"STOCKHOLM (Reuters) - Sweden's Pirate Party, striking a chord with voters who want more free content on the Internet, won a seat in the European Parliament, early results showed on Sunday.
The Pirate Party captured 7.1 percent of votes in Sweden in the Europe-wide ballot, enough to give it a single seat. The party wants to deregulate copyright, abolish the patent system and reduce surveillance on the Internet."
Think about that for a moment. No patents, no copyrights. So people who spend years and thousands or millions of dollars for research can immediately have their ideas pilfered by people who spent $0.
Net effect would be that most people/companies simply stop developing new technology and entertainment.
Dumb.
Think about it, for any more than just 'a moment' and the net effect would be you'd realize what you just said was hyperbolic nonsense.
If you'd think about it for a moment, you'd realize you're an idiot for thinking so. No one works for free. Companies don't spend millions to develop drugs or vaccines to give it away. That's what the 7 year patent window is for.
Whether or not you're a fan of big drug companies (record companies, publishers, whatever) is irrelevant.
Say you sell records. You spend a bunch of money up front to amass a great collection of raers to sell on ebay. Then you sell all your raers, but Paypal says, "Nah, we're not going to pay you." And they do it every time, and its legal. What happens? You quit turning up raers in the field and selling them on ebay, because there's nothing in it for you.
So flip it: no patents, so companies that spend millions to develop drugs have no protection when it's time to sell it. Say they need to sell it at $70 a pop to cover their research expenses; immediately a generic drug company comes along and sells it for $5. No one will buy it from the company that developed it at $70. They're out their millions and can't recoup their costs. Net effect: they quit developing new drugs.
"STOCKHOLM (Reuters) - Sweden's Pirate Party, striking a chord with voters who want more free content on the Internet, won a seat in the European Parliament, early results showed on Sunday.
The Pirate Party captured 7.1 percent of votes in Sweden in the Europe-wide ballot, enough to give it a single seat. The party wants to deregulate copyright, abolish the patent system and reduce surveillance on the Internet."
Think about that for a moment. No patents, no copyrights. So people who spend years and thousands or millions of dollars for research can immediately have their ideas pilfered by people who spent $0.
Net effect would be that most people/companies simply stop developing new technology and entertainment.
"STOCKHOLM (Reuters) - Sweden's Pirate Party, striking a chord with voters who want more free content on the Internet, won a seat in the European Parliament, early results showed on Sunday.
The Pirate Party captured 7.1 percent of votes in Sweden in the Europe-wide ballot, enough to give it a single seat. The party wants to deregulate copyright, abolish the patent system and reduce surveillance on the Internet."
Think about that for a moment. No patents, no copyrights. So people who spend years and thousands or millions of dollars for research can immediately have their ideas pilfered by people who spent $0.
Net effect would be that most people/companies simply stop developing new technology and entertainment.
Dumb.
Think about it, for any more than just 'a moment' and the net effect would be you'd realize what you just said was hyperbolic nonsense.
If you'd think about it for a moment, you'd realize you're an idiot for thinking so. No one works for free. Companies don't spend millions to develop drugs or vaccines to give it away. That's what the 7 year patent window is for.
Whether or not you're a fan of big drug companies (record companies, publishers, whatever) is irrelevant.
Say you sell records. You spend a bunch of money up front to amass a great collection of raers to sell on ebay. Then you sell all your raers, but Paypal says, "Nah, we're not going to pay you." And they do it every time, and its legal. What happens? You quit turning up raers in the field and selling them on ebay, because there's nothing in it for you.
So flip it: no patents, so companies that spend millions to develop drugs have no protection when it's time to sell it. Say they need to sell it at $70 a pop to cover their research expenses; immediately a generic drug company comes along and sells it for $5. No one will buy it from the company that developed it at $70. They're out their millions and can't recoup their costs. Net effect: they quit developing new drugs.
And you call that hyperbolic nonsense?
LOL.
Yes, yes I do.
They only have one[/b] MEP dude, so I think your big drug companies, and confusing record selling analogies, are safe for now. So forgive me if I see your response to this purely as reactionary. As DOR pointed out, their position (which I don't think you really understand) is in antithesis of how things are, and how it appears to be progressing. But god forbid anyone should stand in opposition to such things, or even encourage debate. If that happened apparently the world would stop turning.
"STOCKHOLM (Reuters) - Sweden's Pirate Party, striking a chord with voters who want more free content on the Internet, won a seat in the European Parliament, early results showed on Sunday.
The Pirate Party captured 7.1 percent of votes in Sweden in the Europe-wide ballot, enough to give it a single seat. The party wants to deregulate copyright, abolish the patent system and reduce surveillance on the Internet."
