential tradeoff is ever more unreconcilable, and the basic mechanism is ever more broken.

             

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

      •  
        icon
        The eejit (profile), Feb 12th, 2011 @ 4:23am

        Re: Re:

        Technology is advancing, but there's a huge stumbling block. IT's called Patent lawyers. All the money being used in lawsuits is being locked up in the backrooms of legal advisors, rather than actually improving the tech behind the innovation.

         

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Feb 11th, 2011 @ 3:10pm

      Response to: Anonymous Coward on Feb 11th, 2011 @ 2:51pm

      In my opinion stricter IP is posturing to goto war with China in the near future.

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 11th, 2011 @ 2:55pm

    But... but... Censorship!

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 11th, 2011 @ 4:10pm

    The latest is that it has sent a letter to President Obama with its "intellectual property agenda," which could be simplified as "more of it, please."

    And he, of course, will not be able to stamp it with his seal of approval fast enough. He probably won't bother reading it after he sees who sent it.
    As such, the next logical step would be to request the ability to order nuclear strikes on countries that make the Special 301 report. They'd probably get that, too.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Thomas Manaugh, Feb 12th, 2011 @ 4:11am

    Lobbying by US Chamber of Commerce

    Want to challenge the US Chamber of Commerce's lobbying for the worst polluters in America? Sign petition.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 14th, 2011 @ 2:57am

    UCA has replaced USA

    Welcome to the United Corporations of America.

     

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


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