Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Chomsky on Intellectual Property

groups.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 133 posts

Re: Chomsky on Intellectual Property

#41

Post by ZeroGravitas »

Symmetry wrote: post #28
Tycho wrote: post #10

We certainly wouldn't have had a textile industry. British textiles were way cheaper and better. Actually British textiles were cheaper and better because Britain had crushed Irish and Indian superior textile manufacturers and stolen their techniques. So they were now the preeminent textile manufacturer, by force of course.

I have no idea what he's talking about here. The British did do a number of horrible things in India and did use force to crush, for example, the Indian shipbuilding industry. They also could have learned a lot from Indian metallurgy if they were a bit less arrogant. But textiles? I guess they did "steal" cotton, but that wasn't really an invention in the sense he's talking about.

They "stole" the Paisley pattern:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paisley_(design)

Re: Chomsky on Intellectual Property

#42

Post by bwhite »

hasenj wrote: post #24
maxharris wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the hard part of it This is absolutely false. I agree that discovery isn't easy, but you know what's even harder? The other 90% of the work needed to finish it and make it a reliable product. Chomsky trivializes the work of synthetic organic chemists, the engineers that set up and keep production lines going, researchers that test the drugs, and so on. In software terms, this is like saying that all the hard work is…

Try running a startup without Linux and the entire open source ecosystem.

Are the significant Linux/OSS projects publicly funded?

Re: Chomsky on Intellectual Property

#43

Post by TomOfTTB »

anon1385 wrote: post #22
edw519 wrote: post #17

First this: They don't make any economic sense or any other sense. Then this: They should be working for the public good. (Applause) And that means it should be available to the public. So... So...why aren't any of these (his 145 books): http://www.amazon.com/gp/search/ref=sr_tc_2_0?rh=i%3Astripbo... in the public domain?

http://chomsky.info/books/counter-revolutionary-violence.htm like this? or this: http://books.zcommunications.org/chomsky/year/year-overview.... or this: http://books.zcommunications.org/chomsky/sld/sld-contents.ht... or this: http://books.zcommunications.org/chomsky/rab/rab-contents.ht... or this: http://books.zcommunications.org/chomsky/ni/ni-contents.html or this: http://books.zcommunications.org/chomsky/dd/dd-ove…

In fairness just because something is published on the web doesn't mean it is in the public domain. A manufacturer can publish blueprints but you can't build and sell an improved version of their product if they have a patent on it.

Re: Chomsky on Intellectual Property

#44

Post by maxharris »

jbooth wrote: post #37
maxharris wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there any way to get a best of both worlds in this scenario? Quicker to-market times for drugs for rare and dangerous diseases, and the safe route for the more common drugs? Of course there is. Regulations can be changed, freeing drug companies to research and develop these drugs. In fact, I'm sure that this change - this partial deregulation compromise - is going to happen, someday. But on what principle should w…

You draw the line where it works best, because it works best. The goal isn't some nebulous definition of "freedom", where "freedom" is defined as "adherence to conservative orthodoxy regardless of the particulars". The goal is something that works well.

I disagree.

Who decides "what works best", and how?

Edit: I say that each of us has to do that for ourselves.

Also, I'm not a conservative. I'm anti-religion, pro-selfishness, pro-gay, anti-environmentalism, pro-abortion, pro-capitalism. I'm a radical for reason.

Re: Chomsky on Intellectual Property

#45

Post by jbooth »

maxharris wrote: post #44
jbooth wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You draw the line where it works best, because it works best. The goal isn't some nebulous definition of "freedom", where "freedom" is defined as "adherence to conservative orthodoxy regardless of the particulars". The goal is something that works well.

I disagree. Who decides "what works best", and how? Edit: I say that each of us has to do that for ourselves. Also, I'm not a conservative. I'm anti-religion, pro-selfishness, pro-gay, anti-environmentalism, pro-abortion, pro-capitalism. I'm a radical for reason .

In this conversation, "works better" was defined 2 short comments ago as "easing the regulatory burden for exceptional cases [and in general if possible] while still maintaining safety standards for mundane drugs". Paraphrased.

But you jumped way past "working better" into some unrelated and 100% ideologically-driven conception of "freedom". What are we talking about here, my freedom to get poisoned by cough syrup because I didn't perform my own scientific studies on the matter with a large sample population?

How come freedom only ever applies to the already-rich cutting corners for an extra buck?

Re: Chomsky on Intellectual Property

#46

Post by maxharris »

jbooth wrote: post #45
maxharris wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. Who decides "what works best", and how? Edit: I say that each of us has to do that for ourselves. Also, I'm not a conservative. I'm anti-religion, pro-selfishness, pro-gay, anti-environmentalism, pro-abortion, pro-capitalism. I'm a radical for reason .

