PC's were patented and licensed... There are dozens of different PC's now. So a patent didn't stop innovation in that case.
Apples were patented and they weren't licensed, so only Apple makes Apple OS computers. I dare say innovation wasn't stopped in that arena either, but even if you feel that it was - I don't think consumers are suffering with wails and lamentations because of it.
It's about the standards that need to be met to be considered unique and non-obvious, and patent usage protocols that ought to be debated here, not the concepts of invention, intellectual capital, or the protections thereof via the laws.
Okay, so tweak the laws if they lend themselves to abuse by more than the occasional crank, but the idea that patents (and copyrights) are obsolete due to the advent of the internet and "non-depriving" perfect digital copies of virtual goods (the kinds of copies that can be made of software or digital media), runs counter to innovation of all sorts, and is (imho) just silly.
Look. I'm not a cop. Pirate stuff if you want to pirate it. You and the law can play cat and mouse. At this point in the information technology battles, since the prevailing attitude on techdirt is that certain laws are "unenforceable", You might even win most of the time..
But don't try to rationalize it by trying to convince yourself that the creators don't deserve this or that, or that the IP owning corporations are obligated to come up with a new business model that makes it ok for you not to pay them for something they are selling. If they go out of business because of piracy - then they just they do (yall have convinced me to seriously doubt their claims of imminent demise). They're big boys; They'll survive. And if creators and others want to do something different: viral, guerilla, loss-leader, or teaser-style marketing, I say "Great!" Let Business Evolve! Woohoo! The market is a crazy place. Personally, I'm a fan of NIN and what Trent's doing.
But really, have some integrity techdirt community.
I agree with Kazi:
-------
"Software is like sex, it's better when it's free." - Linus Torvalds
Let's modify that a bit:
"Technology is like sex, it's better when it's free."
-------
That is so true. So true. But you know what? A lot of people have to pay for it. The business around that "is like" thing he mentions? makes billions. It's the way of the world. Grow up. Now if you can steal it in a non-harming way - then good for you. I'm glad you're not harming anyone, but it is still stealing and if you get caught, there are penalties.
Me: "blah, blah, blah...there are penalties."
A Real E-pirate: (waiting for me to make a point that he hasn't already considered and factored into *his* new economy business model as a given) "And... so what? so I'm a criminal. (heh) Where are you going with this. Don't look at me like that, what.. You think I didn't know that? Look. If I was afraid of the penalties I wouldn't be doing this. You do the crime -(rolls eyes)- you might do the time.. So you want me to make you a copy of this or not?"
See that's the problem with techdirt's general perspective. There is this overblown fear that somehow a patent owner will be SO reluctant to license a protected invention, and let other people make him money (not the most common perspective of entrepreneurs in the real world), or if he does license it (and protect his right to license it) that- oh my gosh - he'll be getting something he doesn't "deserve" for a period of time that is way too long (again not the overwhelming occurence in reality).
So they want everything unprotected. To me this an extreme perspective, but it's entertaining to watch the rationale building activities.
1. I agree with the prediction that Hulu will not remove the ads if they put up a paywall/subscription wall, and so that would in fact be charging both the content provider/sponsor and the content viewer for a single transaction. I doubt this is necessary to generate enough revenue to be a going concern because
2. I imagine the unique internet visitor data that advertisers receive from Hulu's online OTA model has to be ridiculously valuable interms of CwC/S/F (Customers/Supporters/Fans) especially for the smaller non-profits and such that I've seen advertising on Hulu. Those organizations don't have huge budgets to build their community-of-support databases and Hulu advertising seems like an economical way to help build that asset.That value should drive the pricing of Hulu ads which should be enough to pay for the content. I can't imagine that is not as least as valuable to the advertising organization as ads on cable or radio.
3. And personally I think the pay-for-content models of iTunes and Netflicks are a better value than a subsciption fee. I have observed in my own purchasing decisions recently that while I am essentially incapapable of convincing myself of the value of subscribing to content online, I have found that free (to me the consumer) advertiser sponsored viewing of programming does actually lead to more (not less) iTunes/AppleTV purchases & rentals by me. I only pay for content I actually want to see and/or keep instead of subsidizing a bunch of suff I have no interest in.
