Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 17th Sep 2012 18:12 UTC
Legal "Nothing is original, says Kirby Ferguson, creator of Everything is a Remix. From Bob Dylan to Steve Jobs, he says our most celebrated creators borrow, steal and transform. Kirby Ferguson explores creativity in a world where 'everything is a remix'." In 9 minutes and 42 seconds, Ferguson explains in plain English why patent and copyright law is fundamentally broken.
Thread beginning with comment 535496
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: This is blasphemy
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 17th Sep 2012 19:18 UTC in reply to "This is blasphemy"
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

You clearly didn't listen to the talk AT ALL.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: This is blasphemy
by Tony Swash on Mon 17th Sep 2012 22:25 in reply to "RE: This is blasphemy"
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

I just don't get the point of this. Is the argument that because everything is connected to what came before that there is no such thing as intellectual property? Because if so it's a pretty silly position to take.

If there is a such a thing as IP then the question becomes trickier - where to draw the line.

If we accept that everything is connected to what came before it that doesn't really answer any useful question such as at what point is something not original, and therefore up for grabs and can be copied at will, and when is something original and therefore due legal protection from copying. And how do you tell the difference between the two.

I get a bit irritated with attempts to to try to simplify a difficult set of issues and problems. My feeling is that this can only be argued about on a case by case basis, that attempts to create general frameworks or sets of principals leads nowhere very useful and that unfortunately that probably means the only realistic way to resolve IP issues is through endless legal hearings.

Currently for those interested in computing technology there are a lot of high profile IP legal cases running but there is nothing unusual in this. All fields of commerce, industry and technology where a rapid period of technical changes determines the fate of large amounts of money see an intense spate of legal IP action. That is as it has always been and, as far as I can see, as it will always will be. The current spate of actions around the mobile device market will fade just as the spate of actions around the PC revolution faded and as did similar spates of legal actions in other fields of technology and industry faded.

We may root for different protagonists, and have different hopes as to who will win or lose but in the medium to long term it will all work itself out and fade away. In ten years this will all be relatively obscure stuff that only obsessives argue about just like now when issues like who invented the modern computer GUI and the relative roles of the Xerox Parc, Apple or Microsoft have all faded but for the flickering flames of passionate belief kept alive by a tiny group of the obsessed few .

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: This is blasphemy
by linux-lover on Mon 17th Sep 2012 23:31 in reply to "RE[2]: This is blasphemy"
linux-lover Member since:
2011-04-25

I just don't get the point of this. Is the argument that because everything is connected to what came before that there is no such thing as intellectual property? Because if so it's a pretty silly position to take.

If there is a such a thing as IP then the question becomes trickier - where to draw the line.


It's pathetic we have to draw lines to prevent patents like "Searching for Goods on the Internet" or Pinch to Zoom and slide to unlock.
Yes, Searching for goods on the internet is patented.

http://www.google.com/patents/US8214342?dq=Meirsonne+,+Michael%...
Read the overview on that link.

Now, that patent was granted this year.


I can only conceive of 2 logical explanations:
1) That patent office is filled with uninformed, people with little to zero knowledge in the field regarding the patent. ESPECIALLY so for Software. They also never seem to check for prior art.

2) Bribery

Another example would be: http://www.google.com/patents/US6339780
A patent clerk in 1996 might not even know what a web browser was. The name "Micrsoft" probably added some legitimacy to the patent application too.

Another thing I have found, is nobody can seem to agree on what should be classified as "obvious".

Then again, software patents should not even be legitimate. Software in it's primal form is really mathematics and logic. Neither of those are patent-able.

Software is written and writing is protected by copyright, not patents. Software only needs a copyright for protection.

See the thing I have found, is nobody can seem to agree on what should be classified as "obvious".

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE[3]: This is blasphemy
by kwan_e on Tue 18th Sep 2012 01:53 in reply to "RE[2]: This is blasphemy"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

I just don't get the point of this. Is the argument that because everything is connected to what came before that there is no such thing as intellectual property? Because if so it's a pretty silly position to take.

If there is a such a thing as IP then the question becomes trickier - where to draw the line.


The reason why IP doesn't exist is because copyright, patents and trademarks are completely different from each other and should not be lumped together under IP.

Intellectual Property is designed to be a vague concept, because it allows ideas themselves to come under the category. The ability to fence off ideas is ridiculous, but that is what the concept of IP is intended for and is doing.

Reply Parent Score: 7