How would our life looked if copyrights and patents were invented 2000 years ago

Sirotnikov · February 3, 2003, 23:33

I just thought about something - todays copyright and patent laws, don't promote the world in any way.

Sure, an inventor needs to know that he can profit from his invention. But giving him a monopoly for his invented art or science or whatever creation, for the time of his life + 70 years (in music) is completely nuts.

Just think about the best things you have today which are free, and think what would have happenned, if you had to pay for them.

Imagine you would have to pay to someone who invented HTML and HTTP and TCP/IP.

Imagine if you would have to pay , like in finland, everytime you hum a tune.

Imagine, that in guitar lessons, everytime you play a folk song, you'd have to pay someone.

Imagine, that you have to pay tax to the Tessla family for every electronical appliance you own , or make in science class, since he invented AC current.

Imagine how poor our language would be, had we had to pay everytime we cite something from shakespeare or Mark twain or the bible.

Imagine having to pay to Edisson's family, for using DC current.

Imagine you would have to pay someone who patented tea making (ie boiling plants in water and drinking the extract).

Imagine you would have to pay tax to DeVinci's family for using screws.

Imagine if you would have to pay tax everytime you reproduce the theory of relativity.

Imagine you'd have to pay tax to the playboy channel, everytime you employ a certain sexual position or technique.

This is just silly!!

The length of time that patents and copyrights are given today is crazy and only creates stagnation since it prevents competition.

Copyrighting code, as if it was literature is stupid. Copyrighting formulaes is just as stupid. It creates a monopoly, and an inability to share valuable knowledge to better the world.

ranskaldan · February 3, 2003, 23:39

We have to find the middle ground.

Copyrights, I think, serve as an incentive for innovation in the first place.

Sirotnikov · February 3, 2003, 23:42

Btw, yes I am aware I made a whole mesh out of copyrights and patent laws. I'm aware of it. That was done with the intention of showing you how silly those things are.

and my grammar is poor at 5 am

Switch · February 4, 2003, 00:01

I agree, 70 years are a bit much. I also agree we need a middle ground. Maybe 20 years AT MOST after death of the creator would be good. Although I think that it should last AT THE LEAST as long as the creator is alive.

I'm assuming you got inspiration for this thread from my post about WIPO?

Sirotnikov · February 4, 2003, 00:18

yeah

but it's all accumulating.

in finland, people are paying tax when they listen to radio on taxis. this is crazy.

Zkribbler · February 4, 2003, 00:22

I don't know whether you guys heard but, due to pressure from the movie industry, Congress increased the length of American copyrights by 20 years to prevent valuable properties like Mickey Mouse and the Wizard of Oz from being part of the public domain.

This sets up an interesting internet problem. Say, someone produces something in the U.K. using public-domain material there. What happens when it's downloaded in the U.S. where it's still protected?

Oerdin · February 4, 2003, 00:24

How about a flat 20 years period. If he can't make his money back in 20 years then to damn bad.

Ramo · February 4, 2003, 00:38

IIRC, at the time the Constitution was instituted in the US, IP protections didn't exceed several years. Ever since, Congress has continually extending and extending these periods. I'd say that there should be a maximum of 10-15 years of protection, with most IP extending for considerably less time. But every situation ought to be looked at individually, and one should have a very good claim to a get a patent.

Imran Siddiqui · February 4, 2003, 00:51

Quote:

Imagine you would have to pay to someone who invented HTML and HTTP and TCP/IP.

Um... all of this came about AFTER copyrights and patents were started. Somethings you just can't patent things.

MrBaggins · February 4, 2003, 00:53

Disney needs to be stopped... PERI

D

Urban Ranger · February 4, 2003, 00:55

Siro,

Imagine that you have to pay $ every time you write on a piece of paper, or uses a compass, or uses gunpowder (this is getting less and less in importance, but one can always attempt to claim that all explosives are just derivative works

).

I basically said the same thing in another thread, so I, er, agree with you.

Imran Siddiqui · February 4, 2003, 01:01

Quote:

Imagine that you have to pay $ every time you write on a piece of paper, or uses a compass, or uses gunpowder

But you do... unless you can make pencils, paper, compasses, and gunpower from scratch

.

ranskaldan · February 4, 2003, 01:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Imagine that you have to pay $ every time you write on a piece of paper, or uses a compass, or uses gunpowder

On the other hand, why should anyone invent anything if the nearest large company will immediately snatch the idea up and make millions, while paying the inventor nothing?!

Urban Ranger · February 4, 2003, 02:37

That's complicated. While it is indeed true that the nearest large company can snatch up an idea, it is also true that everybody can do the same thing. Take for example, HTML. Tim Berners-Lee invented HTML and he let everybody use it for free. The result? A World Wide Web that is so big it is beyond imagination (almost), and a healthy industry sector that makes HTML editors. Compare that to Flash, which doesn't have much of an impact in the overall scheme.

It's the same idea as OpenSource Software (or Free Software if you prefer) - you make money on the service, not on the product.

Dis · February 4, 2003, 04:00

Disney is indeed a bad offender.

Who gives a **** about Mickey Mouse anyways. When is the last time they put out a cartoon? It was always their weakest character.

I guess if they had no patent someone could dress up like Mickey Mouse for childrens events and make money. But why should Disney have total control over that?

