Reply With Quote
If you don't own the idea for the new engine, how do you figure you will sell your idea to the engine manufacturer after you present said idea to them?
stupid double post
If you don't own the idea for the new engine, how do you figure you will sell your idea to the engine manufacturer after you present said idea to them?
Semantics. Complete semantics. Our company routinely sells designs with two things. A layout and a proof of concept.
They never see the design until it is bought and we have only ever patented one item. However, the companies purchasing the designs patent and copyright them routinely, as far as I know.
K.
I do wonder how much society as a whole is being held back because of patents.
In the end though, I still think the individual inventor should have the courtesy (arguably the right) to hold on to his/her idea for a limited amount of time.....even at the cost of potentially moving society forward.
http://c4sif.org/2012/02/youtube-ide...righted-music/YouTube Identifies Birdsong As Copyrighted Music
Posted by timothy on Sunday February 26, @04:43PM
from the estate-of-john-cage-winces-with-envy dept.
New submitter eeplox writes “I make nature videos for my YouTube channel, generally in remote wilderness away from any possible source of music. And I purposely avoid using a soundtrack in my videos because of all the horror stories I hear about Rumblefish filing claims against public domain music. But when uploading my latest video, YouTube informed me that I was using Rumblefish’s copyrighted content, and so ads would be placed on my video, with the proceeds going to said company. This baffled me. I disputed their claim with YouTube’s system — and Rumblefish refuted my dispute, and asserted that: ‘All content owners have reviewed your video and confirmed their claims to some or all of its content: En y: rumblefish; Content Type: Musical Composition.’ So I asked some questions, and it appears that the birds singing in the background of my video are Rumblefish’s exclusive intellectual property.”
(h/t Peter Surda)
http://www.marco.org/2012/02/25/right-vs-pragmaticRight versus pragmatic
...
This pattern is common. We often try to fight problems by yelling at them instead of accepting the reality of what people do, from controversial national legislation to passive-aggressive office signs. Such efforts usually fail, often with a lot of collateral damage, much like Prohibition and the ongoing “war” on “drugs”.
And, more recently (and with much less human damage), media piracy.
...
That bathroom analogy was horrible, imo.
I guess that depends on what other crimes are being committed. Resources are limited, after all. Assuming infinite resources, sure.
Not sure what you're getting at here. Perhaps I wasn't clear. The price of a good is not just dictated by have/wants... other things are built into the price.
For instance, most stores have locks, right? Owners must pay money for the locks, and whatever additional security they install. The store owner passes on these costs to the consumer, usually by raising the price of one or more goods.
In areas with greater theft/crime, there's a likelihood that the price of goods could rise to provide for greater security.
What's irrelevant? The fact that the music/movie industry look like a bunch of asshats going after 40 year old mothers because their child downloaded 40 songs?
Or do you think it's irrelevant that it's ridiculously easy to make digital copies, therefore making security prohibitively expensive and/or futile?
What punishment would there be if the bread was cloned? Heck, I could clone a million loaves of bread and cart them out of the store.
Why would it depend on other crimes?
The resources would come into play when discussing the actual enforcement of the law.
Not sure what it is exactly you are having an issue with.....the laws themselves or the enforcement of them.
Why are you putting this much responsibility on store owners?Not sure what you're getting at here. Perhaps I wasn't clear. The price of a good is not just dictated by have/wants... other things are built into the price.
For instance, most stores have locks, right? Owners must pay money for the locks, and whatever additional security they install. The store owner passes on these costs to the consumer, usually by raising the price of one or more goods.
In areas with greater theft/crime, there's a likelihood that the price of goods could rise to provide for greater security.
To be clear: If a thief was caught stealing a loaf of bread, and the owner wanted to press criminal charges against the thief, should he be able to? yes or no?
Both are irrelevant.What's irrelevant? The fact that the music/movie industry look like a bunch of asshats going after 40 year old mothers because their child downloaded 40 songs?
Or do you think it's irrelevant that it's ridiculously easy to make digital copies, therefore making security prohibitively expensive and/or futile?
Your perception of the industry being a bunch of asshats is irrelevant to the need of copyright laws.
Private security issues are also irrelevant to the need of such laws.
Again, unless there is a patent on the bread, you aren't stealing anything. Anyone can make a loaf of bread.What punishment would there be if the bread was cloned? Heck, I could clone a million loaves of bread and cart them out of the store.
You cloning a million copies of a movie such as Avatar that you can't make on your own is entirely different.
Oldie, but goldie: http://www.salon.com/2000/06/14/love_7/
Courtney Love does the math
...
There were a billion music downloads last year, but music sales are up. Where’s the evidence that downloads hurt business? Downloads are creating more demand.
Why aren’t record companies embracing this great opportunity? Why aren’t they trying to talk to the kids passing compilations around to learn what they like? Why is the RIAA suing the companies that are stimulating this new demand? What’s the point of going after people swapping cruddy-sounding MP3s? Cash! Cash they have no intention of passing onto us, the writers of their profits.
...
How can anyone defend the current system when it fails to deliver music to so many potential fans? That only expects of itself a “5 percent success rate” a year? The status quo gives us a boring culture. In a society of over 300 million people, only 30 new artists a year sell a million records. By any measure, that’s a huge failure.
Maybe each fan will spend less money, but maybe each artist will have a better chance of making a living. Maybe our culture will get more interesting than the one currently owned by Time Warner.
...
Those idiot record companies obviously haven't done the math!
You haven't read it, have you?
I read what you posted.
The writer's answer to his own question appeared to be "cash".....which doesn't really make sense, imo.
Why do you think record companies don't just give away downloads?
The "writer" is/was Courtney Love, you know - an artist. Are we concerned about artists and art they create or record companies and so called entertainment industry (lawyers and marketing)?
why should I trust Courtney Love's math if she's, you know - an artist?
If you are that concerned about the artists, nothing is stopping you from sending them money directly.Are we concerned about artists and art they create or record companies and so called entertainment industry (lawyers and marketing)?
You haven't answered my question.
Why do you think record companies don't just give away downloads?
Control & money.
Artists/record labels could solve all of this by simply allowing convenient downloads/streams of their music via something like spotify for a small fee. It would be easier than torrenting, the selection/quality would be better, and people wouldn't risk getting their computers a virus.
Instead, apparently it's easier to try and write a bunch of really harsh laws that nobody seems to agree with because really these artists are greedy and only doing it for the money, rather than being mucisians who just enjoy playing music.
So when Love says "[illegal] downloads are creating more demand", she really doesn't know what she's talking about.
Actual music sales figures have been going up, despite "massive piracy". Maybe she's onto something.
But demand did go up in the last decade since this was written...
Does Love have actual proof of this correlation/causation?
Since the music industry is not giving away free music and is griping about pirates, it's doubtful she's really on to anything.
Has it? Did you say you are from Utopia?
I have looked at several charts, all showing a decline of these later years. Each graph below has the site linked to it that they came from.
You should ask her... Maybe she knows a thing or two about the business that you don't...
You're looking at old data
Cue the Music: Driven by Digital, Music Sales up in 2011
Say What? Thanks To Digital Music, Album Sales Up For The First Time Since 2004
Your short term gain does not make up for the longer term losses, and are probably because of crackdowns on illegal file sharing.You should ask her... Maybe she knows a thing or two about the business that you don't...
You're looking at old data
Cue the Music: Driven by Digital, Music Sales up in 2011
Say What? Thanks To Digital Music, Album Sales Up For The First Time Since 2004
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
