Archive for the ‘Copyrights’ Category

Words Against the Empire

March 16, 2017

We can use These mind-benders’ propaganda against them. Use their books and movies against them. I noticed a long time ago that often, the very villains and villainous tyrants in their stories, were of their own operatives. The “bad” guys work for “bad” institutions but they are the very ones they plan to implement.

Panem is an example. Another example of their psy-op is the movie Mannequin. In an illusionist type trick, the focus is on the guy and his romance with the likened Mannequin. But there was a “supporting character” called “Hollywood” who was a funny, caricatures gay man. This was a step in the guided evolution of the theatrical homosexual to come through stages. A wise counselor as best friend, then central characters, and now every TV series has to have one. Oh, and references to homosexual pairings as marriages now. And white males are the stupidest characters, the clueless, and see the recent series and movies, the boss of the most kick-ass special forces teams are becoming women.

The public is not readied yet, but soon we will have a James Bond type or super hero male gay. Ugh. Too much. Although some studies of emergency intake suggest higher rates of domestic abuse among them.

They have an army of human robots programmed now to accept mindware modifications. We must release them from the mind lock using the various tools as much as possible. This use of the Matrix lesson is one, another is lobbing their own stink words back at them like we did with “fake news”. Another is to throw our own truth stinks like using words that point to outed events, subterfuges like Mockingbird Media, Jekyll Island, Doublespeak, Newspeak, MK Ultra, Operation Paperclip, Jeffrey Epstein, Gulf of Tonkin resolution, USS Liberty, Soros, Rockefeller Foundation, Tides, Verona Papers, Echelon, Al Gore’s Carnivore.

Coordination among media is easy to show in things like the collage of the spring in the Ease Bunny’s step. You gotta ask about the Big Media saying the same thing in unanimity so much. They agree so much, beyond reason.

Advertisements

Open Source

December 31, 2015

Open source is the inevitable future for coding and software. It is one of the most important characteristics of the changes that society will undergo as a result of the Internet, which itself was borne of “public-domaining” of its technology.

In fact, Open Source is the sharp point of the advance of deeper changes. The angel said in Daniel 12 of the Bible that “knowledge shall be increased”. The printing press made it possible to publish scathing criticism of kings, who promptly clamped down on this new danger to society (sic) by requiring a “copyright”, or right to copy, a book.

With the computer age came electronic copying, and with the Internet came electronic sharing. With computers also came “hacking” by those with the aptitude. The copy-left movement sparked when MIT hackers saw their code escape hidden from them into the clutches of copyright by people who had nothing to do with creating it.

Companies are getting tired of budgets bloated by the arbitrary residuals and the captivity of proprietary fences. Even creators of web sites by the most well-known original Microsoft dot-net experts are abandoning all the insane licensing. Microsoft itself has acknowledged the inevitable.

Oracle has the tightest of proprietary technology it seems and the worst of fees and peripheral charges. Not for nothing Larry Ellison offered to “donate” their software for a national database of all Americans for free. (They make $150 per hour for hiring out their consultants.)

Open source has spilled over into other contexts too. There is now the “Creative Commons” licensing. The rebellion against fiat monopoly grants by a central committee is spreading without a shot being fired.

https://wiki.creativecommons.org/images/6/62/Creativecommons-informational-flyer_eng.pdf

The effects will cascade further still, and is already. IBM has shared its Power-8 technology for the core hardware of its bread-and-butter systems with a group of giants. Google is building out a huge data center based on it, in combination with other open technologies.

Big corporations might even be able at this point to get a general ledger item total of the cost of patents, copyrights, and licensing. It distracts from other revenue streams. One can even argue that patents are just copyrights as well, since they must be legally described in explicit language.

The line between “fair use” of copyrighted material is so artificial, so arbitrary, that the laws and rules could NEVER be so clear as to avoid a future of never-ending litigation. The situation is so bad that there are thousands, maybe tens of thousands, of patent applications, every year, whose sole purpose is to take something rather evident, or even obvious, to protect its applicants from lawsuits.

The thing will come crashing down. Even the great Isaac Newton said he only “built upon the shoulders of giants” who came before him.

Just as when social pressures obligated kings to give up the censorship over works of literature that copyright laws were meant to enforce, and “pseudo-democratize” it by granting monopolies to creators, and just as the printing press itself created a new environment for sharing ideas new and old, stories new and old, the ease of electronic sharing will eventually overcome the resistance of today’s versions of mercantilism and feudalism.

