Personal View site logo
Make sure to join PV on Telegram or Facebook! Perfect to keep up with community on your smartphone.
Why ruling class so loves copyright and patents?
  • Systems like copyright and patents long time ago had been useful tools for society. At the time you did not require paid media to tell anyone how useful they are. And certainly did not use some big institutions to find bad guys who want to break them.

    But as time goes and means of production develop, society changes accordingly, and this tools became annoying hitch on the way of progress. But part of ruling class depend on this tools for their existence, their eradication will wipe out this parasites and it will also make position of all ruling class much less stable. And suddenly you have real monsters living on tax payers money who act directly against interest of almost all tax payers.

    Free information sharing not only adds huge boost to science and overall education, but it also free hordes of people who just retell you same thing, but cheaper and in worse version as you don't have money or also time to access best source of information.

    Ruling class even started to openly rip and destroy culture, punish people who collect and cherish old music, films, books. As they are preventing pushing and selling newly made subpar stuff.

    In the years to come all the ruling class elements doing this and prostitute media who assist them will be eradicated, and the longer they will try to resist - the more painful and radical for them this process will be.

  • 22 Replies sorted by
  • Both copyright and patents should only last for 20 years.

  • @EspenB

    You accidently typed one extra symbol, "2" :-)

  • Same old opinion. How about mentioning the positives too? Patents and copyright reward those who spend years of their time developing new technologies and ideas. Without those things in place nobody cares to develop new stuff because their time is wasted providing things for free. Who feeds them while they work? In a capitalist system (i.e. the system that allows PV to exist) time = money. Simple. You want me to work? Pay me. If I spend a couple of years working to create a new thing, who will recompense my time? It certainly won't be PV and I certainly won't 'donate' my time if there is no benefit. ALL the wonderful stuff we have (cameras etc.) that is discussed on PV came from a capitalist, protected intellectual property system. I can't believe people don't see through the "make everything free" bullshit. OK rant over. Now I'm ready for the personal attacks....

  • Same old opinion. How about mentioning the positives too?

    Let's go.

    Patents and copyright reward those who spend years of their time developing new technologies and ideas.

    It was original idea told to public :-)

    If something rewards someone for previous work I think this reward, even in capitalism, must be clearly limited by, say 2.5x funds they can prove as spent for development and creation.

    Another point that usually try to avoid - idealization of patent owners, as 90-95% of patents is actually attempt to patent something obvious that you can get from common knowledge being specialist in the field at the patenting time.

    Today most patents are being filed by largest corporations and startups who are also fed by corporations or big financial institutions.

    Same goes for copyright, most income now goes not to interesting content creators but to huge media giants who use marketing to force you to consume crap from morning till night.

    If I spend a couple of years working to create a new thing, who will recompense my time?

    It is capitalism, no one will recompense even if you PAID for patent, as you won't have money for litigation anyway and patent troll or big corporation will just buy out all your firm or just intellectual property.

    ALL the wonderful stuff we have (cameras etc.) that is discussed on PV came from a capitalist, protected intellectual property system.

    All wonderful stuff we discuss come from society and social, common type of production.

    Nice engineers teams, whom I talk time to time, hate present situation mostly, as they being held by their capitalist bosses and are forced to produce same crap with 400% margins again and again, instead of teaming up with other engineers and move progress further.

    I can't believe people don't see through the "make everything free" bullshit.

    I never told here that "making everything free" will somehow improve capitalism, as changing such systems require change of social system.

    Attack of this institutions can still be required to significantly reduce capitalism stability.

  • They are now also foundation to current S&P valuation

    image

    sa14615.jpg
    800 x 329 - 47K
  • @Vitaliy...do you have any copyrights or patents ? ...no. Maybe that's why your pisst. A copyright cost $60 bucks and anyone can get one w/o too much work. Of course, it's only good for the country you file it in.

  • @kurth

    ..do you have any copyrights or patents ? ...no. Maybe that's why your pisst. A copyright cost $60 bucks and anyone can get one w/o too much work. Of course, it's only good for the country you file it in.

    Huh, you have an amazingly bad talent to sometimes post comment without reading topic or posts at all, just for the sake of making some post.

    A copyright is a collection of rights that automatically vest to someone who creates an original work of authorship – like a literary work, song, movie or software. These rights include the right to reproduce the work, to prepare derivative works, to distribute copies, and to perform and display the work publicly.

    May be you had been talking about patents.

    I know that patent is, had been part consultant in few cases. Being software developer and making few libraries that are used by many companies I know that copyright is, and this is exactly why I stand for it to be fully abolished.