I didn't say "public domain" because I didn't really mean.. "public domain"- as you point out, we wouldn't be having this discussion if JDS had put CiTR in the public domain - so we are in agreement there.
I freely admit to not knowing exactly what to call a "shared perception of imaginary events/persons/places based on a common experience of a fictional work" in the context of legal protections. I didn't create the term in lieu of an argument to "make me right" I was struggling to name the phenomenon I described above - any help you can give me would be appreciated.
And I didn't say creative works were created in a vacuum. The work of another that "inspires creation" is a wonderful thing. We are in violent agreement on that. "Inspired by" implies that the new work is significantly different from the original. What we're talking about in this article is the work of another that is plagerized wholesale (in that the new creator presumes his audience possesses that phenomenon I mentioned above - whatever you want to call it) and added to it, to make a sequel - even a great sequel - without the permission of the original creator *for profit*.
I didn't relate charging for a product to the quality of that product either.
I think the *for profit* aspect makes a big difference since I don't believe in legislating against or prohibiting peoples' free speech and creativity that allows them to draw on ALL of their experiences real or fictional. Fan fiction is awesome.
What we're talking about is making money off of someone else's work. I just don't think that's cool. Again I understand the business model around sampling and I think that works, but to act (in the market place) like something is in the "public domain" when it isn't intended to be by it's creator, is imho artistically dishonest, and should be commercially illegal.
I guess we fundamentally disagree in that I think someone should be able to get paid for work they did, as well as for work they are doing. I think creative works are an investment by the creator, and that investment creates capital of a sort (again I ask your help in naming it if the term "intellectual property" offends you) that the creator should be allowed to sell many, many times with the legal protection of a limited monopoly if the market desires that capital-of-a-sort. In fact, (as I go out on a techdirt limb here) I think that if the artist continues to produce, over time, I think the creator has a right to profit from all of the elements in that "body of work" he or she has invested in.
Do I think that the creator's limited monopoly should be indefinite? no. Should it be so sweeping that it covers things that are similar? Probably not, but that is for the courts to decide depending on how close the new work is to the orignial. Do I think the owner of the original work should be able to invoke the law to prevent future works of that in that same type, style, subject, etc. etc.? Obviously I don't think so. The creation of a CiTR-type novel or a CiTR-type sequel is fine. (Apparently there's a market for it) But a direct leveraging or referencing of someone elses intellectual property (Sorry.. I really need that new descriptor term from you), to be sold in the market place without even so much as permission or a sampling-type agreement from the actual creator/owner of that "fictional experience guide" (maybe?) strikes me as unfair.
I think the sense of entitlement in this case is on the writer of the sequel. Just because he has read about some characters, doesn't mean he has the right to spin tales about them that leverage the created fictional substance of someone else. I don't want to get creative writing theory and craft technical here, but in short, a fictional character, or setting, or a specific fictional history from previous plot lines etc. is property. Intellectual property that exists in the public market/mindspace as virtual memories that can be tapped as a reference or used as a shorthand when conveying additive information to that pre-exsting property.
The owner's for-profit use of of his own virtual-public-mindspace property is HIS right. Not the right of others because he hasn't done so yet, or becuase they have a great idea on how to use it, or because there is a market for it, or some other such nonsense.
If the sequel writer wants to license the property he can work out a deal with the creator and in the case of hip-hop the market ensured that the average costs settled at an amount that is low enough that it rarely serves as a prohibitive barrier to innovation.. but it's outrageous to assume that anything you see or read is yours to use *for-profit* because you think you can or you just want to. If the artist so desires it, we *pay* them to make a remix of their songs. This is not just a free digital copy of catcher in the rye, (the whole "it's not theft due to infinite supply" theory) imho this is unauthorized pollution/dillution/enhancement of a resource.
Unlike a reproduced song, an intellectual property can in fact be damaged (or enhanced) by misuse. If the sequel writer wants to write fan-fiction and not profit from it, then that is one thing. But to decide as a writer that you are too lazy to create your own characters, and references and/or your own original back story when you want to produce a *for-profit* creative work, to me that demonstrates a clear LACK of innovation, and creativity, and contribution to the public body or pool of what I guess we should call virtual value.
