House of Reps and Obama kill SOPA

[.Shane.]

I'll believe it's dead when I see it dead. I've heard Obama say he will veto something before...

Exactly. If it does fail, its not going to have anything to do w/ Obama's threatened veto.

 

[choxorn]

I'd post the lols here, but there are a LOT of them!

You could post them in the Funny Pictures Thread.

 

[Crezth]

Look, if not for the money, we'd still be playing tetris. The high-end 3d graphics and environments would have never come to be and all those GFX cards required to play these shiny new games wouldn't exist either. You probably wouldn't have the ultra-powerful computers to play them on. The R&D and the Mass production of such things all depend on corporate research. You can be creative all you want, but you can't actually make anything without the funding to do so.

The amount that has gone into R&D in the last 100 years is far greater(even proportionately) than every before and corporate research is key to that.

I'd argue that corporate use of that technology does not imply that those technologies were developed primarily for those uses. I know that high-resolution graphics are developed mainly in support of medicinal research (usually done by government labs), for example.

That is to say that the "corporate research" you praise is actually corporate utilization and retooling of technologies that were developed by explicitly non-corporate entities, at least in this example.

The dichotomy between corporate research (which does exist, and I'll make that clear lest the tone of my post suggest otherwise) and government research should show that neither is really the star of the show. The only advantage government research has is in picking up the slack in areas where the profits aren't as clear cut or are absent altogether.

 

[Traitorfish]

Without these bottlenecks, no one would be willing to supply in the first place. Why bother spending millions or billions in R&D on a product when you can't make anything off of it?

Well, yeah, that's my point. If your system depends on contrived shortages to function, then it's a bad system. Its natural tendency is to self-destruction, and only constant and aggressive intervention will keep it going; it's basically the economic equivalent of Crank 2. It has nothing to do with whether or not people are angels- would the criticism hinge on their willingness to make off with thousands of pounds worth of digital property if given half a chance?- it's about whether the system of property which we have in place is compatible with the decidedly less than angelic human reality.

 

[Archbob]

I'd argue that corporate use of that technology does not imply that those technologies were developed primarily for those uses. I know that high-resolution graphics are developed mainly in support of medicinal research (usually done by government labs), for example.

That is to say that the "corporate research" you praise is actually corporate utilization and retooling of technologies that were developed by explicitly non-corporate entities, at least in this example.

The dichotomy between corporate research (which does exist, and I'll make that clear lest the tone of my post suggest otherwise) and government research should show that neither is really the star of the show. The only advantage government research has is in picking up the slack in areas where the profits aren't as clear cut or are absent altogether.

Re-tooling is innovation. Government research is generally concentrated in things like Missile Defense systems and perhaps things like Cure for Cancer which is all good and great, but they don't produce products for everyday use that makes our lives easier and better. High resolution GFX for medical purpose is very different from rendering massive amount of polygons for a 3d-game. The technology also wouldn't have advanced nearly as fast without the corporate resources or funding. Sure if you didn't have corporate research, we'd still have good missile defense systems and perhaps some of the medical improvements(although many high-end drugs would not exist) but we wouldn't have things like computers, I-pods, I-pads, Cars, waterbeds, washing machines, etc. All these things that have made our lives easier have come about in the last 50-100 years and is the result of corporate funding and development. With copyright laws or patent laws, many of these things would simply not exist.

Well, yeah, that's my point. If your system depends on contrived shortages to function, then it's a bad system. Its natural tendency is to self-destruction, and only constant and aggressive intervention will keep it going; it's basically the economic equivalent of Crank 2.

No, its always worked that way. That's how we evolved as a species. Its not self-destruction, its basically evolution. Its how human nature is supposed to work and how its always worked. Yes, some people will profit and others will get screwed, that doesn't mean the system is broken. Not everyone is supposed to an equal share. The natural state of our species is not some utopian socialist society, it has never been. Its always been more of a survival of the fittest type thing. We just have laws now that make it look less barbaric than before, but our basic instincts haven't really changed. Humans have made the progress of being hunter-gathers to the current state based on this system of producing self-gain and self-benefit above all else. Its not the ideal system, but its worked.

 

[Takhisis]

The FBI has now closed down Megaupload. What the Hell, America?

