Here are some final thoughts about copyrights and patents to consider:

a. While patents and copyright laws and courts and governments may be anti-people and pro industry, theses facts alone are not a reason for their abolishment (except for anarchists).

b. Almost everything produced is the result of limited resources (labor, materials). Because of that much in life is rationed. Copyright, patents, entrance fees to a concert are methods of rationing. If it were not like that and there were no entrance fees to concerts many artist would never give a concert, unless government stepped in (as it sometimes does) and paid artists for their work, with the problem that only favored artists (that belong to party in power or helped some politician get votes) would benefit.

c. Having no copyrights and no patents is akin to having no prices at restaurants. Anyone will benefit from the works of creators, except the creators themselves.

d. Copyrights should not protect from non commercial digital copying because such copying can be cost free and cost free means copies cannot be rationed. I you have a copy of a type that cost nothing to produce, then there is no reason to prevent its copying. Such copying should only require that any profits made from the profits should be shared with the copyright creators.

e. Copyright and patent laws are full of arbitrary conditions, too complex and full of loopholes to favor industries. I think no one has read or understood them. I always say, laws that require a lawyer to understand and expensive litigation to enforce is a useless law. I know, lawyer love it. Judges that say ignorance of the law is no excuse are ignorant themselves.

f. For humane reasons, patent licensing should not be required for medicines sold in poor third world countries. It’s not fair to sell medicines in countries where mots people cannot afford the medicine due to patent licensing requirements.

As a victim of the system’s corruption I would like changes too, but frankly they are nowhere in sight. Hopefully and eventually the Internet will provoke the changes. That is why these forums such as p2pnet are important. Just keep the discussion alive.

Thanks for explaining your position (as everybody here already knows, I’m at least a bit paranoid, and tend toward some really “dark” moods — long story, personal stuff, not getting into it.)

I also tend toward the view that copyright/patent apologists are either uninformed about the issues, misled by corporate propaganda, or actively collaborating with such organizations to make the situation worse. (Admittedly, a significant amount of that view derives from recurrent debates between myself and a former contributor/troll calling himself “Sam I Am”. You can find the “gory details” scattered across many, many discussion-threads.)

As to allowing limited-term monopolies if it helps make good products/art/whatever, I really have my doubts that such an approach is actually feasible, for the following reasons:

1. Copyright monopolies WERE “limited” originally, but that hasn’t stopped them from metastasizing into what amounts to a cultural cancer. Also (given the genuinely bizarre thinking behind the “Eldred” decision by the Supreme Court), copy”right” terms are now, for all intents and purposes perpetual, in that they can be extended at whim, PROVIDED that they remain a “limited” time at each step. See how this works? Since anything short of infinity is “limited”, the Corporate media cartels figure they can just keep extending that “limited” term perpetually — thus, for all intents and purposes, killing the Public Domain in the process.)

So, it’s exceedingly unlikely that they can be PERMITTED to retain even a severely attenuated version of the current monopolies, simply because they already HAD it, and got greedy.

2. The notion that such monopolies are “neccesary” is really shaky at best, for the reasons I underlined in earlier posts.

3. Everything involved in humanity’s unique ability to learn from earlier generations involves some form of “copying” — imitation, learning how to use particular techniques/tools, whatever. Attempts to monopolize knowledge (such as the “guild secrecy” during the Middle Ages in Europe) are all about socio-political privilege, at the expense of humanity-at-large. (Hint: Mass literacy was a threat to the “business-model” of professional scribes). think about it.

4. Apologists for so-called “Intellectual Property” (patents and copyrights) are hell-bent on propagandizing everybody else into the belief that mere privileges are actually “the sacred right of property” and completely misrepresenting the issues. I don’t have much patience for that, primarily because I’m a musician myself, and, quite frankly, I hate everything about the “music industry” as constructed by the RIAA and other vermin. They deserve to be completely and utterly destroyed, so that there’s even a CHANCE that some kind of non-evil “business model” can be created — not to mention, so that at least SOME areas of cultural life can remain at least relatively un-contaminated. (Hint: when a ten second video clip of a toddler dancing can be yanked from Youtube just because a song by Prince is barely audible in the background, things are drastically out of hand.)