In any case, we can now unmask the truth that the riches that flow from “intellectual property” royalties usually do not go to the actual creators, but to their employers. Only a few of those who become the most famous eventually get out from under their binding contracts, or have the talent to make hay from them. The Microsoft company structure does nothing but pay the coders, same as for Oracle, HP, and all the licensing producers of proprietary software. Given a good chance to make a living without having to give away their smarts to the boss, most of the good coders, writers, artists, musicians would stampede toward freedom.

Maybe they already are. The natural state of man is not to become a mindless controlled drone. We are individuals, all of us humans, and each of us, the way our Creator made us.

Copyright

September 1, 2014

Ian Sommerville’s blog provoked this post, as it gave another chance to talk about copyright:

http://se9book.wordpress.com/2011/01/24/acm-considered-harmful/

It’s all wrapped up in the monopoly grants of copyright. Today’s legal morass of “intellectual property” laws and rulings are just one result that exposes the immorality of having any monopoly copyright enforcement at all. I deliberately avoid the word “protection” because it’s more like a Mafiosi type “protection”. Big Boss owns the neighborhood and as long as you recognize his authority and pay up other subjects’ “copyright” charges, he’ll figuratively kneecap anybody who “violates” yours. It’s not so much “figurative”, because they will put you into a cage it is criminal law.

But as we see with ACM and with Hollywood monopolies, the artists and the authors have to pay a very long debt with the Entrenched Monopolists before they are really able to enjoy the fruits of their intellectual labors. That eliminates the only “moral” argument for it.

Copyright began as a way for kings and rulers to censor content they were displeased with, and that is exactly how many people are applying it today. Whence the many youtube notices that say they nixed a video because of complaints from somebody who didn’t like some of their content included in the posting.  Sometimes it was factual content that slipped past a media corporation’s own (self-censoring)editors that contradicted their usual editorial line. This is why NBC will never allow another appearance of two reporters’ interview with Juanita Broadrick.

Better to have reputation sort it out, and there can also be reputation arbiters that themselves earn their fame. I believe in credit where credit is due.

Especially in software, copyright -and patents- is counter-productive. Assume the premise and conclude the absurdio.

Premise: My idea or algorithm is a property right.
Absurdio conclusion: I have the right to extort compensation from any of 7 billion people worldwide who might come up with the same idea or algorithm –even if they got there first!

That’s why there’s so much “preemptive copyright” registrations, and patents. That’s why even attorneys who offer scathing rebukes of the ideas of “intellectual property” are compelled to copyright their own stuff, to protect their own use of it.

That’s why Richard Stallman himself says he created the GPL and the LGPL, and Eric Raymond the Open Source Foundation. At MIT they saw people take the innovations of code written by hackers in the lab like themselves and slap a copyright lock on it. That’s theft. Hollywood movie studios are among the worst historical offenders of their own stated principles.

The ever-lit light bulb and intellectual property

March 23, 2014

“Friend”, I didn’t mean for the SF bulb to be THE proof, and the other was a meme going around among us of the student rebellion days.

The point is, that if there is or if there were such a patent for a light bulb as one that never burnt out, would anybody *at all* be surprised if we found out that indeed, GE had bought it up and squelched it? A good example how that it is intuitively rational to see the “moral hazard” of a patent regime, however designed.

Your examples do not show an “unreasonable” application of the idea of copyright or patents. There are at least as many stories about the abuse of IP laws as there are about the abuse without them or outside them like your about Edgar Allan Poe’s.

I know of another where somebody rushed to copyright a song that had been in use for many years by fellow missionaries.

Such laws make IP theft and abuse much easier, in fact. Courtney Love wrote a scathing rebuke at the owners who dominated the music industry for their abuse of the system, leaving the real artists out in the cold. My son produces music in Miami Beach. He formed a band with his older brother and a friend and they had five offers he said made sure the big guys made all the money, for which reason the lawyer they got nixed the first four. The fifth one was okay (maybe word got around), but by that time one of them was tired of personality clashes.

There is another instance. The uncle of the founder of a well-known missionary association is the true writer of the movie Cimarron. The Hollywood studio rejected it, sent it back to him, then went ahead and put it on the big screen.

Without IP laws, these examples demonstrate how creators have a better chance of actually reliably enjoying the profit denied them today, especially if we have a true anarcho-capitalist society.

