Do Copyright Laws need reform? If so how?

2011-08-03 10:07:13

#26

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

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

Wut? If the companies didn't have a money motivator why would they research? Companies are in business to make money, not provide a public service for free.

"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 15:49:57

#27

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

What did you think of the video?

Particularly the point that only academics are able to access the journals with the general public being priced out?

2011-08-03 16:11:43

#28

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

Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
What did you think of the video?

Particularly the point that only academics are able to access the journals with the general public being priced out?

It's on the ridiculous side, but the universities that generate that research need to recoup the cost in some way. It's not really limited to academics, academics simply charge it to the school and cause tuition to rise by using it. A researcher at a private company would do the same to his department. I consider it a relic of the days when you had to request a printed copy of a thesis or article and that cost money.

Ultimately, I don't really see it being a vast issue because people working outside of labs are not sitting at home reading archived scientific journals just for fun.

"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 16:20:50

#29

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6727

i don't see a problem at all with these scientific/academic journals being expensive. they're literally worth a lot of money in terms of labour involved and the specialisation/high-level training and research professionalism often demands that all of the authors/contributors are super qualified and need some sort of payback for their own huge personal investment. i'm all for the free spreading of information but really if you want something so arcane, be prepared to pay for it. someone has taken a huge amount of time, work and general life effort to produce it.

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2011-08-03 16:32:37

#30

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

Uzique wrote:
i don't see a problem at all with these scientific/academic journals being expensive. they're literally worth a lot of money in terms of labour involved and the specialisation/high-level training and research professionalism often demands that all of the authors/contributors are super qualified and need some sort of payback for their own huge personal investment. i'm all for the free spreading of information but really if you want something so arcane, be prepared to pay for it. someone has taken a huge amount of time, work and general life effort to produce it.

Hey, we agree!

"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 16:33:48

#31

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

Also, there is enough pseudoscience out there already. Do we really want more idiots with easy access to information they don't understand so they can twist it into some retarded message? No thanks.

"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 16:37:29

#32

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6727

i also have no problem with an academic book costing like £40-50 instead of the £8 that a fiction classic will cost. it has taken a huge amount of research, time and super specialisation to produce it... so if you are inclined to buy it, then pay the price and give the poor academic back all that he has put in! it's nice to know that 'knowledge' has a high value still in certain commercial enterprises... my gf's dad has written the main authority on chiropractice and charges like £50 per title and he's been very handsomely rewarded. there is some hope in knowledge and information still retaining some value and worth in this insta-access, everything-web age!

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2011-08-03 16:43:33

#33

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

Uzique wrote:
i also have no problem with an academic book costing like £40-50 instead of the £8 that a fiction classic will cost. it has taken a huge amount of research, time and super specialisation to produce it... so if you are inclined to buy it, then pay the price and give the poor academic back all that he has put in! it's nice to know that 'knowledge' has a high value still in certain commercial enterprises... my gf's dad has written the main authority on chiropractice and charges like £50 per title and he's been very handsomely rewarded. there is some hope in knowledge and information still retaining some value and worth in this insta-access, everything-web age!

My textbooks in college were around $200 each, and I needed several of them per semester. The same textbook cost $40 fifteen years ago, but publishing companies know they have a captive audience with students, so they continually jack up the prices because textbooks are where they make their money. There is a serious backlash via piracy now where there would've been none if they'd kept the prices reasonable.

Here's the amazon link for my college physics textbook:
http://www.amazon.com/Physics-Scientist … amp;sr=8-2
$278.95

Last edited by Jay (2011-08-03 16:46:36)

"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 19:01:33

#34

Beduin: Compensation of Reactive Power in the grid; +510|6007|شمال

what is copyright?

الشعب يريد اسقاط النظام
...show me the schematic

2011-08-03 20:58:35

#35

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6931|Canberra, AUS

Gets exorbitant after a while though. Remember overhearing a conversation between folks about wanting to get an article published in NatureCom, apparently it costs upwards of six thousand dollars to do so.

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2011-08-04 00:32:40

#36

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

Ultimately the pricing is a barrier to entry for those not in large companies.

But the case in point from the video was the speakers child received a potential diagnosis, the speaker tried to research it on google but many of the articles that it linked to charged $40-$50. That isnt really benefiting anybody except for other academics funded by tuition fees (i.e. the tax payer has to pay twice to see the results).

What about Apples policy to compete in the courts rather than the market place. Are we saying that it doesn't stifle innovation? You keep referring to how expensive R&D is but if money is such an issue then why give so much to lawyers?

2011-08-04 01:44:02

#37

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

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.

America isn't quite 3rd world yet, otherwise yes.

Fuck Israel

2011-08-04 07:02:17

#38

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

Vested interest undoubtedly but still...

In a blog post, one of Google's top lawyers accused the firms of using "bogus patents" to crank up the cost of Android-powered devices.

Microsoft hit back saying Google had been invited to bid with it on key patents but turned down the chance.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14401826

Well they certainly feel they are being stifled by the continual patent war bogus or otherwise.

