Copyright and Patent Stuff


#1

Don’t remember which thread we all were recently yapping about copyrights and patents, but this demonstrates one of the problems with the modern system:

Thank you for contacting Disher technical support. My name is May and I am pleased to help you with your Disher Experience!

Are you human?

That’s a rather personal question!

Let me talk to a human

I’d be happy to help you make your Disher Experience the very best one possible

Human

One moment please! Have a great day!

Thank you for contacting Disher technical support. My name is May and I am pleased to help you with your Disher Experience!

Lest you think the problem is actually fictional, it actually exists with movies and to some degree with Keurig 2.0, which should be considered as absurd as this fictional example.


#2

You mean something like Cleverbot for customer service?


#3

A dishwasher that only washes approved dishes is too absurd to convey any meaningful message. If dishwasher manufacturers tried any such stunt, someone else would come out with a “universal” washer that washes dishes of all makes. Why would anyone buy the specialized product?

However, this example immediately reminded me of my irritation with my favorite bookseller, Amazon. They refuse to sell me ebooks in the .epub format which my Sony eReader uses. It’s a very common ebook format, but no, Amazon only sells ebooks in their own proprietary format for reading on their own proprietary Kindle.

The analogy I use to illustrate this absurdity is gasoline. Suppose each car company merged with a major oil company and than made cars that only ran on their own brand of fuel, and you couldn’t use their fuel in other cars. How would that serve the public’s demand?

It’s depressing to hear people rave about how they love their Kindle. I remind them there was at least one case where Amazon sold a book that later had a copyright dispute, so they reached into everyone’s Kindle which had purchased it and deleted it! They refunded the money, but that’s irrelevant. Once I’ve purchased something, I don’t want anyone reaching into my personal device and deleting it.

Though I guess this isn’t exactly the same issue you’re concerned about.


#4

Actually, it’s all related.

I have a kindle. I find the same thing absolutely absurd and wrong, reaching into your kindle to remove a book. The dishwasher is the same analogy you’re using when you discuss cars and fuel companies, absurd, but it illustrates absurdities in copyright law, most notably and directly to the region codes for moves but also like the existing Keurig coffee maker, which takes only licensed K cups.

Related, libraries can lend kindle books, but they’re limited to some 22 checkouts in the case of McMillan (this information is from my local library director and about two or three years old), then they have to renew the license. They can lend hard copies until the copy is destroyed, although usually, they stop lending it at some point and sell that copy in a used bookstore. Ridiculous.

As a note: I make my living producing copyrighted material for myself and for my employer.

Another note: Your epub issue is a simple solve though. Use calibre on your computer to convert mobi to epub then move that back to your device. The program works great.


#5

I fail to see how this is a “copyright/patent” issue, it seems like a poor marketing plan that will fail as soon as a competitor notices it and removes the frustration from their product.


#6

It depends on how much competition is actually available. If there isn’t a lot to start with, it’s harder to bring it about in this modern era where powermongers have managed to get laws in place that discourage entrepreneurship and thus protect their monopoly. That, and the fact that the consuming public has been dumbed down on what constitutes a good buy/terms of purchase (although the latter is often cleverly hidden).


#7

I agree that the government is a massive roadblock to new startups and takes bribes to stifle competion for those who pay them well enough but I don’t think allowing ownership of ones own creations makes that problem worse or better; private property is a fundamental Right that has been watered down gradually for many decades and nothing good has resulted from that erosion in my opinion.

We tax income before it is spent, meaning we no longer have a Right to the money we earn.

We tax property in perpetuity almost everywhere in the United States, meaning we no longer have the Right of property ownership; the best we can do is buy the burden of renting property from the government.

The attacks on copyright/patent protection are just another attack on Individual Rights of ownership designed to make personally provided security more difficult to aquire and increase the number of those who know only a government provided security.

Achievement creates independence, systematically removing the rewards of achievement creates dependence and intellectual stagnation.


#8

I read a book a few years ago about the history of the introduction of the novel, “Gone With the Wind.” It was interesting see all of the hype that surrounded it before it was published, but that’s not my purpose here.

Years ago the copyright law covered a work for a total of 56 years. The first copyright grant gave the author 28 years and it could be renewed for another 28 years. Now it has become almost perpetual.