Sometimes this site has the attitude that nobody should profit from anything they create beyond live performances. That's bullsh^% ok? The sequel writer is not being "stiffled" if he's not allowed to crib somebody else's homework; he is free to do it himself.
I have to second that motion... WTF young-cuomo-san? If you were genuine in your belief that this was really a dangerous situaiton and needed to be changed, you would have had a press conference that CELEBRATED the change by craigslist. You would have:
-said that you called them this morning as soon as you heard the news,
-given them praise & credit for their prompt action in the interest of the good (& safety) of the public after you informed them that the good and decent people you are charged to protect will not stand for blah blah blah, and
-then said you hope they will keep and enforce their new policy.
Then you should have gotten up on your soapbox and pontificated about how it's good to know that the management team of cglist understand that there is a difference between what is useful free speech vs that which harms our society etc. etc. because you are the type of modern leader who understands that while openess and sharing on the internet for the most part doesn't need govt interference and increases human capital blah blah blah, .. (bring the camera in close for gravitas) there are times when leaders must set the example and exercise judgement to prevent the abuse of our freedoms by some... And so again this office, the office of the AG of NYS (shameless reminder of who & where you are so far in this game), wants to thank and support this change in policy by cg'slist and warn them that you will be vigilant in monitoring their adherence to this voluntary change. This kind of cooperation between business and government...(Ohmygd, he didn't just turn that around on a dime and engender good will in the business community for what will be seen as his friendliness to business approach on this did he? *and* soften his next-coming-of-Spitzer-to-bash-business image all in one shot? Why yes. Yes he did.) Thank you very much and may God bless the state of NY...
If you had done that, we could believe that you actually gave a rip about the actual issue - *and that you were a person of influence* ... who knew how to get change to happen, quickly and cleanly instead of messily and expensively.. Instead you come off as an issue-abulance chaser who is berating a company for denying you your politico-hero-battling-evil-business moment - despite the fact that your side got what it wanted. You need better political advisors / spin doctors / speech writers. NYS state isn't for amateur politicos... We have too much tech business and too much professional media in the state for luddite bumpkin mistakes. I expect better from you in the future.
As a comic book creator, I'm incensed by this story. Normally I think some of the regulars on techdirt are way too soft on protecting people's work. But this lawsuit? is bullsh__. IMHO they could name the comic book IRON MAIDEN if they wanted to and should not get sued by the bands laywers unless the logos really looked the same (which they don't) or they used eddie artwork (which they don't) or they used music or imagery of the band (which they don't). The band doesn't freaking own the history of the device or the name of it. I actually like the band and the artwork on the covers and have for a long time, but wtf? This type of egregious over stepping of copyright law is why I'm starting to drink the kool-aid here on techdirt.
This thread began with "I knew you were good for something!" and ended with "you can shove it up your ass." and in between, literally everything in existence was discussed. You humans are interesting to watch.
If it is a common act in a generation's social process to do something and you don't do it you are an outlier. Hence you may be considered weird. A lot of people are weird and I didn't mean it as an end-all be-all negative. I didn't mean to imply that Mr. Lam was *required* to have such a picture... but that It is WELL within the norms of his demographic and shouldn't surprise anyone (especially given the tame nature of the "racy".) Sorry if I overstated the case. And yes if you don't want something public you don't have to make it public by posting it online. I'm in violent agreement with both of you. (In my defense I was still stunned by the insanity of the article)
This is insane. I'm much older than Mr. Lam, and I'm fairly conservative in my personal life, though I tend to liberal politics... He had to stop his candidacy because he was goofing around a party? He was playing the fool for the camera for fun, and we really had people think this had ANYTHING to do with how he'd be as an elected official? You *can't* be serious. These pictures aren't even really"racy" much less obscene or anything more serious. I know I'm late to comment on this but I'm flabbergasted. This is like an onion story - it can't be real. Freakin' loosen up Canada.. Gosh-golly-gees he's had a few beers in his life...Anybody 22 years old without at least a few pictures like that on a social site would be too weird a member of his generation to elect. He'd be too obviously outta touch with his 21st century reality!
PC's were patented and licensed... There are dozens of different PC's now. So a patent didn't stop innovation in that case.
