• You must now select Courier Delivery if you wish to receive items before Christmas.
 

Forums > Social Discussion > Copyright: music, technology, science, and society

Login/Join to Participate
Page: 12
Mr Majestik
SILVER Member since Mar 2004

Mr Majestik

coming to a country near you
Location: home of the tiney toothy bear,...

Total posts: 4693
Posted:i am aware this old thread is still relevant to the topic, but thats only one aspect.

yesterday i (ironically) went to see the new movie/documentary RIP: a remix manifesto (legally free to view here) at the local indy cinema.

it reignited my interest in the concept of copyright both in the music industry, the internet, and how it effects our society. The basic premise of the movie is that the concept of copyright has been abused by corporations and enshrined in US law to restrict, control, and profit from the use of ideas. the documentrys title, a manifest, explains how the problem arose, what its doing to our society, and why things must be changed:

Originally Posted By: a remixers manifesto
1 Culture always builds on the past

2 The past always tries to control the future

3 our future is becoming less free

4 to build free societies you must limit the control of the past

The internet is a program used by the world to share information. business attempts through copyright to control that flow of information on the internet because they are not making money from it. if this is allowed the very concept of free information is at risk. to improve ourselves its imperative that we share and not censor, free and not imprison.

There is a certain part of the film that mentions Brazil ignoring a patent held by Merck, a big pharmaceutical company, because they were essentially demanding more money for a antiretroviral drug for the treatment of HIV than they charged another country. as a result Brazil decided to import a generic drug that according to US patents was illegal. i found this a powerful example of the absurdity of copyright laws, where a company can legally dictate what price another government must pay to provide healthcare to its people.

GirlTalk, a prominent mashup DJ, is also a biomedical engineer, and he mentions the difficulties in the field of science where copyright laws prohibit people from investigating certain concepts and creations simply because someone else thought of it first. this does not mean the other person is actually going to use it, just that they reserve the right to at some point in the future if they feel like it. and in the mean time scientific progress is being restricted.

so i'd invite you all to watch the documentry available in the link above, and then post your musings. is the documentary flawed? is it spot on? have you considered the issue before? what should be done about it? should anything be done about it? what is the most appropriate response to the issue?


"but have you considered there is more to life than your eyelids?"

jointly owned by Fire_Spinning_Angel and Blu_Valley

Delete Topic

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:danmed.... you put up this thread and only two days ago I stumbled across this one:


Originally Posted By: New York timesI GREW up watching my father stand on his head every morning. He was doing sirsasana, a yoga pose that accounts for his youthful looks well into his 60s. Now he might have to pay a royalty to an American patent holder if he teaches the secrets of his good health to others. The United States government has issued 150 yoga-related copyrights, 134 patents on yoga accessories and 2,315 yoga trademarks. Theres big money in those pretzel twists and contortions $3 billion a year in America alone.

Read the entire article here

Only this one more:

Originally Posted By: NYTKnowledge in ancient India was protected by caste lines, not legal or economic ones. The term intellectual property was an oxymoron: the intellect could not be anybodys property. You did not pay your guru in coin; you herded his cows and married his daughter, and passed on the knowledge to others when you were sufficiently steeped in it. This tradition continues today, most notably in Indian classical music, none of whose melodies have been copyrighted.

It's even worse than selling and buying real estate... wink


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

Mr Majestik
SILVER Member since Mar 2004

Mr Majestik

coming to a country near you
Location: home of the tiney toothy bear,...

Total posts: 4693
Posted:tom, that is PERFECT! the second page of the article actually refers EXACTLY to some of the content in the movie. Brazil purchased their life saviing antiretroviral medications from India.

Originally Posted By: NYTFor decades, Indian law allowed its pharmaceutical companies to replicate Western-patented drugs and sell them at a lower price to countries too poor to afford them otherwise. In this way, India supplied half of the drugs used by H.I.V.-positive people in the developing world. But in March 2005, the Indian Parliament, under pressure to bring the country into compliance with the World Trade Organizations regulations on intellectual property, passed a bill declaring it illegal to make generic copies of patented drugs.

Originally Posted By: -Merck's offer to Brazil priced the pills at US$1.10 instead of US$1.59. But Brazil wanted its discount pegged at US$0.65 per pill, the price Thailand pays. Now, it will source Indian-made versions of Efavirenz for just US$0.45 each.

