The Cache: Technology Expert's Forum
 
*
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register. September 23, 2019, 10:23:22 AM

Login with username, password and session length


Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Callback, ITTO: Would love your opinion (Intellectual property QQ)  (Read 4113 times)
perkiset
Olde World Hacker
Administrator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 10096



View Profile
« on: November 02, 2009, 02:10:27 PM »

OK, here's another example that deserves looking at.

Concerned party has intellectual property, used by someone else in a way they find wrong. They are considering suing.

But this time, it's Monty Python and Terry Gilliam against NY governer-hopeful, Chris Christie. Some Monty Python stuff used in one of his campaigns.

How do you view this? (Honestly asking) How would you say this is different than Apple suing for using their IP in a way they find wrong?

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/11/christie-could-be-sued-bymonty-python.php

<edit - forgot to add link>
« Last Edit: November 02, 2009, 02:33:33 PM by perkiset » Logged

It is now believed, that after having lived in one compound with 3 wives and never leaving the house for 5 years, Bin Laden called the U.S. Navy Seals himself.
nop_90
Global Moderator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2203


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: November 02, 2009, 03:39:03 PM »

Monty Python's free web video increased DVD sales by 23,000 percent
http://boingboing.net/2009/01/23/monty-pythons-free-w.html

Thier strategy is talked about in
Free! Why $0.00 Is the Future of Business
http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/magazine/16-03/ff_free?currentPage=all
I know i mentioned the book before.

Monty Python but in real life  ROFLMAO
"It is totally outrageous that a former US Attorney knows so little about the law that he thinks he can rip off people," said Jones. "On the other hand -- another of Bush's legal appointees was Alberto Gonzales and he didn't seem to know much about the law either."

Logged
isthisthingon
Global Moderator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2879



View Profile
« Reply #2 on: November 02, 2009, 08:39:54 PM »

OK, here's another example that deserves looking at.
Concerned party has intellectual property, used by someone else in a way they find wrong. They are considering suing.
But this time, it's Monty Python and Terry Gilliam against NY governer-hopeful, Chris Christie. Some Monty Python stuff used in one of his campaigns.
How do you view this? (Honestly asking)

With all due respect perks, this sucks on every obvious level there is.  Robbing someone else's creativity while falsly claiming authorship, or implying consent from the original author in any case is completely disgusting.  I may even - brace yourself - hate this more than you.

Monty Python should sue them quick before they get robbed and murdered abducted by "aliens"  :angel
« Last Edit: November 03, 2009, 02:09:59 AM by isthisthingon » Logged

I would love to change the world, but they won't give me the source code.
perkiset
Olde World Hacker
Administrator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 10096



View Profile
« Reply #3 on: November 03, 2009, 02:32:05 PM »

With all due respect perks, this sucks on every obvious level there is.  Robbing someone else's creativity while falsly claiming authorship, or implying consent from the original author in any case is completely disgusting.  I may even - brace yourself - hate this more than you.
Totally agree. So then, please, I need help here. This kind of art is clearly understood by you. The essence of that intellectual property is well understood.

If Psystar takes Apple's art (the OS) and puts it onto their own hardware, then the implication is that it is with Apple's blessing (which I would equate to your notion of falsely claiming authorship). The Apple OS is not closed in the way that it limits you from growing, only from understanding how it, itself, works. Other than that, it's about as wide open from a usage standpoint as any *nix system. It is arguable that people are not schooled unless they have a deep and abiding understanding of Monty Python. Yet copyright laws limit my ability to partake, unless I do so via a channel that they have approved of.

I'd just like to know how you see the difference presenting itself. I see them as extremely similar, I gather you don't. Please help me out here.
Logged

It is now believed, that after having lived in one compound with 3 wives and never leaving the house for 5 years, Bin Laden called the U.S. Navy Seals himself.
isthisthingon
Global Moderator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2879



View Profile
« Reply #4 on: November 03, 2009, 04:29:44 PM »

Quote
The Broadcast Flag
The “broadcast flag” is a combination of technical specifications and federal regulations designed to combat unauthorized redistribution of content broadcast through digital television (DTV) signals.

