The future of IP

[BoberFett]

Discussions of piracy seem to revolve around downloading music and movies. IP that is very transient in nature.

What happens when the line between media and the physical world gets blurred?

http://i.materialise.com/blog/entry/3d-printing-piracy-3d-printing-the-settlers-of-catan

When we develop the technology to create nearly unlimited physical goods, say someday we actually do invent the Star Trek replicator, are we still going to create artificial scarcity? Will we insist that people not be allowed to create their own goods even though scarcity could be a thing of the past?

Are IP owners the new "robber barons"?

http://www.publicknowledge.org/blog/3d-printing-settlers-catan-probably-not-illeg

Ever try to find parts for an old discontinued product? The manufacturer cleaned out their warehouse and threw everything out for that obsolete vacuum cleaner a decade ago, but it still works other than one tiny part. What do you do? Make your own part? Does that make you a pirate? Are you stealing their intellectual property?

 

[RabidMongoose]

Patents as they are right now would still apply even if you could create a nearly unlimited supply of physical goods. A patent would apply whether you create the good from a Star Trek replicator or not.

 

[JSt0rm]

seriously? When we have replicators to make unlimited goods?

 

[Ns1]

seriously? When we have replicators to make unlimited goods?

yeah I think when we have replicators to make unlimited goods, piracy will no longer be a concern because we'll have replicators to replicate all the money we need in order to pay for the goods we want, which we will then replicate because we have a replicator to make unlimited goods.

wait what?

 

[Atreus21]

IPv8? two hundred billion gazillion gazillion addresses? Every cell in everyone's body will have the entirety of IPv4 public space available to it.

 

[yllus]

If we can instantly replicate anything, then we'd not need a monetary system to begin with. Everyone would be rich and would own everything worth owning.

In today's terms, I think we can all agree that without a monetary incentive, the quality and quantity of "content" will decline. And I think if legal protections disappeared we'd also see more proprietary, intrusive and annoying implementations of DRM. All in all, I don't think copyright protections are a bad thing. They just need some tweaking to reflect the new reality of multi-device viewing.

 

[BoberFett]

seriously? When we have replicators to make unlimited goods?

Wow, what small thinkers. No surprise though, look at who is posting.

RTFA and come back, children.

 

[BoberFett]

Patents as they are right now would still apply even if you could create a nearly unlimited supply of physical goods. A patent would apply whether you create the good from a Star Trek replicator or not.

RTFA.

We're not talking about patented items. We're talking about trivial items. In this case there's no patent on a board game, it's not an invention, but thanks to 3D printers it can be created without the original designer being paid.

More goods available to more people is a good thing is it not? The wealth of society increases. Or are people who create something allowed to get wealthy at the expense of society?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

If we can instantly replicate anything, then we'd not need a monetary system to begin with. Everyone would be rich and would own everything worth owning.

In today's terms, I think we can all agree that without a monetary incentive, the quality and quantity of "content" will decline. And I think if legal protections disappeared we'd also see more proprietary, intrusive and annoying implementations of DRM. All in all, I don't think copyright protections are a bad thing. They just need some tweaking to reflect the new reality of multi-device viewing.

I'm fairly sure creative minds would still be working on things and there would still be a demand for it.

Not everyone is driven by profits, in fact, none of the best artists have ever been driven by profits, they never did get rich in their own lifetime.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

RTFA.

We're not talking about patented items. We're talking about trivial items. In this case there's no patent on a board game, it's not an invention, but thanks to 3D printers it can be created without the original designer being paid.

More goods available to more people is a good thing is it not? The wealth of society increases. Or are people who create something allowed to get wealthy at the expense of society?

If it can be done with food items and such (which should be trivial considering that it's just a reorganisation of readily available materials) it would be great.

Still doubt it could make Laphroaig taste like Laphroaig though so there is still the need for that.

 

[RabidMongoose]

RTFA.

We're not talking about patented items. We're talking about trivial items. In this case there's no patent on a board game, it's not an invention, but thanks to 3D printers it can be created without the original designer being paid.

More goods available to more people is a good thing is it not? The wealth of society increases. Or are people who create something allowed to get wealthy at the expense of society?

'Trivial' items can have patents on them, both of design and utility. Board games have been patented. Patents would still apply.

UTFL (understand the f law).

 

[cybrsage]

If you knew that spending 1000 hours creating something new meant you would not get paid for it because people could simply legally take what you created, would you bother to create it?

 

[JSt0rm]

Wow, what small thinkers. No surprise though, look at who is posting.

RTFA and come back, children.

Man you are so right.

I'm gonna go ahead and leave the "big thought" to a guy like you.

In fact when we have replicators I will replicate you so I can laugh at you in person.

 

[Texashiker]

If you knew that spending 1000 hours creating something new meant you would not get paid for it because people could simply legally take what you created, would you bother to create it?

The problem starts when companies try to take it a few steps past what you described.

Its like facebook trying to corner the internet market on the word "face".

