Do Copyright Laws need reform? If so how?

2011-08-02 08:27:43

#1

Cheeky_Ninja06: Member; +52|6989|Cambridge, England

Not a very shocking title I know but I've been meaning to set this thread up for a while.

Yes "piracy" is a part of it but the issue runs far deeper.

Does copyright stifle innovation?

Every time I log on there seems to be a new patent infringing court action. To list a few of the most recent..

Samsung has delayed the Australian launch of its Galaxy tablet because of its patent dispute with Apple.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14371031

Music service Spotify is being sued in the US and Europe for allegedly violating patents held by PacketVideo.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14338710

Rovio, the Finnish maker of the Angry Birds game, is being sued by a licensing company for infringing its patents.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14245047

Taiwanese smartphone maker HTC has said it is prepared to wage a patent war against Apple.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14238741

Korean electronics firm Samsung has hit back in a patent dispute with Osram, a rival maker of light emitting diodes (LEDs).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14181324

At last, a victory for Nokia against Apple. The settlement of the long-running and complex patent battle ..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-13761454

These are just since the start of July.

A similar thing is occurring in the scientific community. Why can data not be shared in an easy to use format to encourage collaboration? Why does the wheel need to be reinvented each time?

I have got a really good presentation that was given at CERN to add to this post once I get home but perhaps this is enough to start a debate, unless you are all in agreement of course

Does the copyright, designs and patents act need rewriting?

Should appropriate data be "open source" ?

Should the consumer pay full price to have the same product on different mediums?

Should research papers be available to everybody?

Who benefits the most from the current creativity laws?

Should it be illegal to subscribe to and watch a foreign sports feed with a large satellite dish as opposed to your more expensive national provider?

There is also the huge data protection issue to discuss as well.

2011-08-02 09:00:52

#2

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6973

Because companies spend billions upon billions of dollars in R and D.

https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png

2011-08-02 09:19:40

#3

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5615|London, England

Cybargs wrote:
Because companies spend billions upon billions of dollars in R and D.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2011-08-02 09:21:47

#4

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5615|London, England

Lack of copyright/patents stifles development, not the other way around. Companies would not spend the money on research and development if they didnt have the window of protection to recoup their investment.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2011-08-02 09:29:29

#5

Winston_Churchill: Bazinga!; +521|6996|Toronto | Canada

But current copyrights are too vague - you cant have a copyright on a capacitive touchscreen interface, its basically kills all the legitimate competition for the product.

2011-08-02 09:37:21

#6

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5615|London, England

Winston_Churchill wrote:
But current copyrights are too vague - you cant have a copyright on a capacitive touchscreen interface, its basically kills all the legitimate competition for the product.

Pay for the license or find a workaround (like the PC BUS system).

Last edited by Jay (2011-08-02 09:38:54)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2011-08-02 09:44:49

#7

Winston_Churchill: Bazinga!; +521|6996|Toronto | Canada

you really dont think something like this or the samsung vs apple lawsuits stifle development and competition?

theyre all broad reaching patents that have little true application to the products, its absolute BS

2011-08-02 09:53:53

#8

unnamednewbie13: Moderator; +2,053|7028|PNW

Didn't Apple intervene in the Lodsys vs developers bit?

2011-08-02 10:08:24

#9

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6973

I wouldn't doubt that HTC would steal Apples tech. Besides a lot of Taiwanese companies own/manufacture iPhones and they get the spec. Taiwanese business circle is VERY VERY tight.

2011-08-02 11:36:11

#10

Cheeky_Ninja06: Member; +52|6989|Cambridge, England

http://vimeo.com/22633948

Here is the video I mentioned. Well worth a watch.

Lecture at CERN, Geneva, Switzerland, 18 April 2011: A new talk about open access to academic or scientific information

Google stated that a large problem is companies or individuals filing patents that they have no intention or ability to act on but know that another company will need to buy it.

2011-08-03 01:33:35

#11

Cheeky_Ninja06: Member; +52|6989|Cambridge, England

Millions of people regularly convert movies on DVDs and music on CDs into a format that they can move around more easily, although most do not realise that it is technically illegal.

"The review pointed out that if you have a situation where 90% of your population is doing something, then it's not really a very good law," said Simon Levine, head of the intellectual property and technology group at DLA Piper.
Continue reading the main story

Legalising non-commercial copying for private use would bring the UK into line with many other nations and also meet the "reasonable expectations" of consumers, said the government.

The change would not make it legal to make copies and then share them online.

The legal anomaly preventing personal "ripping" was one of many identified by Professor Ian Hargreaves in the review as stifling innovation

...

One example that would be tolerated under the new regime is the Welsh rap song Newport State of Mind which was based on Jay Z and Alicia Keys's song Empire State of Mind.

Despite winning many fans on YouTube, the track was removed following a copyright claim by EMI.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14372698

Be nice to see a summary of the Hargreaves review and what the recommendations are.

Last edited by Cheeky_Ninja06 (2011-08-03 01:34:31)

2011-08-03 02:22:34

#12

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6363|eXtreme to the maX

Winston_Churchill wrote:
But current copyrights are too vague - you cant have a copyright on a capacitive touchscreen interface, its basically kills all the legitimate competition for the product.

Rationalising the copyright and patent system is long overdue.

There are some truly ridiculous patents out there, the 'inventive step' part of the process has now been left out because the US patent office is so overwhelmed with the volume of applications.
That and the moronic first to file system needs to go.

Whereas it used to be the case a patent needed merit, an inventive step and so on before it would be granted, now most patents are simply rubber-stamped, granted and the courts are left to sort out who really invented what.

With so much overlapping and interfacing technology much is going to have to go to 'fair use'.