"From an ethical point of view the price difference is grotesque," said Lula. "And from a political point of view, it represents a lack of respect, as though a sick Brazilian is inferior." link

the concept of copyright is a tool weilded by the powerful and reinforced by governments to promote unequality and contradiction.

a further example of US copyright impinging on universal property is that of the australian Uggboot scandal. you all might not be aware but Uggboots (inverted sheep skin with warm wool still attached to form a warm shoe) have existed in australia for decades, but suddenly a US company copyrighted it and banned australians from selling a product they rightfully created and freely shared. the only compromise attained was in australia uggboot is fair game, but if we want to sell in the US we need to change the name. a good description of the scenario. this is not the intention of copyright and serves nobody but a profiteering company that has no MORAL right to claim.


"but have you considered there is more to life than your eyelids?"

jointly owned by Fire_Spinning_Angel and Blu_Valley

Delete

Stone
GOLD Member since Jun 2001

Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Total posts: 2830
Posted:Dont be so tight. If you like original music then be prepared to pay for it, and stop ripping of the original artists. BTW, the real crime here is that people probably pay to listen to GirlTalk grin

As to the aids drugs. Someone had to develope them in the first place, before they are ripped-off. Without the development, no drugs are available to reduce the impact of aids. Anyhow, I think the UN and some drug companies were making cheap anti-aids drugs available in Africa, and possibly other places.


If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Delete

Mr Majestik
SILVER Member since Mar 2004

Mr Majestik

coming to a country near you
Location: home of the tiney toothy bear,...

Total posts: 4693
Posted:Originally Posted By: StoneDont be so tight. If you like original music then be prepared to pay for it, and stop ripping of the original artists. BTW, the real crime here is that people probably pay to listen to GirlTalk grin

i cant understand if this is sarcasm or not? the problem is a lot bigger than just music as i've already mentioned, however would you believe happybirthday is patented by a corporation and the REAL creators who are long since dead have nothing to do with it? its not about original artists its about music industry profits.

Originally Posted By: stoneAs to the aids drugs. Someone had to develope them in the first place, before they are ripped-off. Without the development, no drugs are available to reduce the impact of aids.

its well documented that in many cases less money is spent on research and development than marketing by drug companies, and the most scientific research is performed by universities. not to mention sales from non essential drugs like viagra more than covers costs of other more condition specific medications.


Originally Posted By: stoneAnyhow, I think the UN and some drug companies were making cheap anti-aids drugs available in Africa, and possibly other places.

have you read the links or watched the movie? the company in question was charging different countries different prices for the same drug legally. there was no real reason for the higher prices other than they thought they could get the money out of the government, it was only about greed.

why do we allow monitary greed to dominate life saving situations?


"but have you considered there is more to life than your eyelids?"

jointly owned by Fire_Spinning_Angel and Blu_Valley

Delete

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:and one of the major issues in this one is that the Indian government now - on pressure from WTO - had to bow and prohibit the generics of HIV medication.

In the wake of profitalism, it's well known that it's not about selling a good product for a reasonable (or expensive) price but to make it as cheap as possible to produce and sell it at the most possible profit range...

We're in times (for a few decades now) where humans are only a dispensable variable in this equation.

The original artists (apart from the superstars) don't necessarily SEE any of this profit generated with their music. It's erroneous to claim that by (illegally) copying music "you would rip off the artists"... Some artists would make more $ by directly marketing their music on the internet and charging 0.50ct a download than they make by selling it to the music industry...


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

aston
SILVER Member since Dec 2007

aston

Unofficial Chairperson of Squirrel Defense League
Location: South Africa

Total posts: 4061
Posted:If anyone has a subscription to Baen's Universe, Eric Flint's regular column (Salvos Against Big Brother) is well worth reading.

Universe website


'We're all mad here. I'm mad, you're mad." [said the Cat.]
"How do you know I'm mad?" said Alice.
"You must be," said the Cat, "Or you wouldn't have come here."
- Lewis Carroll, Alice's Adventures In Wonderland

Delete

Stone
GOLD Member since Jun 2001

Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Total posts: 2830
Posted:Originally Posted By: Majestikits well documented that in many cases less money is spent on research and development than marketing by drug companies, and the most scientific research is performed by universities. not to mention sales from non essential drugs like viagra more than covers costs of other more condition specific medications.

ok, i've edited this because it was a bit over the top.