Apples were patented and they weren't licensed, so only Apple makes Apple OS computers. I dare say innovation wasn't stopped in that arena either, but even if you feel that it was - I don't think consumers are suffering with wails and lamentations because of it.
It's about the standards that need to be met to be considered unique and non-obvious, and patent usage protocols that ought to be debated here, not the concepts of invention, intellectual capital, or the protections thereof via the laws.
Okay, so tweak the laws if they lend themselves to abuse by more than the occasional crank, but the idea that patents (and copyrights) are obsolete due to the advent of the internet and "non-depriving" perfect digital copies of virtual goods (the kinds of copies that can be made of software or digital media), runs counter to innovation of all sorts, and is (imho) just silly.
Look. I'm not a cop. Pirate stuff if you want to pirate it. You and the law can play cat and mouse. At this point in the information technology battles, since the prevailing attitude on techdirt is that certain laws are "unenforceable", You might even win most of the time..
But don't try to rationalize it by trying to convince yourself that the creators don't deserve this or that, or that the IP owning corporations are obligated to come up with a new business model that makes it ok for you not to pay them for something they are selling. If they go out of business because of piracy - then they just they do (yall have convinced me to seriously doubt their claims of imminent demise). They're big boys; They'll survive. And if creators and others want to do something different: viral, guerilla, loss-leader, or teaser-style marketing, I say "Great!" Let Business Evolve! Woohoo! The market is a crazy place. Personally, I'm a fan of NIN and what Trent's doing.
But really, have some integrity techdirt community.
I agree with Kazi:
-------
"Software is like sex, it's better when it's free." - Linus Torvalds
Let's modify that a bit:
"Technology is like sex, it's better when it's free."
-------
That is so true. So true. But you know what? A lot of people have to pay for it. The business around that "is like" thing he mentions? makes billions. It's the way of the world. Grow up. Now if you can steal it in a non-harming way - then good for you. I'm glad you're not harming anyone, but it is still stealing and if you get caught, there are penalties.
Me: "blah, blah, blah...there are penalties."
A Real E-pirate: (waiting for me to make a point that he hasn't already considered and factored into *his* new economy business model as a given) "And... so what? so I'm a criminal. (heh) Where are you going with this. Don't look at me like that, what.. You think I didn't know that? Look. If I was afraid of the penalties I wouldn't be doing this. You do the crime -(rolls eyes)- you might do the time.. So you want me to make you a copy of this or not?"
Re: Re: Horizontal vs. Vertical
See that's the problem with techdirt's general perspective. There is this overblown fear that somehow a patent owner will be SO reluctant to license a protected invention, and let other people make him money (not the most common perspective of entrepreneurs in the real world), or if he does license it (and protect his right to license it) that- oh my gosh - he'll be getting something he doesn't "deserve" for a period of time that is way too long (again not the overwhelming occurence in reality).
So they want everything unprotected. To me this an extreme perspective, but it's entertaining to watch the rationale building activities.
my 2 cents:
1. I agree with the prediction that Hulu will not remove the ads if they put up a paywall/subscription wall, and so that would in fact be charging both the content provider/sponsor and the content viewer for a single transaction. I doubt this is necessary to generate enough revenue to be a going concern because
2. I imagine the unique internet visitor data that advertisers receive from Hulu's online OTA model has to be ridiculously valuable interms of CwC/S/F (Customers/Supporters/Fans) especially for the smaller non-profits and such that I've seen advertising on Hulu. Those organizations don't have huge budgets to build their community-of-support databases and Hulu advertising seems like an economical way to help build that asset.That value should drive the pricing of Hulu ads which should be enough to pay for the content. I can't imagine that is not as least as valuable to the advertising organization as ads on cable or radio.
3. And personally I think the pay-for-content models of iTunes and Netflicks are a better value than a subsciption fee. I have observed in my own purchasing decisions recently that while I am essentially incapapable of convincing myself of the value of subscribing to content online, I have found that free (to me the consumer) advertiser sponsored viewing of programming does actually lead to more (not less) iTunes/AppleTV purchases & rentals by me. I only pay for content I actually want to see and/or keep instead of subsidizing a bunch of suff I have no interest in.
