New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Comments
Reverse engineering takes time, especially if we're talking about a production process that's hidden behind the scenes. Or we can just offer an attractive system where we grant an exclusive monopoly to me for my product that lasts a couple years. No one has to waste money, time, and resources reverse engineering stuff because the technology that enabled my product is publicly available. After a couple years you can release the same product and competition can kick in.
The Chinese don't reverse engineer most of the time, they often buy the details of the technology from corrupt companies who get fined an insignificant amount of money, or hack into the system. This is generally considered illegal (e.g. violating NDA) so companies and individuals can't do that.
"If you think something does not deserve copyright, that means you have no right to say so because you would not use it anyway"
bitch pls
If I recall correctly, you're the one who brought up a specific example that you thought served your argument, and I simply pointed out that there was no loss to society resulting from the copyright system in your example. Maybe you should come up with a better example instead of crying about it.
Edit: after all, it's a little bit hypocritical to attack people for claiming a moral right to intellectual property when you claim that "it's sick that she has exclusive rights".
Yeah well you can't support gay marriage because you wouldn't marry a man so stfu
Make it a couple of days, and we have a deal.
a) It's not a waste of money, just like your education is not a waste of money. Your competitor is paying the cost of HIS education.
b) You are free to release your process details from day 1 if you like
c) It's not nearly as costly as being late to the market for a few years. If it was, nobody would bother to do it - which means extra time to market for the inventor.
Not what I heard about high-end things like modern trains. But even if so, the concept is the same. The mechanics differ (instead of paying the engineers, you pay the spies).
Can anyone help me decipher what this kid is trying to say?
Only if you drop your hypocrisy.
In some cases that may be true, and in those cases I agree that we possibly shouldn't have patents. I merely claim that there exist areas where reverse engineering is far more complex (just look at how long the Chinese are taking for spaceships, combat planes), and in those areas patents can serve a useful purpose. In these same areas it's typically a much smaller of a problem if you're late a few years.
Now when we're talking about something like software patents, it's a completely different story and I agree with you there, innovation is moving too rapidly for patents to serve any purpose.
I don't know much about it, but I read stuff about Lockheed Martin and similar companies violating U.S. law and selling technology to entities affiliated with PRC government/military. My point there, though, was that governments can get away with this activity maybe, but it's generally considered illegal for businesses/individuals (possibly involves trespassing on property or violating NDA). Of course if they really are just reverse engineering then there's no issue.
The Pirate Bay is mostly an icon today - almost everyone knows the name, but it is hardly the biggest torrent site out there right now (that appears to be KAT).
For the record, I don't torrent myself (minus legal stuff, like ISOs and Humble Bundle (official) torrents).
Megaupload was taken down on 2012. So sure, it is dated. I'd argue that it was invalid back then.
If there was no way that they could have gathered the data without guessing, making any and all results published in the study questionable at best.
Upon further research (looking at the blog post), the go-golf sites TorrentFreak, podcastingnews, yalelawtech, BSA, and the RIAA - every single one of those entities has a reason (except TorrentFreak, who was cited for the "social acceptance" of Piracy which I don't disagree with) to modify data for their advantage. Whether they did or not is irrelevant - they are not a neutral party in such matters, making them unreliable as a source.
Those things have a cost and are not exactly useful the same for every country. There's a reason nobody aside the US care to have a fleet of air carriers and a reason why the Chinese only recently are toying with the idea to get themselves a few. In any case though, if YOU made A, it doesn't derive that you HAVE to teach me how to make A, just like you don't have to share your house/whatever tangible item with anyone.
It's my time to go to bed. Thanks for the argument, I've enjoyed it.
What's wrong with trying to license the use of something from the original company?
You have to own to license. "IP" isn't property, so you don't own. Then people with guns come and make sure you get a monopoly so as to mitigate your lack of ownership.
Well I was using that as an example, I figure high-speed trains that you mentioned, and also aircraft/ships and maybe large production robots and such, are similar.