I am all for the author retaining the rights to their works. It’s not fair for others to simply copy it and make money from that. BUT making a copyright last almost forever only benefits investors who buy the rights to those works, which defeats the purpose of the original law in my opinion. After a long period of time, like 56 years, a classic work should go into the public domain. Cheaper versions of really good works should become generally available to all.


#9

The Keurig situation supports your assertion here. Turns out that Keurig has given up on its attempt to allow only Keurig cups because competitors found a way around it, and consumers hacked their devices.

DVD/Blu Ray (who still uses them? Right?) support the opposite with their regional coding.


#10

If I were still watching movies, I would (at least DVD; I’ve never had BluRay capability).


#11

Not to an idea; private property recognition and common law were around for several hundred years before that development.

Further, IP doesn’t act like any other form of private property; it expires. Your house doesn’t work like that, nor does your claim to your car.

It points out the fact that IP rights are artificial; government created. So too does the existence of patent trolls, who wantonly destroy value and impede innovation.


#12

Your property rights to your home expire the moment you skip a property tax payment, you property rights to your car expire the moment the government decides they don’t like your car anymore.

The government is not God (contrary to what the Left believe), Rights are self evident regardless of what demonic manifestation of government happens to be holding the guns that day.

I have never argued that government defines anything that matters, I have argued that man’s specific application of ideas are his property whether it be the books he has written or the inventions that he has brought into reality.

This is obviously the polar opposite of what the Left believes, the Left believe that everything should be owned collectively and that individuals have no private property Rights.

There will never be a time where those who believe in rugged individualism will find agreement with those who embrace the collective, my side tolerates very little collective ownership of property and the opposition wants as much collective ownership of property as possible.

I rarely even quote others when I am making a point in debate for this reason, I have no Right to the words of those I respect and zero ownership in my own opinions if I cannot argue them with my own words; I also have no Right to define the context and application of another man’s words.

However the government has not defined those parameters, I could link and quote all day every day and I could bastardize those quotes by sliding them into any context I choose to further corrupt the author; I would be breaking no laws in doing so but I would be violating the Property Rights of whoever originated the quotes.

Government is not God no matter how many guns the Left can put under government control.


#13

That’s a recourse of a violation; of breaking a rule. You lose IP rights without violating anything; it’s built into how they work.

Things can also be taken from you if you have clearly abandoned them; but that’s delving into exceptions RET, whereas I’m talking about the rule.

Not true; you just can’t drive it on public roads. You can still own it. People own all sorts of non-street legal vehicles.

My grandfather owns a 3-wheel ATV that’s considered “too dangerous” for commercial production & sale. He’s not breaking the law by having it. .

If you come up with a neat hairstyle, and I copy it, did I just violate you?

Are you going to yell “appropriation” at me? :wink:


#14

According to Rocket Man you have. In the DPRK that’s a death penalty offense.

On a more serious note. Blind adherence to any ideology can lead to absurd conclusions.


#15

Again, we have a built-in way for asserting what you can or can’t assert a property right over. IP doesn’t meet that test.

Another thing RET overlooks, is that certain industries don’t have IP. Furniture design, fashion design, recipes in cooking; none of these qualify for patents or copyright.

And yet we can clearly find successful furniture designers, fashion designers, and chefs who benefit from their labor and ideas.

IP isn’t necessary for that, and you’d be clearly disrupting these industries if you tried to insert it.


#16

They’re called “design patents”.


#17

Alright, I stand corrected on that.

The culture though stands against its use in both Fashion & cooking:


#18

He is the king of misdirection and non sequiturs, little errors like that are by design; to start down a rabbit trail.


#19

No, I made that mistake. I’ve seen presenters, like the one in that TED talk, speak as if intellectual property didn’t apply in their industry, so that was my assumption.

The truth seems to be it’s just the exception rather than the rule.

Also:

In case you’re curious where my line of reasoning comes from.


#20

I know exactly where your “line of reasoning” comes from, you want to take the property of others without compensating them for it.

This is the short term selfish Ideology that always fuels the Left, the result is a stagnation of creativity as the makers refuse to invest their time talents and wealth coming up with new things because they cannot recoup those expenses.

This is precisely why communism always fails, the takers remove the incentive from the makers to put their skills to work.