  • @Vitaliy...I read the whole topic. All of it. You included them both together, right, or not ? And the second quote isn't mine. You didn't answer the question. And I have a talent for asking the right question. Btw...I have both. I know exactly how hard ( a patent) , or how easy ( a copyright ) they are to obtain. I was wondering if you know, and that contributes to your flawed opinion ?

  • @kurth

    Second quote is not yours it is clear, but as you do not like to read stuff, it is from https://copyrightalliance.org/ca_faq_post/what-is-copyright/

    You didn't answer the question. And I have a talent for asking the right question. Btw...I have both. I know exactly how hard ( a patent) , or how easy ( a copyright ) they are to obtain.

    I did, I have no idea that you mean under link between $60 and copyright, may be it is some copyright works list to have better protection in case of issues. Copyright is automatic. At least in my place and in countries that I work with.

    I think you want just some little star moment as having your name in some of the patents of organization you worked in.

  • @Vitaliy....not really, only demonstrating that I know alittle. One thing I know...while copyrights are automatically granted upon creation ( the world over ) you can't hope to protect your work from theft in a court of law if it's not officially copyrighted. This is widely known. Therefore informal copyrights are easily violated. And since copyrights are , as I stated, cheap and easy to obtain, why not apply. Patents on the other hand, are hard to obtain, usually requiring patent lawyers, although that's not always the case, and it depends on how close the patent is to existing ideas, and how much work and research an inventor is willing to expend. I know inventors who've independently obtained patents, although it's expensive, usually because it's expensive to repeatedly challenge the patent office's rejection findings. And while most patents are given under the umbrella of some group, school, or business, any inventor worth their salt has negotiated royalty sharing. If an idea is like a piece of property, maybe it should be able to pass thru inheritance, although most tech patents only last 20 years. Maybe they should limit copyrights equally. That way you'll have all those old novels you've never read. But pertaining to copyrights, the digitalizing of music, photography and films has made them basically worthless anyway, as soon as the work is digitized, unless it's a market worth fighting. That's why usually with films, they go after theater pirates, and with music....musicians are left playing live. That's why albums are making a comeback. Nearly every album over a year old is on youtube. Although recently there's been a big move to breakup bluray pirating groups. And there is a balance between the social benefit of being widely available to educate those masses, and also derive financial benefit to the creator. But if nothing is protected, do you really think people will do all the work for nothing ? That would be the end of human creativity. Even Homer controlled the Odyssey while he lived.

  • ....and if you want to see the result of your pov being implemented, just go to amazon usa and search for fishman onboard guitar preamps. A real fishman cost between 200 and 300. Now you can buy, what looks like a real fishman for 30 bucks. Of course it's from china, and many naive folks have been hoodwinked. In this world, you get what you pay for. Even jeff bezos doesn't give a shit. And ...I thought he was one of those ruling classers.

  • Without any strong opinion, a couple of examples. Let's say it costs $3,000 plus a lot of unpaid time to make a musical score for 5-10 minutes of music. I can copyright that and get some of my money back. I can license it, too.
    Another copyright: let's say I make a video of the music for which I now own the score. I don't have the hassle of securing the rights. My score. Let's say the video costs $30,000. Depending on a lot of things. Plus a ton of unpaid time. I can now license the video, like for a movie soundtrack, or whatever. And I can license it because I own both sets of copyrights.
    Eventually, it might take a decade, I will probably break even. So a 15 year copyright is fine but twenty would give my some artistic freedom money and twenty five seems reasonable for the ton of work and money.
    Also, I can pay the musicians a bonus. A bonus! Yes, we do that.
    Let's say I have minimal copyrights, or none. Well, I don't have to make an edition because I can "borrow" one, ignoring the vexing issue of private property. I still have the expenses of filming and paying the talent. I have no way of getting my investment back, so everyone loses. The musicians lose because there is no work, etc. Now, I have no development capital. And the video I did make will be used for ringtones and all kinds of stuff that will devalue my brand and ruin my search engine rankings.
    And then what?

  • In the above example, the copyright allows my the pay people, recoup some of my investment and spread the risk.
    But let's take it a step farther--what about retirement benefits for people who play with the group for 30 years? A pension?
    When we consider that, suddenly 60 years seems like a good compromise. After all, the vast majority of the musicians have no safety net. When they get old, or disabled, they will be literally eating catfood.
    The current system, however, pretty much sucks because the copyrights are too long and the licensing is draconian. There should be a middle ground, one in which revenues are more fairly divided and the people on the lower end of the economic scale can survive.

