This is the quality of intellectual property law that provides an economic foundation for anti-Star Trek: the ability to tell others how to use copies of an idea that you “own”. In order to get access to a replicator, you have to buy one from a company that licenses you the right to use a replicator. (Someone can’t give you a replicator or make one with their replicator, because that would violate their license). What’s more, every time you make something with the replicator, you also need to pay a licensing fee to whoever owns the rights to that particular thing. So if the Captain Jean-Luc Picard of anti-Star Trek wanted “tea, Earl Grey, hot”, he would have to pay the company that has copyrighted the replicator pattern for hot Earl Grey tea. (Presumably some other company owns the rights to cold tea.)
...Thus it seems that the main problem confronting the society of anti-Star Trek is the problem of effective demand: that is, how to ensure that people are able to earn enough money to be able to pay the licensing fees on which private profit depends. Of course, this isn’t so different from the problem that confronted industrial capitalism, but it becomes more severe as human labor is increasingly squeezed out of the system, and human beings become superfluous as elements of production, even as they remain necessary as consumers.
Why people are supporting changes in the law that will help the Goliaths of this world over the Davids, I don't know. People cite Disney as a behemoth who profits from its 'monopoly' and attack it because of the market power its trademarks give it. But imagine Disney made uber powerful by a decline in IP laws. South Park is a funny show. But with no IP protection, Disney could have completely copied South Park, put it on its own channel and used its superior marketing arm to wipe out the original--to our detriment.I don't think you're thinking this all the way through. Disney could have made their own south park. But they wouldn't be able to make much money off of it, because their clones wouldn't have any copyright protection. And on top of that, people would only download them if they were better then the Parker/Stone versions, in which case we'd actually be better off.
Really? Then why aren't there three versions of Mythbusters on TV? Why isn't there a 'Christian' version of South Park designed to undermine the original? And why aren't there 4 people pretending to be Lady GaGa and so hawking themelves out on the concert circuit?Sounds like you're confusing copyright and trademark. You couldn't call a show Mythbusters because it's a violation of trademark law, not copyright. And on top of that, people want to see Adam and Jamie. Not some random assholes pretending to be them. But there is nothing stopping anyone from cloning the concept of the show.
Ironmouth: ...why aren't there three versions of Mythbusters on TV? Why isn't there a 'Christian' version of South Park designed to undermine the original? And why aren't there 4 people pretending to be Lady GaGa and so hawking themelves out on the concert circuit? And why aren't there 15 things calling themselves the iPhone, all indistinguishable from the original all sold out of "Apple Stores" completely indistinguishable from one another?Counterfeit goods of all sorts are manufactured and sold profitably, in spite of the law. Entertainments of all sorts are conceived as blatant copy-cats of each other all the time.
Tea.Sorry, but under the provisions of the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act of 1998 Extension Act of 2214, "Hot" and all of its derivative works are universally and permanently copyright Mousecorp Incorporated.
Open Source.
Hot.
Ironmouth: You over estimate the requirements. The entire chain does not need to be replicated. It just has to look like Apple. It is indistinguishable from the original.If all the features of the buying and using experience aren't duplicated, the end product won't work the same way as the genuine article, and it therefore will not be indistinguishable. If it's not indistinguishable, it won't be a status symbol and mark of affluence like the original but rather an object of derision, a marker of the clueless. So the knock-off will have to be sold more cheaply, making it distinct from the genuine article, a marker of the owner's lower economic status, and a low-margin sales proposition all at once. Which makes the very expensive enterprise of attempting to copy it exactly a ridiculous thing to attempt in the first place.
You can't with one breath say that it is done now with ease and then say--its so hard to do it. Those are mutually incompatible positions.What I'm trying to say is: In some cases blatant copy-catting is easy and rampant (music, television, movies) and legal. In some cases outright counterfeiting is easy and rampant (fashion, digital media, auto and aircraft parts) in spite of IP law. In some cases (smart-phones, automobiles, individual entertainment acts) counterfeiting would be ridiculously hard and probably wouldn't happen even without the IP laws that supposedly prevent it.
lodurr: The holistic back story don't mean sheeit, if (as stipulated) there's no observable difference between the artifacts.There is no "holistic back story" at all, even for the genuine article, as far as I know. That's not why the complexity of the process is important.
I've always had the sense that the valiant warriors against IP just wanted free music. Why else is there a sudden fight for who controls Mickey Mouse?Trademark law
The same people who are doing it now, except that a lack of IP would make it quite difficult for Apple to fight this. Whose going to stop the "Apple" Store? You over estimate the requirements.In China? No one You can buy an knockoff "iPhone" today if you want too.
Well, the easy means weren't there until Napster etc came along. I, for one, had a hate on for big corporations and their copyright (ie: culture) control initiatives long before Napster.Christ you people. I was pirating mp3s 3 or 4 years before napster was even released. In fact I never even installed it. I had a limitless supply of mp3s on my local university's computer LAN
The idea that market forces will always send the best products to the top while keeping costs down assumes an efficient market with (near-)perfectly informed, rational consumers. When one party has a huge marketing arm and delivery system already set up (Disney and its TV channels), it has a clear advantage in its ability to make consumers aware of its product and to make its product easier to get hold of than its alternatives. Added to that, people aren't rational: when we see that something is becoming popular, we tend to jump on the bandwagon and favour that option over others.* So it seems likely that a quick-thinking organisation with deep pockets (oxymoron?) could very easily spot an interesting new idea, clone it and successfully claim the market niche as its own. metaBugsThey could make their own southpark clone. But they couldn't call it southpark. That's the thing.
« Older Why do people believe something even after it's be... | The Secret Bookstore... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 7:47 AM on July 15, 2011 [2 favorites]