Fuck Israel

2011-08-03 02:57:40

#13

globefish23: sophisticated slacker; +334|6580|Graz, Austria

All this is indeed seriously fucked up.
This goes so far that biotech companies want to patent gene sequences of living organisms.
Makes me sick.

2011-08-03 02:59:44

#14

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6363|eXtreme to the maX

globefish23 wrote:
All this is indeed seriously fucked up.
This goes so far that biotech companies want to patent have already patented gene sequences of living organisms.
Makes me sick.

And Monsanto, patenting food modifications then bullying the farming system into buying their patented product.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-08-03 03:00:02)

Fuck Israel

2011-08-03 04:08:32

#15

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5615|London, England

Dilbert_X wrote:
globefish23 wrote:
All this is indeed seriously fucked up.
This goes so far that biotech companies want to patent have already patented gene sequences of living organisms.
Makes me sick.
And Monsanto, patenting food modifications then bullying the farming system into buying their patented product.

Lol, since when is creating a superior product bullying?

Oh, Dilbert is the poster, got it.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2011-08-03 05:31:07

#16

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6363|eXtreme to the maX

Jay wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:
globefish23 wrote:
All this is indeed seriously fucked up.
This goes so far that biotech companies want to patent have already patented gene sequences of living organisms.
Makes me sick.
And Monsanto, patenting food modifications then bullying the farming system into buying their patented product.
Lol, since when is creating a superior product bullying?

Oh, Dilbert is the poster, got it.

You're unaware of Monsanto's business practices, and the hand the govt they own has played in it?

Fuck Israel

2011-08-03 06:54:20

#17

globefish23: sophisticated slacker; +334|6580|Graz, Austria

Oh, Monsanto...

Monsanto, who genetically modify their seeds so it only is resistant to their own pesticide.
Then get shady deals from corrupt 3rd world countries' governments to mass distribute it to farmers. The latter which are then stuck in a vicious cycle of being dependent on Monsanto pesticides, or otherwise their crops would die.

Monsanto, who miraculously were allowed to sell their latest product Roundup (which can cause birth defects) in the EU, although there were several official studies that heavily opposed.
Those studies were swept under the table and new investigations postponed to 2015.

Monsanto, who got a nice out-sourcing deal with the US Department of Agriculture and are now allowed to self-control themselves and do environmental impact assessments.

Yeah, Monsanto...

2011-08-03 07:00:03

#18

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6973

Jay wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:
globefish23 wrote:
All this is indeed seriously fucked up.
This goes so far that biotech companies want to patent have already patented gene sequences of living organisms.
Makes me sick.
And Monsanto, patenting food modifications then bullying the farming system into buying their patented product.
Lol, since when is creating a superior product bullying?

Oh, Dilbert is the poster, got it.

Monsanto is pretty dirty when it comes to copy right infringement.

Monsanto farm next to normal farm: seeds fly over to normal farm, sue the shit out of farmer for copy right infringement.

2011-08-03 07:02:02

#19

Jaekus: I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose; +957|5435|Sydney

globefish23 wrote:
Oh, Monsanto...

Monsanto, who genetically modify their seeds so it only is resistant to their own pesticide.
Then get shady deals from corrupt 3rd world countries' governments to mass distribute it to farmers. The latter which are then stuck in a vicious cycle of being dependent on Monsanto pesticides, or otherwise their crops would die.

Monsanto, who miraculously were allowed to sell their latest product Roundup (which can cause birth defects) in the EU, although there were several official studies that heavily opposed.
Those studies were swept under the table and new investigations postponed to 2015.

Monsanto, who got a nice out-sourcing deal with the US Department of Agriculture and are now allowed to self-control themselves and do environmental impact assessments.

Yeah, Monsanto...

Meaning glyphosate, or something different?

2011-08-03 08:22:38

#20

globefish23: sophisticated slacker; +334|6580|Graz, Austria

Jaekus wrote:
Meaning glyphosate, or something different?

Yes.

More Monsanto fun:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate#Legal_cases

2011-08-03 08:25:45

#21

Jaekus: I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose; +957|5435|Sydney

globefish23 wrote:
Jaekus wrote:
Meaning glyphosate, or something different?
Yes.

More Monsanto fun:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate#Legal_cases

That's pretty disgusting tbh.

2011-08-03 08:37:06

#22

Superior Mind: (not macbeth); +1,755|6949

Depending on the product or service, copyrights should be limited to a certain lifetime.

For all medical and pharmaceutical copyrights there should be a one year life span for a company to extract exclusive wealth from their technology, then it should be open to public adaptation and reproduction.

x

2011-08-03 08:39:32

#23

Jaekus: I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose; +957|5435|Sydney

One year starting from when?

2011-08-03 09:07:27

#24

Macbeth: Banned; +2,444|5842

Superior Mind wrote:
Depending on the product or service, copyrights should be limited to a certain lifetime.

For all medical and pharmaceutical copyrights there should be a one year life span for a company to extract exclusive wealth from their technology, then it should be open to public adaptation and reproduction.

The cost to bring a new drug to market is MASSIVE. That wouldn't work.

I do think that there has to be some reform in order to stop the Amazon ''one click" type patents but reform the whole system so that everyone gets a hold of the newest innovations? Hell no. You'll slow down R&D more than you could imagine.

2011-08-03 09:24:25

#25

Superior Mind: (not macbeth); +1,755|6949

You're right, it would be discouraging. The apparent flaw with copyrights is that it encourages greed.

x

BF2S Forums Do Copyright Laws need reform? If so how?

Cybargs wrote:

Winston_Churchill wrote:

Winston_Churchill wrote:

globefish23 wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

globefish23 wrote:

Jay wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

globefish23 wrote:

Jay wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

globefish23 wrote:

globefish23 wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

globefish23 wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

Superior Mind wrote:

Board footer