  • @DrDave

    Well, for you and lot of other people copyright is capitalist way of earning their living. I know a lot personally.

    Thing why you want to prolong it and make it hard for everyone else who want to use your work but can't pay is because capitalism is for long time in extreme conflict of very developed means of production and ancient capitalist system that can't distribute socially made goods and services.

    Still major part of money obtained via copyright today is not made by authors or people even remotely related to them. Being musician or video guy was never be more miserable than today, at the time largest corporations set new records in capitalization each new day and increase payments to investors via buybacks.

    So, yes, copyright derogation won't be looking nice, it won't be just velvet gloves while ruling class will still fight.

    The current system, however, pretty much sucks because the copyrights are too long and the licensing is draconian. There should be a middle ground, one in which revenues are more fairly divided and the people on the lower end of the economic scale can survive.

    No such thing as middle ground exist here. Either you support copyright and the system that allow it to exist and in this case it'll all go down, or you are fully against it.

  • @kurth

    not really, only demonstrating that I know alittle. One thing I know...while copyrights are automatically granted upon creation ( the world over ) you can't hope to protect your work from theft in a court of law if it's not officially copyrighted. This is widely known.

    Legal references?

    I know it is not such for my place and few other countries I have experience with.

    Even for photos it is usually easy to prove your copyright despite multiple agents on the market proposing you to "register it" in their system for a fee to make it "simpler".

    And since copyrights are , as I stated, cheap and easy to obtain, why not apply.

    Again, I have no idea that you mean here. Looks like some kind of fee for registering some copyright stuff (what exactly) to be stored for further reference.

    Patents on the other hand, are hard to obtain, usually requiring patent lawyers, although that's not always the case, and it depends on how close the patent is to existing ideas, and how much work and research an inventor is willing to expend. I know inventors who've independently obtained patents, although it's expensive, usually because it's expensive to repeatedly challenge the patent office's rejection findings.

    Patent means almost nothing, can be annulled, challenged and relation and closeness to existing patented stuff (you can't patent just "ideas:, btw) is usually not checked normally, despite claims of otherwise. It will be point of litigation later in case your patent will have some use for capitalists.

    If an idea is like a piece of property, maybe it should be able to pass thru inheritance, although most tech patents only last 20 years. Maybe they should limit copyrights equally.

    That way you'll have all those old novels you've never read. But pertaining to copyrights, the digitalizing of music, photography and films has made them basically worthless anyway, as soon as the work is digitized, unless it's a market worth fighting.

    Actually tens of thousands of people in US and EU come to their work and fight for big corporations removing tons of "worthless" old books or music or films. Special big teams for on preventing you getting free electronic textbooks for school or university. Their bosses are finding lot of ways to prolong copyright protections (in addition to that they change the law to do so).

    Nearly every album over a year old is on youtube.

    Nope, it is not such. YT can be place for some popular music and some niches are well represented, but it is still only small portion of an music iceberg.

    Although recently there's been a big move to breakup bluray pirating groups.

    No such thing as modern BR pirating groups exist, it can be BR suppliers who use stolen cards info, but usually group is term used by FBI and alikes (journalists writing about piracy that they feed also count).

    But if nothing is protected, do you really think people will do all the work for nothing ? That would be the end of human creativity. Even Homer controlled the Odyssey while he lived.

    No, people won't be "doing work for nothing". People will be doing work for society that will be able to use all results of their work instantly and freely. And will reward people same as every other working member. Plus provide means of production that they need.

  • Well I can comment on copyright effects for my culture with some anecdote.

    When things were vinyl, there were a handful of local vinyl press. There were tons of limited runs of local stuff and even if they don't have the power to make mass culture change, but they had the power to make peoples culture alive somehow. Lots of hard work, little money, but the music, folk-lore, aesthetics and self worth was somehow perpetuated. Futhermore, k7 tapes circulated freely, and even if poor quality, but things were transmited.

    Then came CD and local vinyl press bankrupted. They were bought by gringos in consolidations for the copyright they amassed. You know what they did with all this unique, hard worked, human-rights-chart-protected culture that belonged to milions of people, even the pop mass culture bit? they put it in garbage. no you cant find it in music libraries neither in youtube, neither in spotify, theres nothing in any fucking place. you cant find remasters of master plates. you need to be a fucking PHD and do scientific research in the field to find some 30 years old records.