 

[Crezth]

Re-tooling is innovation. Government research is generally concentrated in things like Missile Defense systems and perhaps things like Cure for Cancer which is all good and great, but they don't produce products for everyday use that makes our lives easier and better.

Indeed not, but it is research nonetheless. Your claim that creativity and technological advancements are tied to corporate money is only partially true.

High resolution GFX for medical purpose is very different from rendering massive amount of polygons for a 3d-game.

What makes you think this is the case? Medicine has a very real interest to develop high-speed, high-detail, real-time rendering. It has influenced the (much smaller) gaming industry in this regard.

The technology also wouldn't have advanced nearly as fast without the corporate resources or funding.

What is your basis for saying this? If you compare the USA to the Soviet Union - a nation that was largely ravaged by the horrors of war at the same time the USA was the only unbroken economy in the world - please realize that the two didn't exactly start on a level playing field.

There are, possibly, other reasons for more innovation occurring in the USA, but I think these are more the result of individuals in America often feeling free and self-directed, rather than being offered piles of cash.

Sure if you didn't have corporate research, we'd still have good missile defense systems and perhaps some of the medical improvements(although many high-end drugs would not exist) but we wouldn't have things like computers, I-pods, I-pads, Cars, waterbeds, washing machines, etc.

Well, you can't very well remove corporate research without fundamentally restructuring the system within which it operates, but your assertion that we wouldn't have products that are often the result of technological advancements or innovations is probably correct.

It isn't true to say that those advancements and innovations do not occur within the context of a corporate sphere, but they are not the exclusive product of private research and development.

All these things that have made our lives easier have come about in the last 50-100 years and is the result of corporate funding and development.

You mean like velcro? I tease, but there's a salient point here, and that is simply that corporations are not the sole font of innovation and technological development. Again, I point you to non-profit ventures that are nevertheless highly technical and useful, such as Linux and Wikipedia.

With copyright laws or patent laws, many of these things would simply not exist.

But copyright laws and patent laws are not a precondition for innovation. It is not self-evident that one has to be assured of a copyright on his invention before he invents it; humans are a lot more sophisticated than that, and motivation in particular is a complex animal.

 

[Traitorfish]

No, its always worked that way. That's how we evolved as a species. Its not self-destruction, its basically evolution. Its how human nature is supposed to work and how its always worked. Yes, some people will profit and others will get screwed, that doesn't mean the system is broken. Not everyone is supposed to an equal share. The natural state of our species is not some utopian socialist society, it has never been. Its always been more of a survival of the fittest type thing. We just have laws now that make it look less barbaric than before, but our basic instincts haven't really changed. Humans have made the progress of being hunter-gathers to the current state based on this system of producing self-gain and self-benefit above all else. Its not the ideal system, but its worked.

I honestly don't know what you're trying to say here. I suggested that we should take a critical perspective on contemporary intellectual property laws, and your response is to insist that this is "how human nature is supposed to work", whatever that means, that it is "the survival of the fittest", and that anyone who doesn't think a form of property-law that is maybe two hundred years old is eternally valid is a "utopian socialist"?

 

[Takhisis]

If we call it evolution then I guess two semi-anthropoid simians a million years ago found out how to make better pointed sticks and used them to sue everyone who made pointed sticks and wouldn't pay them two coconut husks for every pointed stick they made.



Right?

 

[Ayn Rand]

I honestly don't know what you're trying to say here. I suggested that we should take a critical perspective on contemporary intellectual property laws, and your response is to insist that this is "how human nature is supposed to work", whatever that means, that it is "the survival of the fittest", and that anyone who doesn't think a form of property-law that is maybe two hundred years old is eternally valid is a "utopian socialist"?

Intellectual property laws worked more-or-less fine up until now. It is really the combination of property laws with the regulatory mentality and big government that has caused this problem.

So if we are going to re-think intellectual property, we also owe it to ourselves to re-think big government and excessive regulations.

 

[Crezth]

If we call it evolution then I guess two semi-anthropoid simians a million years ago found out how to make better pointed sticks and used them to sue everyone who made pointed sticks and wouldn't pay them two coconut husks for every pointed stick they made.