So really, the more I think about it, it comes down to “alter or abolish”: before you can even get people talking about “altering” the current system, you have to be willing to at least toy with the notion of “abolishing” it entirely. So long as folks take the notion of “Intellectual property” as an unquestionable “given”, they are really unlikely to ever change the system, no matter how patently corrupt, inefficient, wasteful, abusive, or downright evil.

Hope that clears it up — and also, Hope I don’t sound like some kind of crazy zealot.

“You still seem to be giving folks like the RIAA/MPAA/patent lawyers the benefit of the doubt.”

Not at all, Henry. Let me explain my position.

Overall, I put up no defense for abusive groups, an these and many others are abusive groups that abuse both artists and customers. But just because there are abusive monopoly hoarders it does not mean that I am not willing to give some the benefit of limited time monopolies so they invest in products that benefit all.

Take pharmaceutical. For a limited tie I worked as a cost improvement consultant to a pharmaceutical plant that made a pill with multi-billion dollars i sales. The pills cost less than 2 cents each to make, including indirect costs (overhead) but not development costs. The price in the drug store for each pill was $2 each, a hundred times the cost. From what I know about actual drug costs I think the government should intevene to limit drug profits to reasoable levels. Of course that will not happen as long a the you have power lobbies that control everything.

Take record companies. They have destroyed the music business by attacking the customers, overpriced and worthless products.

As to RIAA/MPAA/Contractor associations/Banker Associations/Realtors/Pharmaceutical and a million others industry organizations, the MAFIA, political parties: Almost all organizations such as these are set up for special purposes. These include lobbying (all professional lobbying should be prohibited), price fixing (should be illegal), Salary / payment fixing (this allows take it or leave contracts with artists , songwriters, scientist, employees, customers, stealing, etc.). They should all be banned so that competition is real. Additionally profit levels should be controlled somehow, perhaps through actual price controls and higher taxing levels with fewer or no loopholes.

BTW, there are some industry groups were not set up for the wrong (monopoly) reasons are are not abusive at all, but eventually, as their leaders change, they will likely become abusive and start playing monopoly for money. Just like political parties, its a matter of time. They should all be banned. Political parties should be allowed by for a limited time or number of elections, only, before they become corrupt, assuming they were not corrupt from day one.

“b. In some cases monopoly protection produces new works, such a movies.”

I’d suggest you rethink that statement.

1. How many movies utilize the same general plot? How many movies are more-or-less direct remakes of previous movies?
Please realize that I’m not accusing the movie industry of a lack of “originality” here, so much as recognizing that the fact that there are basic plotlines and structures that recur. Joseph Campbell noticed this trend even in all human mythologies he studies.
Jungian archtypes also come to mind.
(But I don’t want to derail this into a discussion about what constitutes “originality”, or if it’s even possible….)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thirty-Six_Dramatic_Situations

2. Do you REALLY think that copy”right” is what’s fueling the movie experience? I mean, come on now — assuming that every movie in existence is, at least in principle available for free (over p2p networks or etc.), then why are people still going to movie theaters? There’s obviously something to the experience (and to movies in general) that complicates the issue.
(Hint: if p2p “piracy” was really the threat the MPAA makes it out to be, the movie industry would have already stopped making profits — not merely suffered a decline, but stopped entirely. After all, the entire line of “reasoning” put forth by the RIAA/MPAA in opposition to file-sharing and p2p comes down to “why pay if they can get it for free?”

But actually, there’s a much larger counter-example: broadcast television. The mere fact that “cinema” survived the advent of TV is pretty much conclusive refutation of the “why buy when you can get it for free” line of argument.
(Hint: TV actors/actresses are rather well-paid, and the whole thing is offset either by commercial advertising, product placement, or — in the case of civilized places like various European countries, an unobtrusive “telly tax”.

(Hint: I’d gladly pay something like that here in the U.S. if it meant longer shows/more intelligent programming.)

You still seem to be giving folks like the RIAA/MPAA/patent lawyers the benefit of the doubt. (Don’t feel bad — I used to be that way, too)

“d. In many cases a,b and c are intertwined. That is the case when you are creative, need to compete to make a better mouse trap but need monopoly protection to make it worth the investments to design and market the mouse trap.”

A few things:
1. If you’re creative, then you will most likely discover/invent whether it’s “cost-effective” to do so or not. (Hint: how much do you get paid to watch “seinfeld”? People already do a vast amount of stuff for other than financial reasons — which is not to impugn financial reasons, even though doing it “for the money” seems to lead to some of the most horrible shit around, but that’s another issue.