Re: Re:
Thanks for your response Joe,
I didn't say "public domain" because I didn't really mean.. "public domain"- as you point out, we wouldn't be having this discussion if JDS had put CiTR in the public domain - so we are in agreement there.
I freely admit to not knowing exactly what to call a "shared perception of imaginary events/persons/places based on a common experience of a fictional work" in the context of legal protections. I didn't create the term in lieu of an argument to "make me right" I was struggling to name the phenomenon I described above - any help you can give me would be appreciated.
And I didn't say creative works were created in a vacuum. The work of another that "inspires creation" is a wonderful thing. We are in violent agreement on that. "Inspired by" implies that the new work is significantly different from the original. What we're talking about in this article is the work of another that is plagerized wholesale (in that the new creator presumes his audience possesses that phenomenon I mentioned above - whatever you want to call it) and added to it, to make a sequel - even a great sequel - without the permission of the original creator *for profit*.
I didn't relate charging for a product to the quality of that product either.
I think the *for profit* aspect makes a big difference since I don't believe in legislating against or prohibiting peoples' free speech and creativity that allows them to draw on ALL of their experiences real or fictional. Fan fiction is awesome.
What we're talking about is making money off of someone else's work. I just don't think that's cool. Again I understand the business model around sampling and I think that works, but to act (in the market place) like something is in the "public domain" when it isn't intended to be by it's creator, is imho artistically dishonest, and should be commercially illegal.
I guess we fundamentally disagree in that I think someone should be able to get paid for work they did, as well as for work they are doing. I think creative works are an investment by the creator, and that investment creates capital of a sort (again I ask your help in naming it if the term "intellectual property" offends you) that the creator should be allowed to sell many, many times with the legal protection of a limited monopoly if the market desires that capital-of-a-sort. In fact, (as I go out on a techdirt limb here) I think that if the artist continues to produce, over time, I think the creator has a right to profit from all of the elements in that "body of work" he or she has invested in.
Do I think that the creator's limited monopoly should be indefinite? no. Should it be so sweeping that it covers things that are similar? Probably not, but that is for the courts to decide depending on how close the new work is to the orignial. Do I think the owner of the original work should be able to invoke the law to prevent future works of that in that same type, style, subject, etc. etc.? Obviously I don't think so. The creation of a CiTR-type novel or a CiTR-type sequel is fine. (Apparently there's a market for it) But a direct leveraging or referencing of someone elses intellectual property (Sorry.. I really need that new descriptor term from you), to be sold in the market place without even so much as permission or a sampling-type agreement from the actual creator/owner of that "fictional experience guide" (maybe?) strikes me as unfair.
I think the sense of entitlement in this case is on the writer of the sequel. Just because he has read about some characters, doesn't mean he has the right to spin tales about them that leverage the created fictional substance of someone else. I don't want to get creative writing theory and craft technical here, but in short, a fictional character, or setting, or a specific fictional history from previous plot lines etc. is property. Intellectual property that exists in the public market/mindspace as virtual memories that can be tapped as a reference or used as a shorthand when conveying additive information to that pre-exsting property.
The owner's for-profit use of of his own virtual-public-mindspace property is HIS right. Not the right of others because he hasn't done so yet, or becuase they have a great idea on how to use it, or because there is a market for it, or some other such nonsense.
If the sequel writer wants to license the property he can work out a deal with the creator and in the case of hip-hop the market ensured that the average costs settled at an amount that is low enough that it rarely serves as a prohibitive barrier to innovation.. but it's outrageous to assume that anything you see or read is yours to use *for-profit* because you think you can or you just want to. If the artist so desires it, we *pay* them to make a remix of their songs. This is not just a free digital copy of catcher in the rye, (the whole "it's not theft due to infinite supply" theory) imho this is unauthorized pollution/dillution/enhancement of a resource.
Unlike a reproduced song, an intellectual property can in fact be damaged (or enhanced) by misuse. If the sequel writer wants to write fan-fiction and not profit from it, then that is one thing. But to decide as a writer that you are too lazy to create your own characters, and references and/or your own original back story when you want to produce a *for-profit* creative work, to me that demonstrates a clear LACK of innovation, and creativity, and contribution to the public body or pool of what I guess we should call virtual value.