An unauthorized public broadcast of one person's creative by someone else is one level of bad.  Presenting it in such a way as to imply the support of the creator is a deeper level of bad IMO.  Imagine if Psystar publicly broadcasted the copyright protected material of Apple that made it look like Steve Jobs was telling the world to go out and purchase Psystar clones.  With this picture in mind, I hope you can believe me that I'd be the first one screaming about how unbelievably shitty it was.  Also, I would scream even louder at those who were ambivalent about it.  But for those who actually supported it, I would spend all the time I could explaining why I felt the way I did, since at least they care about something.

Additionally, Apple is no artist.  Apple is a publicly held corporation that produces hardware, software, and is a reseller for other people's art.  Apple sells music but that's as close to art as they get.  Apple has never in its history created anything that you can refer to as art.  Preferring the style of one piece of hardware over another is a ridiculous justification for redefining your personal preference as non-hardware, or anything other than hardware - regardless of the degree of aesthetics.  Completely irrelevant.  Totally and completely and entirely and in every way irrelevant.  Mind numbing irrelevance ROFLMAO 

Apple knows this very well.  Otherwise they would mention it but they don't and never have.  Now of course there might be some commercial with Starbucks Joe saying "wow dude, this looks like fucking art man.  Dood, man, art."  But here's what Apple says about what they are and what they do.  Bold is itto:

Quote
Apple ignited the personal computer revolution in the 1970s with the Apple II and reinvented the personal computer in the 1980s with the Macintosh. Today, Apple continues to lead the industry in innovation with its award-winning computers, OS X operating system and iLife and professional applications. Apple is also spearheading the digital media revolution with its iPod portable music and video players and iTunes online store, and has entered the mobile phone market with its revolutionary iPhone.

Sorry if I seem so firm about this but I kinda am.  Claiming that Apple produces art is really nuts man, in a nutty insane sort of way.  Then attempting to parallel this false assertion with actual art, claiming therefore that Apple is being denied the fair legal protections enjoyed by other similar entities  Huh? Roll Eyes ROFLMAO  Well this just makes me wanna do the Macerena, in a Macerena sort of way Wink

The following performance art clip will clarify everything: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlzwuFkn88U
Logged

I would love to change the world, but they won't give me the source code.
perkiset
Olde World Hacker
Administrator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 10096



View Profile
« Reply #5 on: November 03, 2009, 04:48:02 PM »

Thanks for the post meng.

First off, by "art" I mean in the form of, like "original art" as pertains to legal, not necessarily art like painting. But in essence, IP is IP, so I don't know that I see the difference.  Apple is a publicly held corporation that creates IP (among other). You say this is irrelevant - I would assert, that it is so only because you don't see a corporations IP as protected in the same way that you see a person's IP as protected.

Sidenote: A really important feature of our current government that I'd really like to see overturned is the personhood of corporations. This little known bag of sh!t makes it so that corporations essentially have the same rights as We The People ... even so far as freedom of speech and other really controversial notions. IMO this actually is the doom of Democracy unless we straighten that out, but I digress. This is part of the problem, but is also a really important part of having some form of ownership/control over what you create.

You see "art" as protected. I see that as a problem. "That's not art to me." Boom, controversy. That's why the notion of IP and why the laws are more broad. Art, to me, is no different than any other form of IP. You say that Apple, by virtue of not letting everyone into how OS-X was made, "stops children from learning to read." (I get the analogy). I assert that Apple doesn't want you to understand how OS-X is made any more than General Motors wants you to get into their computer control system and modify how a car works. Or how McDonalds makes secret sauce. Is secret sauce art? If not, why does it deserve protection? Should it be open-sourced so that everyone can evaluate it, learn from it and extend it?