Think about that for a moment. No patents, no copyrights. So people who spend years and thousands or millions of dollars for research can immediately have their ideas pilfered by people who spent $0.
Net effect would be that most people/companies simply stop developing new technology and entertainment.
Dumb.
Think about it, for any more than just 'a moment' and the net effect would be you'd realize what you just said was hyperbolic nonsense.
If you'd think about it for a moment, you'd realize you're an idiot for thinking so. No one works for free. Companies don't spend millions to develop drugs or vaccines to give it away. That's what the 7 year patent window is for.
Whether or not you're a fan of big drug companies (record companies, publishers, whatever) is irrelevant.
Say you sell records. You spend a bunch of money up front to amass a great collection of raers to sell on ebay. Then you sell all your raers, but Paypal says, "Nah, we're not going to pay you." And they do it every time, and its legal. What happens? You quit turning up raers in the field and selling them on ebay, because there's nothing in it for you.
So flip it: no patents, so companies that spend millions to develop drugs have no protection when it's time to sell it. Say they need to sell it at $70 a pop to cover their research expenses; immediately a generic drug company comes along and sells it for $5. No one will buy it from the company that developed it at $70. They're out their millions and can't recoup their costs. Net effect: they quit developing new drugs.
And you call that hyperbolic nonsense?
LOL.
Yes, yes I do.
They only have one[/b] MEP dude, so I think your big drug companies, and confusing record selling analogies, are safe for now. So forgive me if I see your response to this purely as reactionary. As DOR pointed out, their position (which I don't think you really understand) is in antithesis of how things are, and how it appears to be progressing. But god forbid anyone should stand in opposition to such things, or even encourage debate. If that happened apparently the world would stop turning.
Debate all day - the above is my take on it. As someone who has published, I certainly wouldn't have bothered if I knew anyone could immediately turn around and undercut my cover price by cutting me out of the equation. I would make nothing for months worth of work.
So I speak from the perspective of someone who in theory would have something to lose with no copyrights/patents.
And as pointed out in a prior post, people on the other side aren't saints either. But I think overall the disincentive is worse than the incentive.
"STOCKHOLM (Reuters) - Sweden's Pirate Party, striking a chord with voters who want more free content on the Internet, won a seat in the European Parliament, early results showed on Sunday.
The Pirate Party captured 7.1 percent of votes in Sweden in the Europe-wide ballot, enough to give it a single seat. The party wants to deregulate copyright, abolish the patent system and reduce surveillance on the Internet."
Think about that for a moment. No patents, no copyrights. So people who spend years and thousands or millions of dollars for research can immediately have their ideas pilfered by people who spent $0.
Net effect would be that most people/companies simply stop developing new technology and entertainment.
Dumb.
Think about it, for any more than just 'a moment' and the net effect would be you'd realize what you just said was hyperbolic nonsense.
If you'd think about it for a moment, you'd realize you're an idiot for thinking so. No one works for free. Companies don't spend millions to develop drugs or vaccines to give it away. That's what the 7 year patent window is for.
Whether or not you're a fan of big drug companies (record companies, publishers, whatever) is irrelevant.
Say you sell records. You spend a bunch of money up front to amass a great collection of raers to sell on ebay. Then you sell all your raers, but Paypal says, "Nah, we're not going to pay you." And they do it every time, and its legal. What happens? You quit turning up raers in the field and selling them on ebay, because there's nothing in it for you.
So flip it: no patents, so companies that spend millions to develop drugs have no protection when it's time to sell it. Say they need to sell it at $70 a pop to cover their research expenses; immediately a generic drug company comes along and sells it for $5. No one will buy it from the company that developed it at $70. They're out their millions and can't recoup their costs. Net effect: they quit developing new drugs.
And you call that hyperbolic nonsense?
LOL.
Yes, yes I do.
They only have one[/b] MEP dude, so I think your big drug companies, and confusing record selling analogies, are safe for now. So forgive me if I see your response to this purely as reactionary. As DOR pointed out, their position (which I don't think you really understand) is in antithesis of how things are, and how it appears to be progressing. But god forbid anyone should stand in opposition to such things, or even encourage debate. If that happened apparently the world would stop turning.
Debate all day - the above is my take on it. As someone who has published, I certainly wouldn't have bothered if I knew anyone could immediately turn around and undercut my cover price by cutting me out of the equation. I would make nothing for months worth of work.
So I speak from the perspective of someone who in theory would have something to lose with no copyrights/patents.
And as pointed out in a prior post, people on the other side aren't saints either. But I think overall the disincentive is worse than the incentive.