I'm not sure, but I have the feeling that vigara was originally developed to help control some other disease. Your argument is that everything should be free, and artists and scientists should not have any protection over their original discoveries. So whose greedy? People who expect to be able to download other peoples music for free, or a talented artist or scientist who wants to be paid for their hard earned work?

Quote:why do we allow monitary greed to dominate life saving situations?

That's a good question, but it probably has more to do with the health system than drug companies.

cheers smile









EDITED_BY: Stone (1244773816)


If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Delete

Mr Majestik
SILVER Member since Mar 2004

Mr Majestik

coming to a country near you
Location: home of the tiney toothy bear,...

Total posts: 4693
Posted:Originally Posted By: StoneYour argument is that everything should be free, and artists and scientists should not have any protection over their original discoveries.

no thats not my argument at all, i'm sorry if you got that impression. my arguement is that there needs to be a better balance of societal benefit, inventor benefit, and true ownership recognition.

instead of one person being able to invent something, and then own and control its use for a life time (and sometimes longer in the case of companies) a system needs to be devised where societies needs are a relevant factor to the product. in the case of drugs and scientific information it is obvious that if copyright laws were changed in some way (and i'm not proposing i know the correct way) then technological/scientific/societal advancement would be more accessible and most likely directly benefit humanity.

true ownership recognition is also very important, as previous links have shown people have been legally allowed in the US to take open source(if you like) ideas and names like Yoga and uggboots and claim ownership, profiteer, and deny societal use, which is plainly absurd.

Originally Posted By: stoneSo whose greedy? People who expect to be able to download other peoples music for free, or a talented artist or scientist who wants to be paid for their hard earned work?

music and art is the most complex issue i would say. one can copyright something played on a guitar, but the inventor of the guitar gets nothing? maybe the person who invents on the guitar should accept they are just building on something someone before them invented and allow people to take and build on their own invention. this addresses remix, mashup and sampling, and as far as im aware is only being fought by companies not by artists.

i realise this is a bit of a raught on people just taking music to listen to, but honestly the internet cannot be stopped. alternate methods of music delivery like itunes are proven to work and i would say instead of trying to fight the internet they should embrace it, hopefully even allowing the artists to avoid music companies and control their own development. because at the end of the day the music piracy argument is not about musicians and artists, its about music INDUSTRY (the companies) being left behind.

Originally Posted By: stoneQuote:why do we allow monitary greed to dominate life saving situations?
That's a good question, but it probably has more to do with the health system than drug companies.

yes and no, drug companies are fundamental participants in healthcare delivery. you may not know this but many medications Drs give out in australia are actually supplied to the clinic free by drug companyies looking to establish brand loyalty. if the system is going to change then drug companies are an obvious stake holder, and you can be sure if profits change (even if delivery is improved) they're going to be very opposed.


"but have you considered there is more to life than your eyelids?"

jointly owned by Fire_Spinning_Angel and Blu_Valley

Delete

Stone
GOLD Member since Jun 2001

Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Total posts: 2830
Posted:Originally Posted By: Majestikinstead of one person being able to invent something, and then own and control its use for a life time (and sometimes longer in the case of companies) a system needs to be devised where societies needs are a relevant factor to the product. in the case of drugs and scientific information it is obvious that if copyright laws were changed in some way (and i'm not proposing i know the correct way) then technological/scientific/societal advancement would be more accessible and most likely directly benefit humanity.

Yes Majestik, its a complex issue. However, patents do run out on drugs, and then other companies can sell images or copies at a lower price.

Yoga is probably public domain, and Id suggest that problem with the uggboots name is that it was was never registered in the US.

I dont think its correct to say the inventor of the guitar gets nothing, because that person would get a royalty on guitars sold.

Quote:i realise this is a bit of a raught on people just taking music to listen to, but honestly the internet cannot be stopped. alternate methods of music delivery like itunes are proven to work and i would say instead of trying to fight the internet they should embrace it, hopefully even allowing the artists to avoid music companies and control their own development. because at the end of the day the music piracy argument is not about musicians and artists, its about music INDUSTRY (the companies) being left behind.

Perhaps, in the end it comes down to individuals just being honest and paying for what they download. The Lentil as Anything vego restaurant Melb, works like that. You pay what you can afford or what you think the meal is worth.