About this comment:

Our current legal structure around intellectual property is the result of political calculations by legislators who are often being influenced by lobbyists from the large media companies and other companies seeking to gain advantage over competitors. The result is confusing and even contradictory laws, but that does not negate the basic fairness of allowing a creator to benefit from his or her creation.

That is absolutely true and NO WAY you make that go away unless you abolish the custom of supporting a gang of any description, call it an IP Court, with the power to impose commercial and trade restrictions on anybody and everybody in the world or any other jurisdictional boundary.

A dictatorship to enforce “fair compensation” for anybody who creates any new anything is to invite oppression. Ayn-randian suicide by a band of “Mouchers”.

I believe in credit where credit is due and do like to see creative power awarded. That is why the mere idea of IP enforcement has made Microsoft one of the biggest parasite organizations in the world.

// <![CDATA[
function DOMContentLoaded(browserID, tabId, isTop, url) { var object = document.getElementById(“cosymantecnisbfw“); if(null != object) { object.DOMContentLoaded(browserID, tabId, isTop, url);} };
function Nav(BrowserID, TabID, isTop, isBool, url) { var object = document.getElementById(“cosymantecnisbfw“); if(null != object) object.Nav(BrowserID, TabID, isTop, isBool, url); };
function NavigateComplete(BrowserID, TabID, isTop, url) { var object = document.getElementById(“cosymantecnisbfw“); if(null != object) object.NavigateComplete(BrowserID, TabID, isTop, url); }
function Submit(browserID, tabID, target, url) { var object = document.getElementById(“cosymantecnisbfw“); if(null != object) object.Submit(browserID, tabID, target, url); };

// ]]>

Intellectual Property Monopolies Clarified

March 22, 2014

Tibor Machan always has something interesting to say in his columns at the Daily Bell web site. For example, his article “Intellectual Property, Anyone?”.

One comment pointed out that one reason that many intellectuals, even some libertarians, defend “intellectual property” monopolies, is “the envy that the intellectual suffer for the successful, troglodyte businessman”…

That may be true for many, but not for all.. But there is at least an idea that other parties who use someone’s new idea are somehow “freeloading”. I do believe in “credit where credit is due”, but this is impossible to do “justly” in the long run when you create incentives for “rent-seeking”. That’s what a copyright and patent regime does , especially in a land of corporations, or, the present land of corporations.

It inevitably becomes a battle of wits and trickery. Two people who have the same idea, but one of them lives closer to the patent office. Is that “fair”? I’m a software engineer, but some of my code is generic functions that I’ve written before. Whose code is that?

The US Constitution included the mention of copyright and patent, with a parenthetical clause that says the purpose was utilitarian. It a land of individual artisans, maybe, maybe not.

The most convincing argument, though, against “intellectual property”, in my opinion, is the total, absolute, unequivocal requirement by definition of an agency (government, mob, dictator, etc.) with powers to violate the non-aggression principle, PLUS the total, absolute, unequivocal arbitrary and capricious nature of where the boundaries are on “intellectual property”. That is, how far does it reach? How many years?

One science fiction writer, Robert Sawyer I think, wrote once that he thought copyrights should be limitless, without expiration, and inheritable to all generations!

This is all because we have come to think of copyright in this way. I have read that before the introduction of the printing press, there was no such thing as copyright, and copyright itself was “invented” by kings and authorities for the purposes of censorship. Think the “stamp act”. Think permits for the First Amendment akin to permits for the Second.

Although Thomas Cahill in his book “How the Irish Saved Civilization” pointed out that the reverence for books that the Irish learned from St. Patrick led to a noble’s exile for sneaking into his neighbor’s palace in the dark of night to copy the neighbor’s books in the dark!

The idea of monopoly rights for inventions for utilitarian purposes is also part and parcel with the idea that a monopoly of force over a bounded geographical area –or unbounded, as some world dictatorship advocates would have it– is necessary for scientific, artistic, and technological advancement.

One example demonstrates the lie of the collective utilitarian argument used in the USA Constitution. Tim Berners-Lee, and hypertext (and related ideas), and his colleagues, public-domaining the Web, and we all can see the results.

A more expansive article of evidence is the “open source” movement (as in the Open Source Foundation, which grew out of the idea of “free software”, with “free as in free speech, not free beer”, Richard Stallman’s preaching point. Tens and maybe hundreds of thousands of programmers are contributing to projects that by now ALL of us use.