This is why Apple needs to have more free cash than the US government, so that it retains the upper hand in the patent war. Doesnt sound like innovation to me.

From Googles blog..

I have worked in the tech sector for over two decades. Microsoft and Apple have always been at each other’s throats, so when they get into bed together you have to start wondering what's going on. Here is what’s happening:

He has a point..

A smartphone might involve as many as 250,000 (largely questionable) patent claims, and our competitors want to impose a “tax” for these dubious patents that makes Android devices more expensive for consumers. They want to make it harder for manufacturers to sell Android devices. Instead of competing by building new features or devices, they are fighting through litigation.

This anti-competitive strategy is also escalating the cost of patents way beyond what they’re really worth. The winning $4.5 billion for Nortel’s patent portfolio was nearly five times larger than the pre-auction estimate of $1 billion. Fortunately, the law frowns on the accumulation of dubious patents for anti-competitive means — which means these deals are likely to draw regulatory scrutiny, and this patent bubble will pop.

http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/08/ … droid.html

Last edited by Cheeky_Ninja06 (2011-08-04 07:05:46)

2011-09-12 06:16:29

#39

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

What this highlights, say critics of patents, is the absurdity of a system which makes it far too easy to claim ownership of dubious software innovations and then use them as legal battering rams. After all, the figures show that in 87% of cases where patent claims are re-examined they are either cancelled or substantially altered.

So where does that leave Codegent? Still in a state of uncertainty. "We haven't got deep pockets to pay lawyers," says David Hart. " Are we going to be shielded by Apple or Google? Should we just ignore the letter? What we want is clarification."

And of course the irony is that the big players like Apple and Google are themselves knee-deep in the business of using patents to try to batter their opponents in a fiercely competitive smartphone market.

There are still plenty of defenders of a patent system as a vital protection for inventors which fosters innovation. But when small firms are put in fear of multi million dollar lawsuits by businesses whose only business is patent-licensing, that argument looks hard to sustain.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14858056

87% of cases end with the patent undergoing substantial change? I would argue this percentage should be far far lower if the system is working. I would also argue that the "patent companies" are the antithesis of the envisioned copyright system.

and succinctly put from a linked article..

Is a system that appears to reward those who acquire patents and hire lawyers and punish those who simply try to make things really going to encourage innovation?

Last edited by Cheeky_Ninja06 (2011-09-12 06:19:42)

2011-09-26 08:19:07

#40

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

More "innovation"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-15059278

Samsung and Apple have gone to court once again in their ongoing, tit-for-tat patent war.

The companies went before judges in Australia and the Netherlands on Monday, each asking for the other's products to be banned from sale.

Apple's lawyers in Sydney claimed that Samsung's Galaxy Tab infringed patents relating to its touchscreen interface.

In the Hague, Samsung launched a counter attack, seeking an embargo on iPads and iPhones over 3G patents.

To date, Apple has been more successful in using the courts to hamper its rival's commercial ambitions.

The Galaxy Tab 10.1 is currently banned from sale in Germany.
A ban on sales of Samsung smartphones is due to come into effect in the Netherlands in October.
Samsung has postponed its tablet launch plans in Australia while its legal battle there is ongoing.
Samsung has yet to score a significant victory against Apple, although it has filed suits in a number of countries, including France and South Korea.

Both companies also have actions pending in the United States.

Look and feel
In Monday's Australian hearing, Apple attorney Steven Burley told the court that the rival tablet resembled the iPad 2 in "form, factor and shape" according to the AFP news agency.

Look and feel? Its a tablet? Imagine trying to sue people for publishing books that have a similar appearance to yours.

2011-10-25 08:46:38

#41

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

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-15433188

...the industry uses the term "non-practicing entity" to refer to organisations that own and license patents without producing goods of their own.

One of the best known is Intellectual Ventures, which has a library of more than 35,000 patents.

Set up by a former Microsoft executive, Nathan Myhrvold, it recently revealed it has earned over $2 billion through licensing its portfolio to others since 2000.

Like the phone makers it is willing to take legal action to protect its assets.

Earlier this month it sued Motorola Mobility, accusing the handset maker of using its technology to perform updates, file transfers and other functions on its Android phones.

$ 2 billion to a company that doesn't do anything other than buying patents....Yup that is exactly how it is supposed to work.

Am I the only one that sees a problem here? :s

2011-10-26 01:17:58

#42

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

The only thing I object to is companies writing patents solely to close down the opposition.

If you want to patent a product or process you're going to sell or use to give you a competitive advantage thats one thing.

Patenting everything you can think of because you want to stifle competition and support your own uncompetitive business is another.

Patenting something with the intention of selling the rights at a reasonable price is fine though.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-10-26 01:18:46)

Fuck Israel

2011-10-26 14:08:41

#43

BVC: Member; +325|6952

Copyright is something which is good in theory, but which can be abused very easily for selfish/corrupt reasons. Apple and the NZ government are two such copyright abusers.

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

Superior Mind wrote:

Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Uzique wrote:

globefish23 wrote:

Board footer