Right?

You're missing the point. Nobody would have ever discovered fire without corporate research.

Intellectual property laws worked more-or-less fine up until now. It is really the combination of property laws with the regulatory mentality and big government that has caused this problem.

How is this your conclusion? We had bigger government 60 years ago - was IP broken then, as well?

 

[Ayn Rand]

How is this your conclusion? We had bigger government 60 years ago - was IP broken then, as well?

IP is not broken now either. It is in the process of being broken, by a piece of legislation passed by a government. Thus, legislation and government are involved in the process - although perhaps not to the ideologically blind

 

[Crezth]

IP is not broken now either. It is in the process of being broken, by a piece of legislation passed by a government. Thus, legislation and government are involved in the process - although perhaps not to the ideologically blind

A lot of people disagree, and this row over the legislation sort of proves that.

I would think a hotly contested issue such as this has no clear-cut answers, so what makes you so sure that IP would be fine were it not for big government?

 

[Akka]

Look, if not for the money, we'd still be playing tetris. The high-end 3d graphics and environments would have never come to be and all those GFX cards required to play these shiny new games wouldn't exist either. You probably wouldn't have the ultra-powerful computers to play them on. The R&D and the Mass production of such things all depend on corporate research. You can be creative all you want, but you can't actually make anything without the funding to do so.

As someone else pointed up to you, I'm talking about creativity, you answer on computer power.
I agree that we would have seen much less technological progress (which is one of the two reasons I still think copyright laws should exist in some form, the other being that it's just right to reward a creator), but that's not the point I'm arguing.

What I'm arguing is that money DECREASES creativity, not the other way around.

BTW, I remember someone posted a video with a nice illustration of the creative process, and how productivity in intellectual jobs was negatively affected by monetary rewards, but positively affected by many other things (like making a difference, being free to think and not constrained by commercial limits, and so on).

 

[Ayn Rand]

A lot of people disagree, and this row over the legislation sort of proves that.

I would think a hotly contested issue such as this has no clear-cut answers, so what makes you so sure that IP would be fine were it not for big government?

All I said was that we should reconsider the role of all the factors involved - like you said, there are no clear-cut answers.

 

[Traitorfish]

Intellectual property laws worked more-or-less fine up until now. It is really the combination of property laws with the regulatory mentality and big government that has caused this problem.

You don't think that maybe the internet has played a hand in all this?

 

[aelf]

You're missing the point. Nobody would have ever discovered fire without corporate research.

Considering some people believe that the free market has always existed, you might be on to something here. It all depends on how inclusive people manage to make terms like "free market" and "corporations".

 

[Ayn Rand]

You don't think that maybe the internet has played a hand in all this?

Jeez stop it already I am not a complete moron - yes, I am well aware that complex problems have a variety of sources and rarely have an easy solution. But that goes just as well for government and regulation - these too are complex and often fail, y'know. Now, can we stop feeling all wounded and spring to the attack just because someone points out that sometimes the government can be an active contributor to problems.

 

[Akka]

Intellectual property laws worked more-or-less fine up until now. It is really the combination of property laws with the regulatory mentality and big government that has caused this problem.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that the huge amount of corporate pressure by companies notorious for abusing IP right has nothing to do with it. If only there was no government, they would suddendly become charity works and never try to screw over consumers, I'm sure.

No no, it's all the government's fault - at least for the ideologically blind.

 

[Traitorfish]

Jeez stop it already I am not a complete moron - yes, I am well aware that complex problems have a variety of sources and rarely have an easy solution. But that goes just as well for government and regulation - these too are complex and often fail, y'know. Now, can we stop feeling all wounded and spring to the attack just because someone points out that sometimes the government can be an active contributor to problems.

My point was that it doesn't seem to be any particular change in IP laws or state attitudes to IP laws that have precipitated these problems, but the incompatibility with (or, from their perspective, insufficiency of) these laws in a world of modern communications technology. The legislation and state action that we see is as far as I can tell responsive, an attempt to buttress an existing system of IP, rather than to pursue a massive extension of it. If it seems that way, it's because we've all spent so long dwelling in the gap between the strict theory and loose reality of intellectual property; this just represents the closing of the gap towards the former.