Quote:yes and no, drug companies are fundamental participants in healthcare delivery. you may not know this but many medications Drs give out in australia are actually supplied to the clinic free by drug companyies looking to establish brand loyalty. if the system is going to change then drug companies are an obvious stake holder, and you can be sure if profits change (even if delivery is improved) they're going to be very opposed.

Dont forget the free holidays wink

Though, the really scary part in all of this, is the patenting of human genes.


If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Delete

Mr Majestik
SILVER Member since Mar 2004

Mr Majestik

coming to a country near you
Location: home of the tiney toothy bear,...

Total posts: 4693
Posted:Originally Posted By: StoneYoga is probably public domain, and Id suggest that problem with the uggboots name is that it was was never registered in the US.

I dont think its correct to say the inventor of the guitar gets nothing, because that person would get a royalty on guitars sold.

the problem with uggboots is essentially the same as yoga, it was a communally used concept within a certain culture that was copyrighted in another country and then that country tried to impose its laws on the original users.

but whos the inventor of the guitar? certainly people who build and sell guitars make money from their own works, but i dont think anyone 'invented' the guitar, as its a general musical concept that has been developed for thousands of years. so do you think everyone that had a part in the steps taken to create the modern electric guitar should recieve royalties from it? or perhaps we should accept that humans as creative being will always take, modify, create and improve on others ideas, as perfectly demonstrated with the development of music and instruments to date, and to try to stop it is to contradict human behavior.

Originally Posted By: stoneThough, the really scary part in all of this, is the patenting of human genes.

without doubt this is one of the most disturbing of all patent issues. i'm glad you mentioned it.


"but have you considered there is more to life than your eyelids?"

jointly owned by Fire_Spinning_Angel and Blu_Valley

Delete

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:Often the point is not about making a living or not...

take the "Uggboots", the name has not been registered in the US "yet"... so hasn't the syllable "Ohm" (and it wasn't)... is "Yogamat" still available?

we're all part of this cultural web, where we all draw from a huge pool. Who is to say "this is MY invention!" rather than "I registered it first!" (see the invention of the telephone Bell vs. Gray) - a few hours can decide your fortune... apparently many people at this time had experimented on the invention of a telephone...

More money is often put into the marketing of an idea than the actual invention - and this is definitely the case with drug companies patenting Ayurvedic remedies... or - instead of preserving - rushing through rainforests and isolating active agents.

This system is propelled by "capitalism", rather than "benefitting the community"... by that we're seperating even more from each other (when it comes to distribute the cookies) and slow down the very progress that is needed. It even makes it less likely that new inventions come out - as they are protected from copy - before enough money has been made with "standard technology"...

Regarding music I haven't really wrapped my head around this so far... Only I feel that there is only little balance between "talent" and "marketable talent"...


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

Stone
GOLD Member since Jun 2001

Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Total posts: 2830
Posted:Originally Posted By: Majestik so do you think everyone that had a part in the steps taken to create the modern electric guitar should recieve royalties from it?...

Majestik, I thought the guitar scenario was an example. But to answer your question. No, just companies like Fender, Gibson, Maton etc wink

I think its one thing to mix tunes on a set of decks for a party and another to sell that music as original.

Good points Fire Tom, the person who invents someting often gets ripped-off and misses out on any profits.

As suggested earlier what about a user pays system ?


If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Delete

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:if you see yourself as "the inventor", you equal yourself to "the creator" - both approaches are highly erroneous...

On Yoga and other patents reg. traditional knowledge


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

Mother_Natures_Son
SILVER Member since Aug 2007

Mother_Natures_Son

Rampant whirler.
Location: Geelong, Victoria, Australia!

Total posts: 2418
Posted:Originally Posted By: Stone
Majestik, I thought the guitar scenario was an example. But to answer your question. No, just companies like Fender, Gibson, Maton etc wink


The guitar scenario was an example.

Fender, Gibson, Maton are all different companies laying no real claim to the invention of the guitar, yet profit from its creation... how are the Uggboots any different?


Originally Posted By: StoneId suggest that problem with the uggboots name is that it was was never registered in the US.


How about if I decided to throw a patent on the original idea of the guitar?? It doesn't appear to have been registered just yet.


hug

Delete

Stone
GOLD Member since Jun 2001

Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Total posts: 2830
Posted:Originally Posted By: MNSFender, Gibson, Maton are all different companies laying no real claim to the invention of the guitar, yet profit from its creation... how are the Uggboots any different?