I know the next argument is that, well, it's not illegal to expose GM's control code for their cars. Or post the recipe for secret sauce on the internet. But I'll betcha if you did, there'd be some shit slung your way. I just don't think it's been tested in the same way that software has/is.

How then, do you see something you/I create in software as different than Monty Python? Or secret sauce? Or OS-X? What is it that makes it so different for you? (f'reals question) ... is it incorporation? Is it that it's created by committee? Is it a fundamental notion that software is different, and if so, how and why?
Logged

It is now believed, that after having lived in one compound with 3 wives and never leaving the house for 5 years, Bin Laden called the U.S. Navy Seals himself.
isthisthingon
Global Moderator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2879



View Profile
« Reply #6 on: November 03, 2009, 07:07:23 PM »

OMG dude I'm rolling  ROFLMAO ROFLMAO ROFLMAO

F'reals man.  I truly believe that software is different than sauce.  Even secret sauce.  Possibly even top-secret sauce.  Open sauce?

Here's what I believe is missing from the equation, in addition to the fact that as soon as you add alcohol you no longer are required to list the ingredients in your product.  I believe you might unconsciously confuse "tastes like" with "is."  Something could even taste better than something else that is A while the "better" tasting other is still B.  It's because of this that it's so difficult to really see.  You see, art in expression has zilch to do with art as legally defined.  Therefore I could sit and wow for hours about the most beautiful piece of "art" that's legally never in a million years going to be anything other than a tractor.  It's an absolutely beautiful yellow art-tractor.  However, it still must abide by the rules of the road.

Intellectual property is not art.  IP is a broad umbrella that happens to include elements of art, along with many others.  This mechanism has been used very successfully to limit our freedoms.  We even goosestep along with the IP enforcers chanting slogans of fairness while cursing those who oppose this "defense of the innocent."

IP is largely a perverted form of legalized mind rape.  Well I think that about covers all the various forms of mind rape Wink  I consider mental slavery to be in the same neighborhood as mind rape but rape has such a zing to it.  But in any event I couldn't possibly do a better job of explaining such a subtly imposed form of legalized mental slavery than this fine gentleman:

Quote
Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society. It would be curious then, if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property. If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property.

Thomas Jefferson 1813, The Founders' Constitution (http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_8s12.html)

And a more modern treatment in the wiki for IP:

Quote
The term itself
Although the term is in wide use, some critics reject the term intellectual property altogether. Richard Stallman argues that it "systematically distorts and confuses these issues, and its use was and is promoted by those who gain from this confusion." He claims that the term "operates as a catch-all to lump together disparate laws [which] originated separately, evolved differently, cover different activities, have different rules, and raise different public policy issues."[15] These critics advocate referring to copyrights, patents and trademarks ***in the singular*** and warn against abstracting disparate laws into a collective term.

The laws
Some critics of intellectual property point at intellectual monopolies as harming health, preventing progress, and benefiting concentrated interests to the detriment of the masses,[16][17] and argue that the public interest is harmed by ever expansive monopolies in the form of copyright extensions, software patents and business method patents.  Other criticism of intellectual property law concerns the tendency of the protections of intellectual property to expand, both in duration and in scope. The trend has been toward longer copyright protection[18] (raising fears that it may some day be eternal[19][20][21][22]). In addition, the developers and controllers of items of intellectual property have sought to bring more items under the protection. Patents have been granted for living organisms,[23] and colors have been trademarked[24]. Because they are systems of government-granted monopolies copyrights, patents, and trademarks are called intellectual monopoly privileges, (IMP) a topic on which several academics, including Birgitte Andersen[25] and Thomas Alured Faunce[26] have written.
[/color]

Quote
How then, do you see something you/I create in software as different than Monty Python? Or secret sauce? Or OS-X? What is it that makes it so different for you? (f'reals question) ... is it incorporation? Is it that it's created by committee? Is it a fundamental notion that software is different, and if so, how and why?

