You're criticizing something for being arbitrary, yet you want "discretionary complexity"?
I'm not going to bother arguing with you any more, because you obviously have your opinions and you're not going to be swayed by anyone else, which is fair enough.
I'm not looking to change my opinions, at least not to something unreasonable. I'm looking to constructively try to come up with ways to reform IP. Its like asking "how do we make daily click better" and the only response you get is "shut it down". Well sure there might be a legitimate argument there, but it isn't really applicable.
I'm not criticizing the idea of allowing IP laws for some things and not for other things as being arbitrary. Its not the arbitraritry of it that I'm disagreeing with. After all, any utilitarian law system is going to wind up seeming very arbitrary if you don't go into depth about the distinctions. The laws we have now for IP are *very* arbitrary. Rather, its the contradictory nature of the argument I disagree with. Its the thought of "Lets abolish all intellectual property" coupled with "well lets allow intellectual property for this and that, but not those and these". Then the line in the sand becomes murky, and you can argue out the distinctions until you wind up exactly where we are- with IP laws for "this and that", works of art, expression, etc, but not "these and those", ideas, processes, algorithms.
Heck, I support having less restrictions overall, which seems like a similar view, but I'm just saying that the groundwork of "abolishing all IP laws" is flawed. It needs to be reform, not removal. And where you draw those "arbitrary" distinctions is exactly the question- how do we allow IP for what and what not. I think a lot of people that read my views assume I'm for bigger IP laws and regulations, but I'm quite to the opposite- I just support a realist view of reform, not starry eyed idealism of complete freedom of information. I appreciate the view, but I don't find it constructive
Its still always worth hearing other peoples viewpoints if I don't agree with them, however. No better way to form those opinions, even if it doesn't happen overnight
Originally Posted by Pixelthief I think IP laws need to be rewritten badly, but the same folks who should be advocating for the little people and trying to proactively campaign for intellectual property rights and fair use are the stuck arguing from an indefensible "abolish all IP" vantage that is doing them a disservice. Like the Pirate Party in sweden.
Except they don't... Unfortunately their homepage is only in swedish, but I'll try to sum it up very briefly.
-They want to legalize filesharing. Copying should be legal as long as it's not for profit.
-Free sampling. Make it easier to reuse and rework parts of existing works.
-Shorter commercial copyright. They suggest 5 years.
-Abolish "kassettavgiften", a fee on blank media that is paid to copyright holders.
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
How about we draw in the food industries? They have branding, but everyone can copy their food product, but just sell it under a different branding. So the names aren't the same, nor is the packaging and all other things related to the branding of that food product.
Different brand with the same kind of cheap or expensive food product. How come that is possible with food?
Very simple it is because food is not a luxurious product. But it gives a good example of what would be possible, cutting costs (for consumers) while keeping the branding.
You know that without copyright there also wouldn't be copyleft? So all GPL stuff would still be there, but the GPL can't force the openness anymore. It would be kind of like the BSD license.
However is intellectual property the same as patents? Because that patent system (including software patents) is flawed in all kind of ways or maybe just one: do a decent background check before granting out the patent to the company.
Maths is probably another good example of property which belongs to everyone. Pythagoras his famous theorem can be used by anyone who needs it and at absolutely no cost, wow, how is that possible .... (the wanderer asked rhetorically)
Time to move on towards physics, can the seem be said of it?