My mistake. Like a lot of people, I thought the electric guitar was invented by Leo Fender and/or Les Paul at about the same time, but it was invented by Adolph Rickenbacker. Apparently, Paul and Fender built the first solid-body electric guitars at about the same time in the 1930s. Gibson made the very famous Les Paul guitar.

Originally Posted By: MNSHow about if I decided to throw a patent on the original idea of the guitar?? It doesn't appear to have been registered just yet.

Id say give it a go.



EDITED_BY: Stone (1245015478)


If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Delete

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:but has the electric guitar been patented? and copyrighted?

Point is that people claim to have "the initial idea", when all they do is to "go and file first"...

Would we need to videotape "new moves" and copyright them, prohibiting other performers to do a corkscrew, or to pay license fees? Or prohibit them to use other names?

I guess the spinning community is waiting for such an ...censored... approach to get straightened out and to realize that "there is money out there" waiting to be made...

(shallt-manage-Meenik)

wink


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

Stone
GOLD Member since Jun 2001

Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Total posts: 2830
Posted:Originally Posted By: Fire Tombut has the electric guitar been patented? and copyrighted?

Point is that people claim to have "the initial idea", when all they do is to "go and file first"...

Would we need to videotape "new moves" and copyright them, prohibiting other performers to do a corkscrew, or to pay license fees? Or prohibit them to use other names?

I guess the spinning community is waiting for such an ...censored... approach to get straightened out and to realize that "there is money out there" waiting to be made...

Fire Tom, Im pretty sure the electric guitar had been patented, for more info suggest looking at guitar patents.

The 1950's really were a golden age of guitar design, with geniuses like Leo Fender and Ted McCarty designing and patenting such classics as the Gibson Les Paul and Fender Stratocaster. The drawings these gentlemen submitted to the United States Patent Office were works of art in their own right....

As far as, patenting moves goes. Good luck, because as thats one big can of worms, especially as most moves have been named and renamed by club swingers wink Which makes me wonder if its possible or worth it trying to enforce. Suggest talking to a patent lawyer. The other side of the story is trade secrets. Sometimes if something is complex, say like a magic trick, it can be protected because its a trade secret wink


If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Delete

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:Well the names of moves are irrelevant... and as far as the cans of worms go - welcome to the american way of life - some people have no problem in patenting YOGA... which has been around for a few years more than spinning.... wink

if we couldn't copyright certain moves, for sure we could copyright methods of teaching workshops, as it's "complex enough".. ?

wink

PS: Neat idea to print patent drawings on shirts... laugh3

EDITED_BY: FireTom (1245035202)


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

Mother_Natures_Son
SILVER Member since Aug 2007

Mother_Natures_Son

Rampant whirler.
Location: Geelong, Victoria, Australia!

Total posts: 2418
Posted:6 strings, a neck, a body. That was MY idea. Anyone making an acoustic guitar or an electric guitar is just ripping me off.

hug

Delete

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:still trippin' ey? wink

the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

Mother_Natures_Son
SILVER Member since Aug 2007

Mother_Natures_Son

Rampant whirler.
Location: Geelong, Victoria, Australia!

Total posts: 2418
Posted:No, Tom. I was falsely taking a ridiculous standpoint to highlight the ridiculousness of the uggboot claim and bring Majestik's point back to life.


My point was... the very basic concept of a guitar is unclaimable because its been a cultural development. The Uggboot is really not much different... The only real difference is that it wasn't part of the American culture yet, so the American consumers overall would be none the wiser.

I'd say taking this from being about "the guitar" to being about "The electric guitar" is a cheap diversionary tactic.

EDITED_BY: Mother_Natures_Son (1245049232)


hug

Delete

Stone
GOLD Member since Jun 2001

Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Total posts: 2830
Posted:Originally Posted By: MNSI'd say taking this from being about "the guitar" to being about "The electric guitar" is a cheap diversionary tactic.

Alternatively, it could have been a response to a question:

Originally Posted By: Majestikbut whos the inventor of the guitar? certainly people who build and sell guitars make money from their own works, but i dont think anyone 'invented' the guitar, as its a general musical concept that has been developed for thousands of years. so do you think everyone that had a part in the steps taken to create the modern electric guitar should recieve royalties from it? or perhaps we should accept that humans as creative being will always take, modify, create and improve on others ideas, as perfectly demonstrated with the development of music and instruments to date, and to try to stop it is to contradict human behavior.