[See Thomas Jefferson]

It's tough to really get your mind around, in all absolute seriousness.  I'm not just happy to, but I feel almost honor-bound to spend time attempting to convey what has taken me so many years to really grasp.  If anyone at any time reads this and has the slightest "ah-ha" moment as a result, then perhaps I was able to give something back.  It takes energy, clarity and the loss of approval to challenge accepted beliefs such as the legalized entitlement of ideas.  And the ROI is definitely in the red Wink

Courage declines membership to the house of approval but will gladly attend its potlucks.

Quote
Thanks for the post meng.

Yo  Smiley  It's like a little brain Thigh MasterTM break.
Logged

I would love to change the world, but they won't give me the source code.
nop_90
Global Moderator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2203


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: November 03, 2009, 10:30:41 PM »

Whether it is "art" or "intellectual property" has nothing to do with your guys argument.
It is a simple case of copyright.

The mona lisa is art. I could take a picture of the mona lisa, paste it onto a nude body.
Then use it to advert my porn site. "Mona is smiling because she just got corn holed up the ass", Click here to see more pics of mona getting corn holed.
Why ?, because the copyright expired ages ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Franklin_Stores notice the name Ben Franklin, even using his saying. Legal. Why because copy right expired.

Now if i would take Donald Duck. It still has a copy right. Hence unless i have bought rights from disney .....
Monty Python same story.

If I take perks pic now and use it to advert my gay porn site, illegal, infringing on perks "copyright".
But using my handy dandy time machine I zip 150 years into the future, where perks is long dead, I can now use it to advert my gay porn site since they copyright has expired.

Apple has already lost the "copyright" part of the law suit against pystar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psystar_Corporation
On February 5, 2009, Psystar won a round as a modified abuse of copyright claim against Apple under Judge William Alsup, opening the door to a potential nullification of the Apple-only hardware rule in Apple's EULA.[14]

The question is Apple's EULA legal and binding.

I just googled "george washington" advertising.
http://www.postadvertising.com/post/2008/11/26/George-Washington-Leads-the-Charge-for-Boost-Mobile.aspx
Some dump add with Washington driving a car with a mobile.
Appear to be pretty tasteless.
Legal since he been dead a long time. John Wayne driving car etc illegal.
U get the idea Smiley




Logged
isthisthingon
Global Moderator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2879



View Profile
« Reply #8 on: November 03, 2009, 11:45:29 PM »

Quote
"Mona is smiling because she just got corn holed up the ass", Click here to see more pics of mona getting corn holed.

 ROFLMAO  click that ass nop, click it till it 404's on you ROFLMAO

Quote
The mona lisa is art. I could take a picture of the mona lisa, paste it onto a nude body.
Then use it to advert my porn site. ... Why ?, because the copyright expired ages ago.

@Why: the expiration and your oil painting fetish ROFLMAO

But if we don't keep an eye on things shit's gonna get worse: Supreme Court Upholds Copyright Term Extension http://www.copyright.gov/pr/eldred.html.  The "Apples" of the world will do anything and everything in their power to make copyrights permanent and as punitively binding as possible.  They would impose draconian measures if they could for anyone winding up with a few dollars that they determine should be in their pockets.  Apple happily trades the knowledge and education the world would receive in exchange for their profits and market domination.  But DAMN baby doesn't that new iWidget sync nicely with my iLife while I'm taking an iCrap??  Yikes we're out of iDeodorizer.