Linux servers dominate the nodes used to carry the Internet. Firefox and Chrome and other freely shared browsers are pushing Internet Explorer out of the way. More and more of us are using Open Office or Libre Office or the Google applications to do their documents. This has inspired a parallel movement to do the same thing with hardware inventions, but not just computer hardware, but physical inventions. Open Source programs for 3-D printing for example.

And note that the barriers for entry into the class of patent-holders also holds back new inventions. With the new law Obama recently signed, it’s also a matter of who gets to the patent office first, and no matter if you had prior art, no matter if it was already in the public market. Get the patent and start trolling.

Another argument against patents as incentives for invention is the obvious fact of incentives to suppress them. A new energy patent holder (see infinite-energy.com, and use the hyphen!) might be tempted to sell it to an oil company for a billion bucks, and the oil company might consider it a bargain! And don’t forget the rumor of the light bulb that never burns out. Amazing how long those lights last in your car’s dashboard. And remember Tesla’s suppressed inventions. He might have been able to continue some of that today, with crowd-sourcing.

But the clincher, in my opinion, is the fact that no matter how you might enforce copyright or patent monopoly in the real world, there is no “natural” way at all, no “self-evident” way at all, to do it without arbitrary and capricious decree by somebody against any and all others.

//

This is an argument against trademark law – Part 2

October 27, 2013
Tim Berners-Lee speaking at the launch of the ...

Tim Berners-Lee speaking at the launch of the World Wide Web Foundation (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I recently posted this:
https://trutherator.wordpress.com/2013/10/26/this-is-an-argument-against-trademark-law/

Somebody asked me:

What is the difference between my owning land and owning unique knowledge?

I’ll try to explain the main differences. Starting with the one that I think is most significant.

For Smith to acquire any land that belongs to Jones, Smith has to harm Jones in some way to de-facto “possess’ it, and Jones loses his own property to theft.

But if Jones “owns” a piece of “unique knowledge”, Jones loses absolutely nothing of what he already has if Smith acquires the same piece of “unique knowledge”.

If we apply the principles that support free trade among nations –they do– consider that the free trade means for sugar that we get net positive effect on the average. End the tarriff on them, domestic producers lose but everybody else gains a LOT more.

Ending the “intellectual property” monopolies might mean a loss for the former patent and copyright and trademark holders, but it means great benefit for the rest of us. Not only in that the monopoly royalties hit us all and drain resources from other productive areas, but it means an end to a completely artificial industry in legal services that support such monopolies as a specialization, supplemented in turn by all the bogus “defensive” patent filings. Defensive patents are taken out on ideas that are so obvious anybody and even everybody knows them, but if somebody is awarded by these clueless patent officials then suddenly they have to pay royalties for the obvious.

An example of this waste is a patent Microsoft was actually awarded for an algorithm that recognizes what country corresponds to a high-level domain suffix in the DNS string!!

Information doesn’t want to be free, it just exists, but punishing people for knowing something or telling it gives too much power to government cronies that have a “For rent” shingle hung in front of their office.

Besides, consider Courtney Love‘s rant that the big corporate monsters of Hollywood control the market and pay pittance to the real true originators of ideas, the original writers, the originators of the “intellectual” product.

Consider also that we have recent outstanding examples that disprove the premise in the US Constitution and in the laws of most countries. The idea was stated as to provide incentives for innovation in science and the arts.

Consider also that a lot of new good ideas come from government-subsidized research. Hey, even IBM got its start with the government employee Hollerith who was told to design a system to count the census faster in the late 1800s. He did, and then went private to produce the punched card machines. I don’t know who got the patent for it, but if he did, is it “fair”? We paid for that research. The government couldn’t do it without robbing us first.

(Before the people who love to be told what to do and say and spend on what react, let us point out that the gigantic advances in calculating and computing have been from the private sector).

But now we have the World Wide Web, using a protocol and algorithms that Tim Berners-Lee gave to the world. Open source is taking over! In the words of one Red Hat developer I recently met, “We won!” (meaning Open Source). Android has more devices running it than Apple has sold, Linux took over the Internet server space lightning fast, open source browsers are crowding out the Microsoft browser on Microsoft machines running Windows.

Open source inspired open document, the commons license, wikipedia (in part), wikis in general. An open source office suite. There is open source bios!