In this conversation, "works better" was defined 2 short comments ago as "easing the regulatory burden for exceptional cases [and in general if possible] while still maintaining safety standards for mundane drugs". Paraphrased. But you jumped way past "working better" into some unrelated and 100% ideologically-driven conception of "freedom". What are we talking about here, my freedom to get poisoned by cough syrup be…

How come freedom only ever applies to the already-rich cutting corners for an extra buck?

It doesn't. Yaron Brook just addressed this in a debate held in New York last week:

"The biggest victims of government intervention in the economy, the biggest victims of socialism (as someone who came from a socialist country, where government intervened a lot more than here) are the ambitious poor - the people who could rise up under freedom.

The people who want to work, who want to make something of their lives, who want to succeed, who want to prosper. They are the real victims. They are the ones we should shed tears for when we regulate, when we control, when we put them through public education, when we put them through the whole social mechanism, when we use welfare to institutionalize them into poverty and take away their sense of personal responsibility and personal morality that is so crucial for their development as successful, happy, prosperous human beings. If anything Objectivism should rally around, it's those people. You know, I wasn't rich, I was an ambitious poor guy. I came to this country with nothing. Those are the people who are the real victims of state intervention, and the real benefactors of freedom and capitalism."

This quotes is from the last five minutes of audio: http://www.archive.org/details/FirstPrinciples-Government_Wh...

Re: Chomsky on Intellectual Property

#47

Post by maxharris »

jbooth wrote: post #45
maxharris wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. Who decides "what works best", and how? Edit: I say that each of us has to do that for ourselves. Also, I'm not a conservative. I'm anti-religion, pro-selfishness, pro-gay, anti-environmentalism, pro-abortion, pro-capitalism. I'm a radical for reason .

In this conversation, "works better" was defined 2 short comments ago as "easing the regulatory burden for exceptional cases [and in general if possible] while still maintaining safety standards for mundane drugs". Paraphrased. But you jumped way past "working better" into some unrelated and 100% ideologically-driven conception of "freedom". What are we talking about here, my freedom to get poisoned by cough syrup be…

because I didn't perform my own scientific studies on the matter

You should be free to do this yourself or to seek the advice of those you've chosen to trust on scientific (or any other) matters.

Re: Chomsky on Intellectual Property

#48

Post by davidw »

anon1385 wrote: post #22
edw519 wrote: post #17

First this: They don't make any economic sense or any other sense. Then this: They should be working for the public good. (Applause) And that means it should be available to the public. So... So...why aren't any of these (his 145 books): http://www.amazon.com/gp/search/ref=sr_tc_2_0?rh=i%3Astripbo... in the public domain?

http://chomsky.info/books/counter-revolutionary-violence.htm like this? or this: http://books.zcommunications.org/chomsky/year/year-overview.... or this: http://books.zcommunications.org/chomsky/sld/sld-contents.ht... or this: http://books.zcommunications.org/chomsky/rab/rab-contents.ht... or this: http://books.zcommunications.org/chomsky/ni/ni-contents.html or this: http://books.zcommunications.org/chomsky/dd/dd-ove…

Even if they were all in the public domain, he's basically "set", being a university professor with tenure.

It would be a less pleasant world where only those with other secure income from other sources could produce information goods.

Re: Chomsky on Intellectual Property

#49

Post by calibraxis »

maxharris wrote: post #4
Tycho wrote: post #3

Most of the serious research and development, the hard part of it, is funded by the public. In fact most of the economy comes out of public expenditures through the state system, which is the source of most innovation and development. I mean computers, the internet. Just go through the range, it's all coming out of the state system primarily. There is research and development in the corporate system, some, but it's m…

the hard part of it This is absolutely false. I agree that discovery isn't easy, but you know what's even harder? The other 90% of the work needed to finish it and make it a reliable product. Chomsky trivializes the work of synthetic organic chemists, the engineers that set up and keep production lines going, researchers that test the drugs, and so on. In software terms, this is like saying that all the hard work is…

Blue-sky research is much higher risk. Without the shorter term payoff that corporations seek. It's reasonable to call an endeavor "harder" when it's less certain of success. Particularly when we're talking about real innovations like computers and the internet, versus a company hiring a couple guys to toss together a "minimal viable product" with PHP.

(If that description of corporate productization sounds unfair, I think it's closer to the mark than saying basic research is analogous to "someone banged out a prototype over the weekend".)

When it's able to be productized, that's when corporations come along. This is well known. (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/02/technology/02darpa.html)

Re: Chomsky on Intellectual Property

#50

Post by Natsu »

bwhite wrote: post #42
hasenj wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Try running a startup without Linux and the entire open source ecosystem.

Are the significant Linux/OSS projects publicly funded?

That depends on exactly what you mean by that. The funding sources are quite diverse. Most often, they start out with no funding at all and then, once they solve problems of interest to enough people, they start to attract both government and private sponsors.

But yes, there are government grants. Here's the first example I could find, one for developing a secure Linux desktop:

http://www.tuxmachines.org/node/1153

Post reply on HN