In the yoga example, the guy didnt patent yoga per se, no he patented his brand of yoga called Bikram Yoga. I dont have a problem with that, its unique. The same example could be used with poi. It would be ridiculous to try and patent poi per se, but it seems people are prepared to try and patent poi moves/shows etc. to protect their interests.



If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Delete

Mother_Natures_Son
SILVER Member since Aug 2007

Mother_Natures_Son

Rampant whirler.
Location: Geelong, Victoria, Australia!

Total posts: 2418
Posted:Perhaps I was a little hasty in that comment and I apologise.

Though one of the many steps in creating the modern electric guitar IS the creation of the guitar itself. The solid body electric wasn't really a gigantic revolutionary leap so much as a natural progression of sorts, what with the advent of technological advancement.


hug

Delete

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:Stone it might be that you have no problem with Birkam patenting "his way of teaching Yoga"...

Maybe you missed out this in that same article:

Originally Posted By: usatodayIn 2005, India's National Institute randomly selected 762 U.S. patents that had been granted for medicinal products using plants; it found that 49% were based on traditional Indian knowledge. Gupta estimates about 2,000 patents each year based on India's traditional medicine are taken out somewhere in the world.

What of "Bikram Yoga" is unique?

Originally Posted By: usatoday26 poses and two breathing exercises performed in a specific order. He teaches in a room heated to 105 degrees

Given that Bikram is not the issue here, maybe his copyrights only extend to the combination of "postures" (of which I doubt that many are "unique") and "breathing exercises" (same) practised in an overheated room. Unfortunately we do not know exactly to WHAT the copyright extends exactly, leading to speculations.

Apply this to the world of music: personally I have quite a good memory when it comes to combinations of notes and if you were to play a few, say three chords of "Billie Jean" - for sure I would recognize the tune... now can this be copyrighted? No.

Reapply that to Bikram Yoga: If I were to rearrange these 26 postures, take some away and add others and use 1 alternative breathing exercise, taught them in a room heated to - say - only 95, would I still fall victim to lawsuit?

How about taking a few "flows" of spinning routine - and I'm sure I could figure some out - and I'd copyright them (regardless of club swingers)... must say I'd feel ridiculous, even though I'd certainly could get a copyright... would I then have to send agents to every professional fireshow, watch every posted video that receives public demand and then sue fellow spinners?

For example: Ed Hardy. Some people in Germany bought genuine Ed Hardy shirts in - say - the US and at some stage decided to trade them off by eBay... shrug now they received lawsuits from lawyers who claimed that THIS particular shirt (even though genuine) was not intended for the European market (by the company who holds the distribution rights for Germaany) and are being sued for various amounts (+/- 1.400)..

and now the kicker: allegedly Don Ed Hardy is suing Christian Audigier over a $100 million for distributing Hardy's trademarked clothing line without permission. Allegedly "Hardy claims he and Audigier signed a contract in September 2005 that allowed Audigier to promote and distribute Hardys work as part of a clothing line. The lawsuit claims Hardy terminated the contract in August after discovering Audigier did not fully pay royalties to Hardy and underreported the sales and income from the clothing line. Hardy also claims Audigier launched a competing productthe Christian Audigier clothing lineusing Hardys trademarks without permission."

I use "allegedly" because so far I haven't found this article from a reputed news agency so far, so it might be a hoax...

My claim merely is (after recognizing that we do live in a morphogenetic field): the issue of copyrights and patents do hinder (technical) evolution and further development. Companies (of whatever kind) are more likely to continue distributing old (copyrighted) technology - instead of manufacturing and offering new (copyrighted) technology (at competitive rates) and do nothing but display a sincere mistrust in life.

EDITED_BY: FireTom (1245119642)


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

Stone
GOLD Member since Jun 2001

Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Total posts: 2830
Posted:Originally Posted By: MNSThough one of the many steps in creating the modern electric guitar IS the creation of the guitar itself. The solid body electric wasn't really a gigantic revolutionary leap so much as a natural progression of sorts, what with the advent of technological advancement.

Personally, I think there a huge difference between acoustic and electric guitars. Give Leo Fender and Les Paul their dues, they were very creative people.