Urban Ranger · February 4, 2003, 06:45

The Sonny Bono Act was proposed merely to protect Mickey Mouse. Absurd.

The Mad Monk · February 4, 2003, 06:58

Sonny Bono was involved in Mickey Mouse legislation?

How...appropriate.

CerberusIV · February 4, 2003, 07:07

Does this mean we would all have to drive Fords?

The end of the world is nigh!

Az · February 4, 2003, 08:03

Quote:

Sonny Bono was involved in Mickey Mouse legislation?

How...appropriate.

cancel 3rd world debt! Let Disney make a buck!

Sava · February 4, 2003, 08:15

It's funny how human civilization seemed to invent technologies thousands of years before copyright laws and capitalism. If anything, capitalism hinders development because when an inferior technology is making money, there is no incentive to upgrade. Case in point... when fuel cell technology is available, there aren't hydrogen powered cars because oil and car companies are making so much money selling gasoline powered cars.

Skanky Burns · February 4, 2003, 08:21

You honestly believe that the rate of discovery has declined, or even remained constant, over the last 2000 years?

Sava · February 4, 2003, 08:29

That's a nice spin on what I said, but it's not what I said. Technological development in a capitalistic society is hampered by the need to make money instead of spurred by the desire to innovate. I did not mention anything about the rate of discovery.

Skanky Burns · February 4, 2003, 08:33

If a capitalistic environment hampers innovation, that by necessity reduces the rate of discovery.

Rogan Josh · February 4, 2003, 09:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

Imagine you would have to pay to someone who invented HTML and HTTP and TCP/IP.

Um... all of this came about AFTER copyrights and patents were started. Somethings you just can't patent things.

Not quite. HTML was invented at CERN (where I work). It was founded by an international treaty which said that anything it invents/discovers should be freely available to all. So HTML could not be copyrighted.

Now, if Microsoft invented it, you would be paying for every click!

Imran Siddiqui · February 4, 2003, 11:02

My IE is free

.

Dis · February 4, 2003, 14:24

that is wrong about capitalism.

It supports a better product. The problem is at present, fuel cells are not a better product- although they are a cleaner product. Do you have any idea how much it costs to make a fuel cell engine? quite a bit.

Sirotnikov · February 4, 2003, 16:28

the point is that while it's true that an inventor should be able to proffit, one can't ****ing expect to profit from his invention after he's dead.

furthermore, Imran, I pay for pencils and papers to the people who make them. I don't pay Egypt, which invented papyrus, or early phoencians or kanaanites which invented characters.

chequita guevara · February 4, 2003, 16:42

Capitalism is fantasticaly innovative, when monopolies aren't in charge. Competition drives entrepreneurs to always seek out newer and more innovative ways of doing things. That's why we've seen more technological change in the last 200 years than in the previous 2000.

However, once very large concerns become involved, they have an incentive to slow down the rate of innovations, which is a cost, in order to milk previous inventions for all they're worth.

In bureaucratic regimes like the USSR, innovation is also bad because it changes routine. It requires costs to continuing to keep upgrading, when resources are scarce. So inventions and innovation continue, but only introduced in large jumps, rather than continuously over time.

In a democratic socialist/communist society, I think it would be a combination of both free market capitalist innovation and bureaucratic socialist innovation. New methods would be embraced, because they mean less work and a better quality of life for everyone, but we wouldn't necessarily make every single innovation if the cost/benefit ration didn't make sense.

In capitalism's innovate or die schema, you must innovate, even if the costs will kill you in the long run, because otherewise you'll be driven out of business in the short-run. We saw this with the tech boom of the 90s, where change was happening so quickly that it was actually beyond the capacity of human beings to keep up. This is inefficient. The market imposed it's own solution in the end, however, killing off many of the companies and allowing for consolidation, which has slowed the rate of innovation to a managable level, at the cost of millions of jobs.

lord of the mark · February 4, 2003, 16:55

Capitalism probably has too high a rate of innovation, since the market fails to reflect the social costs of innovations - im speaking not so much of environemntal cost, where in recent years the liberal state has managed some degree of regulatory control, but the fuzzier cultural/social impacts - the impacts of automobiles on neighborhoods, of televison on family life, etc. Im not one who thinks these innovations are bad - just that it takes a culture time to assimilate such things, to give them meaning and fit them into the rest of life - not sure if there is a viable policy based on this perspective, though it might mean that harm to innovation should be discounted when an otherwise worthwhile policy comes along - also not sure if this is maintainable when some innovations are arguably needed to deal with arising crises in the less developed world (and , from a more parochial perspective, to keep US economy growing ahead of others in a world that looks more dangerous than a few years ago)

Imran Siddiqui · February 4, 2003, 17:07

Quote:

furthermore, Imran, I pay for pencils and papers to the people who make them. I don't pay Egypt, which invented papyrus, or early phoencians or kanaanites which invented characters.

No patents I'm aware of lasts 4000 years.

Quote:

Capitalism probably has too high a rate of innovation, since the market fails to reflect the social costs of innovations

Society should adapt to the technology quicker then. Societies that are quick to adapt to technology (such as Scandinavian countries and to some extent parts of the US) tend to be more efficient and richer than those societies that do not.