Great for you. But please be serious. This idea that people wouldn't create unless they got paid is complete crap. Even more so in the Arts field.
Corps selling meds for hundreds to thousands of dollars which can save millions of lives and made for pennies...
I'm glad to see countries like Brazil telling them to go to hell.
Banting sold the patent for insulin for a buck, so the meds could be affordable by all. It ended up saving millions of people lives.
They only have one[/b] MEP dude, so I think your big drug companies, and confusing record selling analogies, are safe for now. So forgive me if I see your response to this purely as reactionary. As DOR pointed out, their position (which I don't think you really understand) is in antithesis of how things are, and how it appears to be progressing. But god forbid anyone should stand in opposition to such things, or even encourage debate. If that happened apparently the world would stop turning.
Debate all day - the above is my take on it. As someone who has published, I certainly wouldn't have bothered if I knew anyone could immediately turn around and undercut my cover price by cutting me out of the equation. I would make nothing for months worth of work.
So I speak from the perspective of someone who in theory would have something to lose with no copyrights/patents.
And as pointed out in a prior post, people on the other side aren't saints either. But I think overall the disincentive is worse than the incentive.
I wouldn't agree with a completely hardline stance, but I don't see it as a black and white issue either.
I'm sure encyclopedia salesmen hate the internet, but I personally think WIkipedia (for all its obvious shortcomings) is one of the better things to come out of the internet boom.
As far as music/movies or anything else that can easily be traded electronically, that horse has already bolted. It's immaterial what your personal ethical take on it is really. There are two ways forward. Find a new business model for making money off such things. Or second, they closed down the internet (or at least run it like a fascist state).
As DOR already said, human endeavor doesn't begin and end with the $$. Plenty of great inventors made very little from their creations and discoveries, the same can be said for many great artists.
Unfortunately we're moving to the point where everything tangible will have a price because it's owned by someone. I find that much scarier a prospect than a few bloated record, or movie executives loosing their livelihood.
When it comes to things like medicines, drugs treatments, green technology, basically anything that will improve the life of mankind, I see no reason why such things can't be shared more fairly. I think it's despicable that companies will put profits before human lives on the scale that they can now. The US healthcare giants make larger net profits than most, yet they're happy to let thousands of Africans die in pain from Aids because their governments can't pay the asking price for the drug treatments. Is the 'overall the disincentive worse than the incentive' in that case?
They only have one[/b] MEP dude, so I think your big drug companies, and confusing record selling analogies, are safe for now. So forgive me if I see your response to this purely as reactionary. As DOR pointed out, their position (which I don't think you really understand) is in antithesis of how things are, and how it appears to be progressing. But god forbid anyone should stand in opposition to such things, or even encourage debate. If that happened apparently the world would stop turning.
Debate all day - the above is my take on it. As someone who has published, I certainly wouldn't have bothered if I knew anyone could immediately turn around and undercut my cover price by cutting me out of the equation. I would make nothing for months worth of work.
So I speak from the perspective of someone who in theory would have something to lose with no copyrights/patents.
And as pointed out in a prior post, people on the other side aren't saints either. But I think overall the disincentive is worse than the incentive.
I wouldn't agree with a completely hardline stance, but I don't see it as a black and white issue either.
I'm sure encyclopedia salesmen hate the internet, but I personally think WIkipedia (for all its obvious shortcomings) is one of the better things to come out of the internet boom.
As far as music/movies or anything else that can easily be traded electronically, that horse has already bolted. It's immaterial what your personal ethical take on it is really. There are two ways forward. Find a new business model for making money off such things. Or second, they closed down the internet (or at least run it like a fascist state).
As DOR already said, human endeavor doesn't begin and end with the $$. Plenty of great inventors made very little from their creations and discoveries, the same can be said for many great artists.
Unfortunately we're moving to the point where everything tangible will have a price because it's owned by someone. I find that much scarier a prospect than a few bloated record, or movie executives loosing their livelihood.
When it comes to things like medicines, drugs treatments, green technology, basically anything that will improve the life of mankind, I see no reason why such things can't be shared more fairly. I think it's despicable that companies will put profits before human lives on the scale that they can now. The US healthcare giants make larger net profits than most, yet they're happy to let thousands of Africans die in pain from Aids because their governments can't pay the asking price for the drug treatments. Is the 'overall the disincentive worse than the incentive' in that case?
I'm not saying absolutely nothing will be produced in any capacity, but it would be cut back. There are people now who do things for the hell of it. But they are a smaller percentage.
As far as the Africans go, is it fair now? No, it sucks.