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2373258,00.asp

If you open a website with the word "face" in the name, you might get yourself sued.

What right does a company have to copyright/trademark the word "face"? Think about that for a minute. Keep in mind the internet has been around for only a few short years.

In the real world, biomedical research firms are trying to patient cells produced naturally in the human body. In the next few years we will probably see challenges to who owns parts of your body.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/health/HealthRepublish_1252094.htm

Where do we draw the line? When companies are allowed to trademark everyday words like windows and face, what will the future hold for us in the next few years?

Want to read something scary, go read about nissan motors suing the owner of nissan.com.

 

[dank69]

The problem starts when companies try to take it a few steps past what you described.

Its like facebook trying to corner the internet market on the word "face".

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2373258,00.asp

If you open a website with the word "face" in the name, you might get yourself sued.

What right does a company have to copyright/trademark the word "face"? Think about that for a minute. Keep in mind the internet has been around for only a few short years.

In the real world, biomedical research firms are trying to patient cells produced naturally in the human body. In the next few years we will probably see challenges to who owns parts of your body.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/health/HealthRepublish_1252094.htm

Where do we draw the line? When companies are allowed to trademark everyday words like windows and face, what will the future hold for us in the next few years?

Want to read something scary, go read about nissan motors suing the owner of nissan.com.

:awe:

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

If you knew that spending 1000 hours creating something new meant you would not get paid for it because people could simply legally take what you created, would you bother to create it?

Name the five greatest artists of all times and then name one of them that actually got paid any decent amount for his works.

If everyone was able to make a decent living regardless, you'd find that there would be more good art as they wouldn't need to starve while creating it.

Do you know how little artistic freedom there is amongst those who are paid to produce it? i'd say it's about less than one tenth of a promille that is actually artistic freedom and 99.99999% what sells to the average idiot.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Man you are so right.

I'm gonna go ahead and leave the "big thought" to a guy like you.

In fact when we have replicators I will replicate you so I can laugh at you in person.

Milking the customers isn't the way to go, why don't you reply to me in the other thread and explain to me why i shouldn't pirate new movies.

 

[Genx87]

yeah I think when we have replicators to make unlimited goods, piracy will no longer be a concern because we'll have replicators to replicate all the money we need in order to pay for the goods we want, which we will then replicate because we have a replicator to make unlimited goods.

wait what?

Are you saying the US govt has a replicator?

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

This is a fairly significant issue and it's not limited to IP or Star Trek replicators. What do we do when we become so efficient at production that scarcity is virtually eliminated as well as the need for human labor? When goods have little-to-no subjective value and most human labor is economically unnecessary? Probably more importantly, what do we do as we approach that point? Do we keep trying to hammer the square peg of our current economic system into an ever-rounding hole?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

This is a fairly significant issue and it's not limited to IP or Star Trek replicators. What do we do when we become so efficient at production that scarcity is virtually eliminated as well as the need for human labor? When goods have little-to-no subjective value and most human labor is economically unnecessary? Probably more importantly, what do we do as we approach that point? Do we keep trying to hammer the square peg of our current economic system into an ever-rounding hole?

Nature has a way of fixing these things even when we do our best to fight it.

It's my firm belief that before this ever happens, the human race will be extinct.

Editrobably should have read your post before responding, independence of humans? The worst nightmare of our rulers, they would wage war against their own citizens to control it.

 

[JSt0rm]

Milking the customers isn't the way to go, why don't you reply to me in the other thread and explain to me why i shouldn't pirate new movies.

because i dont have time to respond to everyone?

Be a thief. Lord knows your not the only one.

 

[BoberFett]

I'm gonna go ahead and leave the "big thought" to a guy like you.

That's probably for the best. The biggest you seem to be able to think is "Waaaaah, pirates are on the interwebz stealing movies!"

 

[JSt0rm]

No I'm also thinking about sourcing bird sounds from Indonesia, corvettes, nuclear explosions, the sound the ropes make in a boxing ring and contact mic'ing plexiglass as it moves thru dirt.

 

[woolfe9999]

Name the five greatest artists of all times and then name one of them that actually got paid any decent amount for his works.

If everyone was able to make a decent living regardless, you'd find that there would be more good art as they wouldn't need to starve while creating it.

Do you know how little artistic freedom there is amongst those who are paid to produce it? i'd say it's about less than one tenth of a promille that is actually artistic freedom and 99.99999% what sells to the average idiot.

Yeah we'd probably still have some serious art without the profit motive, but purely commercial "art" has value as entertainment as well. That's something that would dry up very quickly without financial incentive.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Yeah we'd probably still have some serious art without the profit motive, but purely commercial "art" has value as entertainment as well. That's something that would dry up very quickly without financial incentive.

While somewhat true, i pretty much always watch older movies rather than new ones, which was the last really good movie you watched?

For me, i'll rather watch Fawlty towers reruns than sheit like "green lantern" or any of the other 32400 other movies in the same style that were released last year.

Porn would dry up faster than an old hooker though.