The Knockoff Economy: Techdirt Book Club Chat With Kal Raustiala & Chris Sprigman
from the check-it-out dept
If all goes technologically to plan, then beneath this text, we’ll be running our YouTube stream of my chat with Kal Raustiala and Chris Sprigman, authors of The Knockoff Economy. The chat will happen from about 11am to 11:30am PT via live streaming. If you’re tuning in late, you can watch the full recording below. If you haven’t yet read the book, you should — but first you can check out excerpts on the importance of those who “tweak” the work of others, and on what the music industry can do, based on lessons from other industries or professions that don’t have monopoly restrictions on competition.
Filed Under: copyright, economics, innovation, knockoff economy
Comments on “The Knockoff Economy: Techdirt Book Club Chat With Kal Raustiala & Chris Sprigman”
Okay it works
Okay got it. It appeared.thanks
Patent law, copyright law, trademark law, unfair competition law, antitrust law, etc. do not apply with equal facility to all industries, so highlighting some that operate with minimal reliance, if any, on one or more of these laws as proof they are in large measure unnecessary is at best misleading, and at worst dishonest, especially in a publication that focuses almost exclusively on perceived failings of copyright law. BTW, just once I would like to see someone acknowledge that the quotation by TJ in his letter to Issac McPherson pertained only to patent law. The policy underpinnings of patent and copyright law make the quotation a poor basis upon which the assert “See, this is what TJ had to say about the matter.”
Re: Re:
Patent law, copyright law, trademark law, unfair competition law, antitrust law, etc. do not apply with equal facility to all industries, so highlighting some that operate with minimal reliance, if any, on one or more of these laws as proof they are in large measure unnecessary is at best misleading, and at worst dishonest, especially in a publication that focuses almost exclusively on perceived failings of copyright law.
Obviously you neither read the book nor watched the discussion above, in which we directly address your claim, and it’s made clear that they’re not arguing what you claim at all.
BTW, just once I would like to see someone acknowledge that the quotation by TJ in his letter to Issac McPherson pertained only to patent law. The policy underpinnings of patent and copyright law make the quotation a poor basis upon which the assert “See, this is what TJ had to say about the matter.”
I have to admit I’ve NEVER seen anyone use the TJ quote in reference to copyright. It’s almost exclusively used to discuss the patent system.
Re: Re: Re:
I did not read the book since it is “shareware”. I did, however, read not only the excerpts published here, but also some other excerpts and links appearing on legal websites. My comment here is a copy of one I made on such a website where the authors have made several postings concerning what is contained in their book.
Re the TJ quote, David Post is just one of many who regularly misuse TJ’s letter.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I did not read the book since it is “shareware”.
I honestly have no idea what this means. You didn’t read it because you could have read it? WTF?
I did, however, read not only the excerpts published here, but also some other excerpts and links appearing on legal websites. My comment here is a copy of one I made on such a website where the authors have made several postings concerning what is contained in their book.
So you didn’t read the book. You then make a totally false assumption, which goes against exactly what they say in the book AND in the video discussion above… and your response when called out on making a totally bullshit comment is to… admit that you didn’t read the book, but still stand by your bullshit comment?
WOW.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
“Shareware” means it is only available for sale (which does seem a bit strange for authors expressing an animus towards copyright law, a law of which they partake with their book). Moreover, it appears you missed the part where it has been discussed extensively by the authors on other sites (as well as numerous colleagues who have reviewed the book in detail). This site is not the only location where the views of the two authors anent their book are discussed extensively.
To call a comment BS shows to me that you are woefully uninformed. Of course, I have come to expect that given your deep-seated animosity to various laws you are totally convinced stifle “innovation” at every turn.
Interesting the absence of a rejoinder to the asserted misuse of TJ’s letter.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
“Shareware” means it is only available for sale (which does seem a bit strange for authors expressing an animus towards copyright law, a law of which they partake with their book).
Except they don’t express an animus towards copyright law. Which you would know if you read the book or watched the video. Which you haven’t.
Moreover, it appears you missed the part where it has been discussed extensively by the authors on other sites (as well as numerous colleagues who have reviewed the book in detail). This site is not the only location where the views of the two authors anent their book are discussed extensively.
Nor did I suggest that this was the only place that the book was discussed. What I said was that they addressed your bullshit assertion.
And yet you still assert it as if they hadn’t.
You do this a lot. Why?
To call a comment BS shows to me that you are woefully uninformed.
Quite the opposite. If you make a bullshit claim, and I call it out as bullshit… that’s just me being accurate.
Of course, I have come to expect that given your deep-seated animosity to various laws you are totally convinced stifle “innovation” at every turn.
This has nothing to do with animosity towards any law. It has to do with you making a bullshit claim about their position, and being too much of a jackass to admit that you spoke out ignorantly.
Interesting the absence of a rejoinder to the asserted misuse of TJ’s letter.
No need to respond to a point that makes no sense, frankly. It’s yet another example of you making something up.