Microsoft has one of the most "interesting" and legally binding policies in this field as well.  At any time when someone is on the Microsoft campus in Redmond, WA, for whatever reason, any and all ideas, discoveries, or other "IP" that occurs on premises becomes the legal property of Microsoft.  Your thoughts, if expressed in any way, and are deemed as creative ideas with potential business value, belong to them.  Intellectual property at its core.  And the biggest proponents are the worst thieves of them all.  Thanks for the OS Xerox Devilish  We'll just go ahead and make sure nobody ELSE ever steals ideas again Roll Eyes

And recently in congress: "Actually, Sonny wanted the term of copyright protection to last forever. I am informed by staff that such a change would violate the Constitution. ... As you know, there is also [then-MPAA president] Jack Valenti's proposal for term to last forever less one day. Perhaps the Committee may look at that next Congress." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act#cite_note-5)  This is also known as the Mickey Mouse Protection Act, since Disney would love nothing more than to make copyright protection permanent.  As it stands, the real issue is that the expiration must extend beyond the life of the creator by 50 years.  That's the real reason you can gang rape Mona, since she's dead.

I'm a huge copyleft fan, as I'm sure everyone here knows well by now:

  • 0. the freedom to use the work
  • 1. the freedom to study the work
  • 2. the freedom to copy and share the work with others
  • 3. the freedom to modify the work, and the freedom to distribute modified and therefore derivative works

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft
Logged

I would love to change the world, but they won't give me the source code.
nop_90
Global Moderator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2203


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: November 04, 2009, 04:33:15 AM »

@isthisthingon
I agree with you, but the situation is not as glum as you point out.
Basically the laws have not kept up with "modern" technology.

This is nothing new.
Rather ironic that 200+ years ago, USA broke away from mother britain because of unfair taxes.
And yet it is USA and EU which are pushing the unfair "taxes" or levies on the rest of the world (and thier own people for that matter).

Back when edison invented the phonograph, majority of the cost of a record was the actual physical record.
Today an artist writes a song. Lets say he sells it on the internet. What is his actual cost for replicating the song, virtually nothing.
So when the majority of the "price" of a product is pure profit, then that means it is economical to steal the product.

Ironically the thing which large companies promoted to increase profits globalisation, is going to work against them.
I always laff my head off when the president of PH for example talks about how she is increasing the fight on piracy,
Meanwhile go to any market which is ussually next to the police station, and u will see the latest DVD for sale at $1-2 a copy Smiley

If the americans and EU actually manage to force these countries to crack down on piracy .....
Well it is a full fledged industry here. It provides countless jobs etc.
As more and more people end up in jail or are fined, well basically you will end up with the same thing that happened in Libya for example.

My father worked in Libya during the early 50s. He had forced worked in Texas and Canada then followed the oil patch to Libya.
In the 50s Libya was little more then a US puppet state. There was the huge Wheelus air base and the British military bases.
Because of the oil discoveries, the few rich got richer, and the poor got poorer.
To make matters worse, many of the soldiers on the base where black americans.
After being abused in USA so badly (my dad was in Tx during segregation), the black soldiers would abuse the locals.
If a local was walking on the side walk the black american would shove him off the side walk.
Again my father did not fault the black american, he was a victom also. Kinda like someone abuses you, so you go home and kick your dog.

No wonder when some guy like Quadaffi came along, they where happy to back him and throw out the americans and british.
Then the americans and brits can not figure out why does libya support terrorism against USA etc.
Yah Quadaffi is a tin pot dictator and tyrant But things for the average person are better under him then before.
No i do not support Quadaffi.
But lets see. Someone gets kicked 3 times a day. Then a new leader comes along, and he only kicks me once a day. Hmm i wonder who i will support.

Point is that Apple,MS,Google and who ever should clean up thier act on thier own accord.
In the case of Libya, maybe if the oil companies had not been so greedy Quadaffi would not have gotten in power.
Consquence is these oil companies lost everything.
Logged
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Perkiset's Place Home   Best of The Cache   phpMyIDE: MySQL Stored Procedures, Functions & Triggers
Politics @ Perkiset's   Pinkhat's Perspective   
cache
mart
coder
programmers
ajax
php
javascript
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.2 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC
Seo4Smf v0.2 © Webmaster's Talks


Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!