defending the right to innovate
IP as Censorship
Monopoly corrupts. Absolute monopoly corrupts absolutely.
Copyright Notice: We don't think much of copyright, so you can do what you want with the content on this blog. Of course we are hungry for publicity, so we would be pleased if you avoided plagiarism and gave us credit for what we have written. We encourage you not to impose copyright restrictions on your "derivative" works, but we won't try to stop you. For the legally or statist minded, you can consider yourself subject to a Creative Commons Attribution License.
On that last question, I'd say I find it difficult to believe that there is political motivation involved. Of course, the question arises about why no lawsuit against the ad agency responsible for the original 1984 ad? Anyway, if it was initiated by Obama's political opponents, I'd say at least Obama is close to the right side on the copyright wars - his Flickr account's photos are all CC licensed works, for what it's worth.
[Comment at 03/28/2007 06:26 PM by Shane]
Remember folk, copyright is a weapon against publisher types, i.e. geezers in possession of a large and heavy printing press.
Unfortunately for copyright we are now all in possession of a vast and distributed printing press, known as the Internet.
You may be able to prosecute someone found in possession of an incriminating press, but something tells me that "Copyright vs Viral distribution of entertaining political videos" is a fight with a very clear winner.
All that remains is whether the artist who produces such a video can really be considered a criminal. They have prepared a derivative and made it available - then the public see fit to mass produce copies of it.
It may be that such artists only need to reveal authorship if/when their works prove popular, for then the acclaim affords any penalty levied by our gloriously vestigial copyright.
What is the penalty for preparing a derivative work through combination of authorised copies of published works in the privacy of one's home these days?
Can't have artists building upon each other's work can we now, eh? It just ain't fair.
[Comment at 03/29/2007 01:35 AM by Crosbie Fitch]
The Washington Post reported (3/28/2007) that "Britain's Court of Appeal rejected a lawsuit Wednesday from two authors who claimed novelist Dan Brown stole their ideas for his blockbuster novel "The Da Vinci Code."" Finally, a moment of sanity in the copyright battle.
To expand on Fitch's comment about building on others work. The downside of this lawsuit had it not been rejected, was the apparent argument quoted in the NY Times that "In a statement the authors, Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh, said, "We believed, and still do, that nonfiction authors would suffer and be discouraged from extensive research if it was found that any author could take another's ideas, 'morph' and repackage them, then sell them on."" Had the case upheld this absurd concept, it would have been a severe frost on the ability of people to build on the work of others. I suppose college students would have been happy to be barred from doing research!
Thankfully, the court had a lucid moment.
[Comment at 03/29/2007 03:34 PM by Steve R.]
I suppose Baigent and Leigh had been looking forward to an acclaimed string of highly derivative books - and the ability to lock out any other author from this supposedly lucrative niche.
The problem with monopolies over exploitation of one's publications is that it's very understandable why the idea is so attractive to the author.
I can only conclude that it's an author's ego-distortion field that enables them to justify constraining the artistic inclinations of 6,700,000,000 other authors.
[Comment at 03/30/2007 01:20 AM by Crosbie Fitch]
It has long been my view that most of us took Orwell and Huxley as the warnings I believe they were intended to be. Unfortunately the few in power seem to have used them as a roadmap.
So a look on the lighter side: We should buy Orwell's copyrights and then we can use the copyright ownership to ban the Orwellian lunacies governments are implementing worldwide!!
Na - you can't play their game. He's five foot two, and he's six feet four ....................And brother, can't you see, this is not the way to put an end war.
[Comment at 03/30/2007 04:05 PM by Glenn T]
Barack Obama is the answer to Bushism and the idiocracy of past 8 years that governed American foreign policy. He will be able to restore the true image, reputation once America enjoyed in the world as the champion of Democracy and Freedom.
Hillary has too much dirt and is too close to corporate America. Obama will fight for the common man, go against corporate politics and corporate power, he has the guts, will and charisma.
[Comment at 03/19/2008 01:22 PM by David Dzidzikashvili]
If by that you mean "more important to get rid of ASAP", I'd have to agree.
[Comment at 01/15/2011 03:18 AM by Nobody Nowhere]
Most Recent Comments
Killing people with patents I'm not really commenting the post, but rather asking if this blog is going to make a comeback
at 01/09/2018 03:46 AM by Anonymous
The right to rub smooth using a hardened steel tool with ridges Finally got around to looking at the comments, sorry for delay... Replying to Stephan: I'm sorry
at 05/08/2015 08:35 AM by Dan Dobkin
Let's See: Pallas, Pan, Patents, Persephone, Perses, Poseidon, Prometheus... Seems like a kinda bizarre proposal to me. We just need to abolish the patent system, not replace
at 04/10/2015 10:44 AM by Stephan Kinsella
The right to rub smooth using a hardened steel tool with ridges I'm a bit confused by this--even if "hired to invent" went away, that would just change the default
at 04/10/2015 10:34 AM by Stephan Kinsella
Do we need a law? @ Alexander Baker: So basically, if I copy parts of 'Titus Andronicus' to a webpage without
at 01/08/2015 08:58 PM by Sheogorath
Do we need a law? The issue is whether the crime is punished not who punishes it. If somebody robs our house we do
at 11/17/2014 04:48 AM by David K. Levine
Do we need a law? 1. Plagiarism most certainly is illegal, it is called "copyright infringement". One very famous
at 10/29/2014 10:49 AM by Alexander Baker
Yet another proof of the inutility of copyright. The 9/11 Commission report cost $15,000,000 to produce, not counting the salaries of the authors.
at 09/20/2014 03:19 PM by Alexander Baker
WKRP In Cincinnati - Requiem For A Masterpiece P.S. The link to Amazon's WKRP product page:
at 06/28/2014 10:03 AM by Doris
WKRP In Cincinnati - Requiem For A Masterpiece Hopefully some very good news. Shout! Factory is releasing the entire series of WKRP in Cincinnati,
at 06/28/2014 10:00 AM by Doris
What's copywritable? Go fish in court. @ Anonymous: You misunderstood my intent. I was actually trying to point out a huge but basic
at 05/05/2014 01:03 PM by Sheogorath
Rights Violations Aren't the Only Bads I hear that nonsense from pro-IP people all the
at 04/07/2014 04:47 AM by Dan McCracken
Intellectual Property Fosters Corporate Concentration Yeah, I see the discouragement of working on a patented device all the time. Great examples
at 01/13/2014 06:13 AM by Anonymous
Music without copyright Hundreds of businessmen are looking for premium quality article distribution services that can be
at 11/28/2013 05:03 PM by Stephanie Smith
at 11/28/2013 09:23 AM by Anonymous
at 11/28/2013 09:22 AM by Anonymous
Patent Lawyers Who Don't Toe the Line Should Be Punished! Moreover "the single most destructive force to innovation is patents". We'd like to unite with you
at 11/24/2013 10:48 AM by SpaceCorp Technologies
at 11/20/2013 03:18 PM by Anonymous
Does the decline in total factor productivity explain the drop in innovation? So, if our patent system was "broken," TFP of durable goods should have dropped. Conversely, since
at 11/02/2013 08:09 PM by Anonymous
Does the decline in total factor productivity explain the drop in innovation? I wondered about TFP, because I had heard that TFP was increasing. Apparently, it depends on who
at 11/02/2013 08:08 PM by Anonymous