But disincentive/incentive? You could look at it as the glass is half full: at least some people get to make use of it. And there are many technological breakthroughs that simply can't be done in an efficient manner by private individuals. Who is going to spend years of their lives working full time for free? They still have to eat.
So, I look at the current arrangement as a necessary evil.
As far as arts go, I think that's a much easier field to work in a casual or avocational fashion. I think, at least from the production side of it, the lower cost of production (i.e. due to computers) will partially offset the loss in corporate interest.
Comments
If you'd think about it for a moment, you'd realize you're an idiot for thinking so. No one works for free. Companies don't spend millions to develop drugs or vaccines to give it away. That's what the 7 year patent window is for.
Whether or not you're a fan of big drug companies (record companies, publishers, whatever) is irrelevant.
Say you sell records. You spend a bunch of money up front to amass a great collection of raers to sell on ebay. Then you sell all your raers, but Paypal says, "Nah, we're not going to pay you." And they do it every time, and its legal. What happens? You quit turning up raers in the field and selling them on ebay, because there's nothing in it for you.
So flip it: no patents, so companies that spend millions to develop drugs have no protection when it's time to sell it. Say they need to sell it at $70 a pop to cover their research expenses; immediately a generic drug company comes along and sells it for $5. No one will buy it from the company that developed it at $70. They're out their millions and can't recoup their costs. Net effect: they quit developing new drugs.
And you call that hyperbolic nonsense? Bullshit.
I didn't say they were saints. Eliminating patents and copyrights isn't going to cure asshole corporations.
LOL.
Yes, yes I do.
They only have one[/b] MEP dude, so I think your big drug companies, and confusing record selling analogies, are safe for now. So forgive me if I see your response to this purely as reactionary.
As DOR pointed out, their position (which I don't think you really understand) is in antithesis of how things are, and how it appears to be progressing. But god forbid anyone should stand in opposition to such things, or even encourage debate. If that happened apparently the world would stop turning.
Debate all day - the above is my take on it. As someone who has published, I certainly wouldn't have bothered if I knew anyone could immediately turn around and undercut my cover price by cutting me out of the equation. I would make nothing for months worth of work.
So I speak from the perspective of someone who in theory would have something to lose with no copyrights/patents.
And as pointed out in a prior post, people on the other side aren't saints either. But I think overall the disincentive is worse than the incentive.
Great for you. But please be serious. This idea that people wouldn't create unless they got paid is complete crap. Even more so in the Arts field.
Corps selling meds for hundreds to thousands of dollars which can save millions of lives and made for pennies...
I'm glad to see countries like Brazil telling them to go to hell.
Banting sold the patent for insulin for a buck, so the meds could be affordable by all. It ended up saving millions of people lives.
I wouldn't agree with a completely hardline stance, but I don't see it as a black and white issue either.
I'm sure encyclopedia salesmen hate the internet, but I personally think WIkipedia (for all its obvious shortcomings) is one of the better things to come out of the internet boom.
As far as music/movies or anything else that can easily be traded electronically, that horse has already bolted. It's immaterial what your personal ethical take on it is really. There are two ways forward. Find a new business model for making money off such things. Or second, they closed down the internet (or at least run it like a fascist state).
As DOR already said, human endeavor doesn't begin and end with the $$. Plenty of great inventors made very little from their creations and discoveries, the same can be said for many great artists.
Unfortunately we're moving to the point where everything tangible will have a price because it's owned by someone. I find that much scarier a prospect than a few bloated record, or movie executives loosing their livelihood.
When it comes to things like medicines, drugs treatments, green technology, basically anything that will improve the life of mankind, I see no reason why such things can't be shared more fairly.
I think it's despicable that companies will put profits before human lives on the scale that they can now. The US healthcare giants make larger net profits than most, yet they're happy to let thousands of Africans die in pain from Aids because their governments can't pay the asking price for the drug treatments. Is the 'overall the disincentive worse than the incentive' in that case?
I'm not saying absolutely nothing will be produced in any capacity, but it would be cut back. There are people now who do things for the hell of it. But they are a smaller percentage.
As far as the Africans go, is it fair now? No, it sucks.
But disincentive/incentive? You could look at it as the glass is half full: at least some people get to make use of it. And there are many technological breakthroughs that simply can't be done in an efficient manner by private individuals. Who is going to spend years of their lives working full time for free? They still have to eat.
So, I look at the current arrangement as a necessary evil.
As far as arts go, I think that's a much easier field to work in a casual or avocational fashion. I think, at least from the production side of it, the lower cost of production (i.e. due to computers) will partially offset the loss in corporate interest.