2. Do you really “need” to compete? Look into W. Edwards Deming. He demonstrated that the emphasis on “competition” between business is drastically overstated — especially in the U.S.
Even if you assume that you DO need to “compete”, the issue still remains “what are you competing FOR?”

3. You still seem to be assuming that R&D requires some form of monopoly. What about products/services where at least part of the knowledge-base/infrastructure derives from “public” sources? Good example of that: any company involved in any capacity with computers/the Internet. (Hint: basic theoretical groundwork laid by folks like Thomas Babbage, and most of the technical groundwork derives from government/military research. Not to mention the fact that — at least during the earlier phases of their business, ISP’s used the POTS (Plain old Telephone System) lines, which — at least in this country, began as a public utility, and were only “deregulated” later.)

So it’s highly unlikely that any company involved in TCP/IP or other computer-related fields really “needs” monopoly-power. Equally unlikely in the case of pharmaceuticals. (Hint: the notion of corporate R&D is vastly overstated.)

Ironically, patents in their current form were originally pitched as a cure for “trade secrets” — in exchange for publicizing developments (whether you actually built a prototype, much less a “marketable” product), you could depend on the State to stomp on competitors, on the explicit agreement that it would stop doing so at a later date.

The problem is, there’s a lot of research demonstrating that the entire premise upon which patents rest is fatally flawed.

Read “Against intellectual monopoly”, for a good grounding in this.
(Google for it — I’m kinda busy right now.)

Really, I don’t want to seem harsh or brusque or whatever, but you seem to be stuck at the stage where you’re still willing to give the corporate lobby-bots and their propaganda the benefit of the doubt.

(Another issue to consider is that there are alternatives to for-profit corporations AND “government-run” enterprises. Namely, not-for-profit foundations, cooperatives, etc. etc.

Remember: the question isn’t whether monopoly privileges benefit SOME people. Everything — no matter how evil it may be to everybody else, benefits SOMEBODY. The question is: Are such monopoly privileges “needed” at all?

The available evidence demonstrates that they’re actually really damaging, and prevent a lot of potentially great stuff from happening.
But you can do your own research on that score.

is it market-competition which produces innovation, or is it the promise of monopoly “protection” against such competition?

Now that you asked the complex question….

a. Surely in some cases market competition produces innovation. Case in point, personal computers and software. Most new, better products are made simply to take business away from others.
b. In some cases monopoly protection produces new works, such a movies.
c. In many cases (perhaps most) is the built in drive to invent, discover, create in creative individuals.
d. In many cases a,b and c are intertwined. That is the case when you are creative, need to compete to make a better mouse trap but need monopoly protection to make it worth the investments to design and market the mouse trap.

A final point, innovation of the type protected by patents, is only important in the fields of science and technology and there really is no reason why all the development work cannot be made through public financing and the elimination of licensing fees. The savings in duplication work and in products cost would be immense. The beneficiaries would be the public.

Cheers!

email Jon, he email me, I do ‘underwear check’, we go from there. fair?

stw

stw

Thanks man/woman. I totally understand. I have some different ideas on how to hide but you’re right, from what I read someone from the FBI wrote you can’t be totally invisible. Though you could use some pretty crazy stuff with wireless technology.

Cursed “connection” oriented nature of TCP/IP, you can’t hide if you’re connected! UDP might work though, but no reliability.

Many Thanks!!

Thanks for clarification.

“Corrupt” Capitalist system? Read Howard Zinn. I really don’t think the system is “corrupt”, so much as working exactly according to plan. I know, people love to draw this arbitrary line between “capitalism” (what we have now) and “mercantilism” (stuff like the East-India tea company etc.), but I don’t buy it — pun intended.

You still didn’t answer the question: is it market-competition which produces innovation, or is it the promise of monopoly “protection” against such competition? Really, you can’t have it both ways on this one. (After all, our corporate overlords obviously DO think competition is a good thing in terms of their potential workforce — why else would they persist in “outsourcing” everything to third-world slave-pits with no worker-protection, living wage, or environmental legislation?)

And as for the “pull with the bull you have” thing: great, until somebody invents another bull.
(Hint: p2p is that “other bull”).