Sometimes this site has the attitude that nobody should profit from anything they create beyond live performances. That's bullsh^% ok? The sequel writer is not being "stiffled" if he's not allowed to crib somebody else's homework; he is free to do it himself.
I have to second that motion... WTF young-cuomo-san? If you were genuine in your belief that this was really a dangerous situaiton and needed to be changed, you would have had a press conference that CELEBRATED the change by craigslist. You would have:
-said that you called them this morning as soon as you heard the news,
-given them praise & credit for their prompt action in the interest of the good (& safety) of the public after you informed them that the good and decent people you are charged to protect will not stand for blah blah blah, and
-then said you hope they will keep and enforce their new policy.
Then you should have gotten up on your soapbox and pontificated about how it's good to know that the management team of cglist understand that there is a difference between what is useful free speech vs that which harms our society etc. etc. because you are the type of modern leader who understands that while openess and sharing on the internet for the most part doesn't need govt interference and increases human capital blah blah blah, .. (bring the camera in close for gravitas) there are times when leaders must set the example and exercise judgement to prevent the abuse of our freedoms by some... And so again this office, the office of the AG of NYS (shameless reminder of who & where you are so far in this game), wants to thank and support this change in policy by cg'slist and warn them that you will be vigilant in monitoring their adherence to this voluntary change. This kind of cooperation between business and government...(Ohmygd, he didn't just turn that around on a dime and engender good will in the business community for what will be seen as his friendliness to business approach on this did he? *and* soften his next-coming-of-Spitzer-to-bash-business image all in one shot? Why yes. Yes he did.) Thank you very much and may God bless the state of NY...
If you had done that, we could believe that you actually gave a rip about the actual issue - *and that you were a person of influence* ... who knew how to get change to happen, quickly and cleanly instead of messily and expensively.. Instead you come off as an issue-abulance chaser who is berating a company for denying you your politico-hero-battling-evil-business moment - despite the fact that your side got what it wanted. You need better political advisors / spin doctors / speech writers. NYS state isn't for amateur politicos... We have too much tech business and too much professional media in the state for luddite bumpkin mistakes. I expect better from you in the future.
Grrrr....
As a comic book creator, I'm incensed by this story. Normally I think some of the regulars on techdirt are way too soft on protecting people's work. But this lawsuit? is bullsh__. IMHO they could name the comic book IRON MAIDEN if they wanted to and should not get sued by the bands laywers unless the logos really looked the same (which they don't) or they used eddie artwork (which they don't) or they used music or imagery of the band (which they don't). The band doesn't freaking own the history of the device or the name of it. I actually like the band and the artwork on the covers and have for a long time, but wtf? This type of egregious over stepping of copyright law is why I'm starting to drink the kool-aid here on techdirt.
Amazing.
This thread began with "I knew you were good for something!" and ended with "you can shove it up your ass." and in between, literally everything in existence was discussed. You humans are interesting to watch.
re: My "Weird" comment
If it is a common act in a generation's social process to do something and you don't do it you are an outlier. Hence you may be considered weird. A lot of people are weird and I didn't mean it as an end-all be-all negative. I didn't mean to imply that Mr. Lam was *required* to have such a picture... but that It is WELL within the norms of his demographic and shouldn't surprise anyone (especially given the tame nature of the "racy".) Sorry if I overstated the case. And yes if you don't want something public you don't have to make it public by posting it online. I'm in violent agreement with both of you. (In my defense I was still stunned by the insanity of the article)
This ain't a real story; Is it?
This is insane. I'm much older than Mr. Lam, and I'm fairly conservative in my personal life, though I tend to liberal politics... He had to stop his candidacy because he was goofing around a party? He was playing the fool for the camera for fun, and we really had people think this had ANYTHING to do with how he'd be as an elected official? You *can't* be serious. These pictures aren't even really"racy" much less obscene or anything more serious. I know I'm late to comment on this but I'm flabbergasted. This is like an onion story - it can't be real. Freakin' loosen up Canada.. Gosh-golly-gees he's had a few beers in his life...Anybody 22 years old without at least a few pictures like that on a social site would be too weird a member of his generation to elect. He'd be too obviously outta touch with his 21st century reality!
Re: There is an Art
thanks for the tip on Cornell Note Taking... I just wish I'd known how to do this 2 degrees ago!