    Then there's this vinyl press of my city that also bankrupted but have not selled they "rights". Now, decades later, the son of the original owner, who still have the masterplates, is publishing them online because it have became anacronistic and rentable again to put these things that nobody have (because majors dumped it) in spotify, youtube, reruns etc. But still, if someone decides to buy the rights from the guy, they can wipe everything out.

  • Good quote considering my position

    "Speaking about the fight against enemies, Ilyich always, as they say,"tightened", fearing the excessive softness of the masses and his own."

    (c), N.K. Krupskaya

  • @Vitaliy.....go to US copyright site. A US judge won't touch a copyright claim if the copyright isn't registered. It won't make diddleysquat what proof you have. I'm pretty certain EU is the same, as well as all the 5 eyes. All my patents went their full life w/o any challenges. All were licensed. They wouldn't spend all that effort if patents meant nothing. And there's a very famous br pirate group called 'the scene'. And your last statement demonstrates you don't live on planet earth. It's too funny.

  • @kurth

    If you make claims, provide precise links and references.

    https://corporate.findlaw.com/intellectual-property/how-and-why-to-register-copyrights-for-computer-programs.html

    https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ61.pdf

    It is not universal approach, despite being copied by many countries. And you can still register code at any moment you like.

    Here registration is not required (but we have so called registry of software that you can apply to, last time I made it it was free or some tiny sum).

  • @kurth

    And there's a very famous br pirate group called 'the scene'. And your last statement demonstrates you don't live on planet earth.

    Well, do you mean such thing (that has nothing to do with BR pirate group)?

    The Warez scene, often referred to as The Scene, is an underground community of people that specialize in the distribution of warez: copyrighted material, including television shows and series, movies, music, music videos, games, applications, ebooks. The Scene is meant to be hidden from the public, only being shared with those within the community.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warez_scene

    Seems like you want to navigate waters you only saw in some bad TV series. :-)

  • @Vitaliy...I told you to read the usa copyright site. ""[N]o civil action for infringement of the copyright in any United States work shall be instituted until preregistration or registration of the copyright claim has been made in accordance with this title. In any case, however, where the deposit, application, and fee required for registration have been delivered to the Copyright Office in proper form and registration has been refused, the applicant is entitled to institute a civil action for infringement if notice thereof, with a copy of the complaint, is served on the Register of Copyrights. The Register may, at his or her option, become a party to the action with respect to the issue of registrability of the copyright claim.""....You need a link for something so obvious ? But both your links on copyright prove my point, if you read them carefully. The real loophole in the law is ...if you haven't registered the work, it's highly probable the person stealing it has. Therefore it will be up to a judge to see proof of who's first, which can be highly contentious...legally. Nope, I'm not uploading blurays, nor a member of any of the recently busted movie pirate groups, so nearly all my info would have to be obtained thru available news sources like torrentfreak. You are ? I do know some academy people who have "shared" " for your consideration only" copies that are made for the academy awards. Hollywood is a den of thieves. Those are widely pirated pre awards season. I do live in mexico. There's 30 places just in my little town that sell pirated dvds and blu rays. So I have no need to risk it. And you started this thread w/o ever mentioning copyrights for programs. It was films, books and photos. I'm sure programs are a special field, however in your first link it outlines all the reasons why a programmer would pay the gov for an official copyright asap. Maybe mordor is like china and a copyright is worth less than the paper it's printed on. You know far more about there than I. But we all know the usa is the market.

  • @kurth

    The real loophole in the law is ...if you haven't registered the work, it's highly probable the person stealing it has.

    In software area it does not work such way. And in each case it is much more complicated as none of the companies register complete code and especially none of valuable parts that are usually the only parts where copyright infringement happens (on the level of source code). So, for legal reason such registration is totally pointless. And if you talk to lawyer he'll explain to you that if you register someones work as your own (and especially if you do it many times) it won't be just copyright infringement case against you.

    Nope, I'm not uploading blurays, nor a member of any of the recently busted movie pirate groups, so nearly all my info would have to be obtained thru available news sources like torrentfreak. You are ?

    Well, I personally knew lot of the people in this area in some period of time. Good hackers and reversers are usually darn good crackers in real life. Torrentfreak in large part is capitalist born people view on the things, sometimes lefty universities type people, but it does not change much. Such guys do not understand any reasons why people do something or don't do something.

    Maybe mordor is like china and a copyright is worth less than the paper it's printed on. You know far more about there than I. But we all know the usa is the market.

    USA is the market indeed, for a little while. :-)

    In China patents and design patents work, but it is hard thing to explain how they do it :-). Copyright works very hard in the important cases (between big companies and this is that government cares now).