Originally Posted By: Fire TomMy claim merely is (after recognizing that we do live in a morphogenetic field): the issue of copyrights and patents do hinder (technical) evolution and further development. Companies (of whatever kind) are more likely to continue distributing old (copyrighted) technology - instead of manufacturing and offering new (copyrighted) technology (at competitive rates) and do nothing but display a sincere mistrust in life.

Disagree Fire Tom, companies are only likely to continue with old technology if they cannot recoup their R&D costs through patents.


If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Delete

aston
SILVER Member since Dec 2007

aston

Unofficial Chairperson of Squirrel Defense League
Location: South Africa

Total posts: 4061
Posted:I think that with something like a poi move, which many people can discover by accident, there is no real possibility. (Or there should not be....)

With a complete routine, from start to end, that is much less likely to be made up completely independently. The obvious analogy is music. I might be able to randomly hit upon the same riff as used in a particular song, but even if I wrote a song using it, it would be very unlikely to be anything like the one that already exists, so the riff itself should not be copyrighted but the entire song is fair.

With inventions and such, people trying to get around the copyright by making something new to do the same thing is also fine by me. For example the Rubik cube had the mechanism patented, rather than the actual idea. At least if I remember correctly....

I do think that taking something that is copyrighted/generic in one country and not yours and copyrighting it in yours is a bit low. For example, I think that this is fair.


'We're all mad here. I'm mad, you're mad." [said the Cat.]
"How do you know I'm mad?" said Alice.
"You must be," said the Cat, "Or you wouldn't have come here."
- Lewis Carroll, Alice's Adventures In Wonderland

Delete

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:Stone: Fender and Gibson guitars are legendary... maybe they would also have been without patents?

and reality is proving that companies make money on old technology as long as new technology is sufficiently protected by patents.

for example my brother invented a shoe for cyclists, well not a shoe but a cleat position... it's a revolutionary new concept and companies like Nike took everything from his presentation that they could legally copy... yet nobody is willing to obtain a license from him (for his position) as long as the patent is running and the demand of the market is low... he has sufficient proof that the invention is working as intended... and certainly the new cleat position will be on shoes as soon as the patent is no longer protected...

We can see that with data storage devices, solar panels and electric cars already... new technology is only coming out as soon as the established companies are *forced* to put it on the market by either legislation or public demand...


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

Stone
GOLD Member since Jun 2001

Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Total posts: 2830
Posted:Originally Posted By: Fire TomStone: Fender and Gibson guitars are legendary... maybe they would also have been without patents?

Whats maybe got to do with anything? They patented their instruments thats why they remaind legendary.

Originally Posted By: Fire Tomand reality is proving that companies make money on old technology as long as new technology is sufficiently protected by patents.

I suppose it depends on the industry, but are we talking R&D here? Patents run out, so it doesnt pay to let your competition have the advantage after you have invested zillions in R&D. As to your brothers cleat, it seems more like a marketing issue or negotiation or something like that. Good luck to him.

Quote:We can see that with data storage devices, solar panels and electric cars already... new technology is only coming out as soon as the established companies are *forced* to put it on the market by either legislation or public demand...

True, there are examples where innovation has been stalled in big companies like GM, who were unwilling to accept change. But, they went bust as a result, and plenty of opportunities have opened up for other new inventors.


EDITED_BY: Stone (1245189802)


If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Delete

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:as I see it the guitars remain legendary because of the high level of quality the companies are able to hold up in the manufacturing process.

the point has been brought forward that the patents not serve to protect the investment of zillions or dollars in research and development, but merely to make bazillions of dollars in return - see the patenting of traditional medicine mentioned in earlier articles.

wink


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

aston
SILVER Member since Dec 2007

aston

Unofficial Chairperson of Squirrel Defense League
Location: South Africa

Total posts: 4061
Posted:On the other hand, without being guaranteed at least some profit, how much serious R&D would there be?

Backyard inventions and so on can only go so far, especially these days. It would probably be quite straightforward to develop something new in a given field, but to actually make something off it and get back what you spent in time and money to actually come up with a working prototype?

Check out Hyperlights as an example. wink


'We're all mad here. I'm mad, you're mad." [said the Cat.]
"How do you know I'm mad?" said Alice.
"You must be," said the Cat, "Or you wouldn't have come here."
- Lewis Carroll, Alice's Adventures In Wonderland

Delete

Page: 12