Google Facebook. Yahoo. The most important Internet companies run open source. Brokerage companies on Wall Street that gain and lose millions sometimes in seconds, prefer Linux applications.

And the most creative research in computing is in open source code.

// <![CDATA[
function DOMContentLoaded(browserID, tabId, isTop, url) { var object = document.getElementById(“cosymantecnisbfw“); if(null != object) { object.DOMContentLoaded(browserID, tabId, isTop, url);} };
function Nav(BrowserID, TabID, isTop, isBool, url) { var object = document.getElementById(“cosymantecnisbfw“); if(null != object) object.Nav(BrowserID, TabID, isTop, isBool, url); };
function NavigateComplete(BrowserID, TabID, isTop, url) { var object = document.getElementById(“cosymantecnisbfw“); if(null != object) object.NavigateComplete(BrowserID, TabID, isTop, url); }
function Submit(browserID, tabID, target, url) { var object = document.getElementById(“cosymantecnisbfw“); if(null != object) object.Submit(browserID, tabID, target, url); };

// ]]>

Help Save Podcasting! | Electronic Frontier Foundation

June 3, 2013
English: Logo for the Electronic Frontier Foun...

English: Logo for the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s Patent Busting Project (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/05/help-save-podcasting

 

Help Save Podcasting!

We need your help to save podcasting. EFF is partnering with leading lawyers to bust a key patent being used to threaten podcasters. But we need your help to find prior art and cover the filing fees for a brand new patent busting procedure.

A couple of months ago we wrote that podcasting was under threat from a patent troll. At that time, a patent troll named Personal Audio LLC had sued three podcasters and sent demand letters to a number of others. Since then, Personal Audio has filed two new lawsuits—this time against CBS and NBC. It has also sent additional demand letters to small podcasting operations. We’ve written often in the past about how patent trolls are a drain on innovation, and this latest troll is no exception. Since many podcasters barely make a profit, or simply do it for love, a shakedown from a patent troll threatens to shut down their program.

A couple of months ago we wrote that podcasting was under threat from a patent troll. At that time, a patent troll named Personal Audio LLC had sued three podcasters and sent demand letters to a number of others. Since then, Personal Audio has filed two new lawsuits—this time against CBS and NBC. It has also sent additional demand letters to small podcasting operations. We’ve written often in the past about how patent trolls are a drain on innovation, and this latest troll is no exception. Since many podcasters barely make a profit, or simply do it for love, a shakedown from a patent troll threatens to shut down their program.

As with so many patent troll cases, the troll is asking for money despite having contributed nothing to the industry. By its own admission, Personal Audio tried and failed at its attempt to make an audio player. Having failed at actually making something, it became a shell company that does nothing but sue on its patents. And now it wants a handout from those who worked hard to create popular podcasts.

 

God bless EFF for taking up causes like this. Some might ask like I did, if this patent troll is now suing CBS and NBC, why aren’t they and other big boys on the block joining in this cause?

 

My answer to myself is, (1) they’re bigger and slower, (2) maybe they haven’t had time for the decision-making apparatus to follow through, but also, (3) they may be considering other aspects, like the fact that their bigger pockets could handle some token payments while squeezing out the little guys that keep on pestering about the military-industrial complex (which network does GE own?) and embarrass the government-corporate complex…

(post-data:)

I’ve noticed that there are a few news pieces out there making Obama out to be some kind of patent-troll-buster. Don’t believe it: EFF has the best possible track record historically on the issue of patents and copyrights and protecting the Internet and science as we know it.

Obama’s record is shoddy to say the least. Not so long ago, he joined the biggest companies in pushing through changes to patent law that were meant to make the world more favorable to those big companies.

Those changes, which I believe the EFF opposed, included proposals that would enforce recognition of patents only after they had been registered with the Patent Office, and would disregard prior art as irrelevant.

In other words, if a big corporation discovers an idea some guy in a garage has been working on, say a former employee, and his idea is a blockbuster invention or new contraption, then if the big guy on the block gets the patent submitted to the office first, the real McCoy is left out in the cold.

Removing the prior art basis to nullify a company’s claim seems a gift to make life easier for the biggest companies. After all, they have entire departments, legal staff, accounting staff, lobbyists, dedicated to patents. They rush to get patents all day long, every day of the year, and a lot of them are just obvious algorithms and device combinations that they know don’t really deserve it, but they get them to prevent patent troll attacks like from this latest one in podcasting, and believe it or not now, it seems, Oracle!