next »

[isthisthingon]

Here's the article: http://techdirt.com/articles/20091117/1158236974.shtml  Here's the official research: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0911/0911.2390v1.pdf 

That shrinking island of copyright advocates must be quite an uncomfortable place to be.  I'll swing by with my boat if anyone cares to abandon their mission.  I'll be gentle on the "I told you so's"   

[nop_90]

Never thought about the fashion industry .
Hmmm a good point. You go to any mall, 75% of crap being sold there deals with fashion.
I wonder how many jobs the clothes/fashion industry is responsible for.

[perkiset]

Disagree with the premise, because it's flawed.

When you say "copy an idea and create something new" that's hot. Natch, 'droid phones, the iPhone, Zune ... it goes on and on. But when you're talking about "pirating" as the article does as well, what you're saying is take crap leather, create a purse and a locally reproduced Versace emblem and sell it as Versace. This is a very different notion. Copying and expanding on an idea is, in fact, the essence of what every piece of technology we have today is. There is nothing new under the sun - everything built is built upon ideas and experiences of other things that lead to the explosion of creativity.

But comparing that to, say, literally duplicating people's music and selling it is inaccurate.

[isthisthingon]

So you support my desire to reverse engineer OS X so long as I sell it as OS Y?

[perkiset]

Absolutely! Reverse engineer away! Linux is that. DOS is that. The Mac GUI is that. Jeepers, what tech really *isn't* that?

This might seem at odds with some of my earlier points re. IP - I think that the patent laws are WAY out of hand and need to be addressed. Since you really are not allowed to patent a technique, then a "Dock for starting applications" should not be patentable (I don't think it is patented, but if so, it's wrong).

My point is not the stifling of innovation or the shutdown of expanding ideas... but (IMO) if you take your crap OS redux, call it "OS-X" and sell it branded as such it's wrong OR if you take the real OS-X and sell it as your own it's wrong. But other than that, hell man go nuts.

Let me know when it's ready, I'd love to beta test for you

[nop_90]

But comparing that to, say, literally duplicating people's music and selling it is inaccurate.

There are two types of "value".
Real value - as in the amount spent in material,labour etc to make the product.
Perceived value - how much the consumer thinks the product is worth.

If you have 2 products, 1 pirated and 1 real. Even if they are 100% identical, the real one is better as in has greater value.
Countless studies have proven this.

[serialnoob]

If you have 2 products, 1 pirated and 1 real. Even if they are 100% identical, the real one is better as in has greater value.

Late, but on second thought, if they are 100% identical, how do you figure out which one is which ?   


More seriously, luckily they are hardly identical. In the fashion industry which has been for long a prime target, copies have in many instances contributed to the popularity (or popularization) of the original products, and generally the related brand.

I must admit I have not read the initial article, but when you think about it, I would be very curious to know how many (pirated) copies of the latest windows version are being used right now and this compares with the earliest version ratio? In which sens would that have evolved?

[nop_90]

If you have 2 products, 1 pirated and 1 real. Even if they are 100% identical, the real one is better as in has greater value.

Late, but on second thought, if they are 100% identical, how do you figure out which one is which ?   

I tell you that one is "real" and the other one is just a cheap pirate copy
do i have to explain everything to you