I don't have to teach you how to make A, but if I do then society might benefit.
Anyway here's an interesting excerpt written by Lawrence Lessig (a prominent supporter of copyright/patent reform, and also co-founder of Creative Commons) -- http://www.authorama.com/free-culture-20.html
The book primarily documents the expansion of copyright and argues that the current system stifles the very progress it was meant to support, but at the same time it argues that copyright/patent protections in some form and in some industries are beneficial to society.
It's a nice read IMO (okay, I haven't read the whole thing, you got me there
.
Personally I don't agree with everything he says but I do agree with a lot of it.
Alternative systems might very well work, but copyright and patent law arose for a reason, one that I think was positive.
Ignore him, he's just a shill, and a very stupid one at that. (see here)
@Traffic I really don't get why you need to single me out when the root of the discussion is already over with. Thanks for more free advertising though!
You're welcome. I'm looking forward to you using your wealth of knowledge (your words) to prevent being discovered next time.
Just read this
http://www.slashfilm.com/lucasfilm-tells-darth-vader-that-return-of-the-jedi-hasnt-made-a-profit/
And people who download films are the ones taking money from actors eh...
lol at this thread, delinquents
anyone left arguing against copyright/ip... and you happen to program, send me the code youve written your entire adult life? cheers!
I've downloaded a movie/ebook or two in the past so I wouldn't get on a high horse about it personally, but certainly wouldn't argue that it's OK to take other people's work for free, just because I can.
I'm willing to pay for good software & games (and I did so for some products, e.g. Sublime Text) but so far, the honest customer was always the one which got screwed.
Windows activation? Worst pain in the ass ever, change some hardware, be forced to reactivate, uh oh limit reached, call them, their endless telephone thingy screws up with "didn't work" two times before finishing entering all numbers and the third time, it actually worked. Am I going to do that again? No, screw it, I have a valid license but I'll rather crack than going through that PITA again.
Games? Well, there's for example Mafia II, which didn't want to run anymore on my computer due to a kernel driver from some specific software. And guess what - it worked like a charm when trying a crack, thanks DRM.
How about old games like Need for Speed Underground? Oh, guess what, you can't play them anymore without cracking - thanks to DRM.
Seriously, I'm willing to pay money for those goods, including movies & music. I'm however not willing to get blatantly ripped off by paying a lot, just so I have to go through tons of hassle I wouldn't have by just pirating it.
It was always like that, even way in the past. Honest purchasers had to throw the game CD in their computers every damn time to play the game. And those who cracked it didn't.
People spend way more time inventing crazy ways of DRM, which will get broken anyways, it's just a matter of time. The honest customer however gets screwed more and more.
They should rather spend that time for improving their products, for offering better services than others, to create new reasons why someone should rightfully purchase it. But I guess they'll never learn that.
/rant end/
I'm not saying that copyright is wrong - but the way we're currently trying to enforce it doesn't seem optimal at all. That's why I really like GOG and similar non-DRM offers.
That is called open source and already exists.
How about you pay for every piece of software you use, because "the creator deserves to be paid"? SSH command? That's 5 bucks pls. Linux? 100. Firefox, Thunderbird, PDF reader, VLC, notepad++, openoffice, Android/custom ROM/apps, Even the calculator app. Anyone could have made a calculator app, you say? Well then go ahead and make one, instead of not paying for it.
Open source is often referred to as copyleft.
I am using a torrented Android OS on my phone now and a Torrented Chrome too.
Anyway, I suggest don't use TPB, it's better to use social networking Warez sharing site instead. From friend to friend.
I define warez as legal as long as you don't get any profit from it.
I hope nobody here is using TCP/IP without paying for it. That's not funny. Certainly if I were going to be a copyright absolutist I'd be embarrassed to use the internet. The bottom line is that we wouldn't have an internet if it was left to the copyright hardliners.