Think about it

To build an absolutely untraceable internet connection is impossible. Like Tom said, your IP and Mac Addy can be spoofed or changed easily, that’s probably the best way. But for consistent, stable two way traffic it is a bit more complex. Regardless of your solution, there is absolutely no way of being entirely invisible. Your provider can always see that you are using bandwidth, whether they can see what it is or not, or if it is you or not, you can never hide the actual packet transfer itself.

Most file sharing circles are slowly moving to VPN based system, even I am investigating/testing this type of system for future use. I would gladly pay for operating software that supports a VPN ability than the latest Britney Spears album. I can only outline my system in broad strokes, you and I are not the only one’s that read this board.

stw

It was I who posted the following post, which was thrashed in the following posting by Henry Emrich:

“That would be great, if possible, but is not possible in a capitalist society.

Without some kind of copyright and patent monopolies, no capitalist will invest the millions needed to make a movie or develop a drug.
Also some artists, songwriters and authors will not produce any large time consuming works if they cannot recoup the efforts or make the money that a monopoly insures.”

Fist two things need clarification:
a. capitalist society = corrupt capitalist society. I had presumed this was a known fact.
b. Instead of songwriters I should have said composers, because a composer may be the maker of an opera that requires a yaear of work to make and then several years of effort to get it performed and recorded.

Then this is my reply to Henry Emrich:
Perhaps through public funding all drugs may be developed (and that may be a better system) and perhaps composers may be paid with public money to insure adequate payment for the effort and quality of the work produced. But the fact is that that is impossible in the current corrupt capitalist society we live in.

I am all for change as to how scientists, doctors, engineers and artists are paid for their work and how elections are financed and the elimination of lobbies. But that takes revolutionary changes in society and frankly, those changes are not in the horizon.

So, as we here in Puerto Rico say, we have to pull with the bull we have.

BTW I have a vested interest in copyrights, the great songs and music my father wrote. My father did not write a single song because he thought he would make money with the songs. He didn’t make any money off his music because record companies and music publisher did not pay him the earned royalties because that is how corrupt capitalism works and it made no sense to go to the then corrupt American courts here in Puerto Rico to make any claims. Nothing has changed.

We are still stuck with a corrupt American court and a corrupt capitalist system.

The US Constitution said nothing about the monopolies of copyright and patent (enacted after the constitution). It correctly recognised the natural exclusive right of authors and inventors to their writings and designs.

I’ve been meaning to write another article about this, and will do soon, but in the interim try this: http://www.digitalproductions.co.uk/?q=US+Constitution

[only 1 link to pass moderation filter]

The US Constitution said nothing about the monopolies of copyright and patent (enacted after the constitution). It correctly recognised the natural exclusive right of authors and inventors to their writings and designs.

I’ve been meaning to write another article about this, and will do soon, but in the interim try this: http://www.digitalproductions.co.uk/?q=US+Constitution

Here’s a link to a discussion thread from which posts of mine I’ll be basing it on: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/lists/arc/projectvrm/2009-05/msg00037.html

e.g: On ED2K networks search with codec set to XVID (for obvious reasons) for 1958…..
Voila – all of those movies are out of copyright.

Feel free to search by year backwards…….

Around 1930 we see the first Mickey mouse cartoons…..

ED2K is a proven Historical Treasure Trove of our history.
I challenge any other organisation anywhere in the world including the Smithsonian et al to beat the ED2K networks for preservation of old documentaries, shorts and movies from a bygone age.

TCM ? Not even close to ED2K.

Therefore the biggest argument in favour of P2P to the CRTC is Education through open UNTHROTTLED access to the worlds largest historical archive.

Ummmmm BitTorrent – nope – can’t quite say the same thing there (and don’t flame me – you’re wrong – ED2K is far better for finding rare content on!)
However BitTorrent used responsibly is THE ammateur media delivery medium of today and the proffessional medium of tommorrow and the Commission needs to know that by allowing the throttling of BitTorrent irregardless of responsible use or not is in fact choking the indie segment of the content generation industry. Arguably, the Indie segment is the most important as it provides the most number of jobs for the local artists – and produces the most amount of content. (Note I didnt say the most amount of Pulp Fiction content……….)

There are hamburgers, then there are plastic hamburgers……. Which one is better for you nutritiously speaking?

Indie content and homemade hamburgers are better for the soul AND the digestion system.

(Anybody ever seen a plastic Vegie burger ?????)

Try this….

http://tinyurl.com/OpenAccessPaper

That link returns a “page may have been moved” message from Dynamic Web.