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

101–110 of 133 posts

Re: Chomsky on Intellectual Property

#101

Post by angus77 »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #94
angus77 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not so easy in the world of drugs or other manufactured goods. You can't torrent a factory, trained labourers, a distribution system, etc. And you can't torrent the finished product, either. If IP laws disappeared tomorrow, I wouldn't be any closer to owning a Lambourghini.

>If IP laws disappeared tomorrow, I wouldn't be any closer to owning a Lambourghini. Why do you want a Lambo? To me this seems contrary to the ideals that would support the liberation of IP. Why should we be wasting resources on such things? You'd probably be able to get any item you liked with a Lambo TM (or are we keeping some form of trademark laws? please?) and certainly be able to buy some sort of Ford/Toyota/Ki…

You're assuming I picked the Lambourghini for it's brand name value. I could have said "Volvo" but I didn't. Substitute "Volvo" for "Lambourghini" if you like and you'll get eh same point---a manufactured good will not become free by removing IP laws. I can download 10,000 albums this month without incurring any extra cost on top of my internet bill (which is cap-free where I live), but I can't buy a manufactured good without someone manufacturing it first. Cheap knock-offs won't happen (even in China) if nobody pays for them.

Re: Chomsky on Intellectual Property

#102

Post by angus77 »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #92
angus77 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any published work is copyrighted by default. Are you aware of Chomsky making any effort to keep his books out of people's hands? Has he sued anyone for copying or distributing his books?

>Any published work is copyrighted by default. But it is easy enough to declaim the restriction to copying if one wishes CC-SA, CopyLeft, CC0¹, PD etc.. Chomsky is likely contractual obligated, at least in part, if he holds a tenured professorship and may not be able to do this without leaving that post. -- 1 - http://creativecommons.org/choose/zero/

If he's contractually bound then I think it would be fair to say that he is railing against the restrictions imposed upon him rather than being hypocritical.

Of course, this is all speculation until someone either gets a response out of him on the issue, or he starts chasing down "pirates".

Re: Chomsky on Intellectual Property

#103

Post by intended »

maxharris wrote: post #64
jbooth wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

.. and my trotskyist would argue that the Soviets failed because they never achieved "true" communism. He's just as right as you. Gotta go, but on that whole federal reserve thing, go take a look at the boom/bust cycle in the US prior to and after establishing the federal reserve. Again, it's not about what you find ideologically satisfying, it's about what actually works in the real world. EDIT: btw, the fed and fan…

Again, it's not about what you find ideologically satisfying, it's about what actually works in the real world. Actually, it's got to be both. Being smart is being able to correctly predict things, and that requires both theory and empirical observations. While everyone has some sort of philosophy, some philosophies are better in the real world than others.

Being smart means also knowing that you inherently cannot predict things. You may be better than others at getting stuff right, yet you are inevitably going to be wrong.

Re: Chomsky on Intellectual Property

#104

Post by 6ren »

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…

He doesn't cite many examples/sources, but the PARC lab and spin-offs seem to be a huge exception: laser printer, mouse, windows, postscript, ethernet.

Granted, they're not fundamental science, but they were, at least, innovations.

Re: Chomsky on Intellectual Property

#105

Post by ez77 »

stephth wrote: post #30
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?

Putting work into the Public Domain is ironically not the best way to serve the public good. It's much safer to have a permissive license. Chomsky's answer here might have unintentionally passed the wrong idea in that sense.

Are there any known cases of works dedicated to the public domain whose access was jeopardized as a result?

Re: Chomsky on Intellectual Property

#106

Post by pedrocr »

Comparative advantage is generally not understood. It does not mean that countries only manufacture those things that they are best at. From the piece:

>But those of us who would be here would be pursuing our comparative advantage and exporting fish and fur. That's what economists tell you is right. Pursue your comparative advantage. That was our comparative advantage. We certainly wouldn't have had a textile industry. British textiles were way cheaper and better.

Comparative advantage allows for trade even when one country has an absolute advantage over another. Even if British textiles were better and cheaper than the American ones if America started to produce textiles it could make sense for the British to reduce their textile production if there are other goods they can apply the same resources to that have a higher value than they will pay for the American textiles they are now buying.

The wikipedia page is pretty good at explaining this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage

Re: Chomsky on Intellectual Property

#107

Post by hasenj »

defen wrote: post #86
hasenj wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SO is the exception that proves the rule. Also, another thing. Linux/BSD push the bar way high up and force Windows to try and catch up. So even if you use windows, you're still affected by Linux. In the same way that you're affected (positively) by Apple even if you use Ubuntu.

Minor rhetorical note - you used the phrase "exception that proves the rule" incorrectly. You used it to mean "the single exception to a general rule", with "open source software is necessary for a successful startup" being the rule, and Stack Overflow being the exception. The phrase actually means that the existence of a specific rule implies that the negation is true for circumstances not covered by the rule. So, i…

The rule is like: It's really really hard to make startups without the open-source Unix-based systems/tools

Re: Chomsky on Intellectual Property

#108

Post by davidw »

cturner wrote: post #83
davidw wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I sometimes enjoy a "big production movie", along the lines of Avatar (although I wasn't wild about that one), and think the world would be worse off without them. Movies cost millions of dollars to produce. With no IP, we would be left with either movies produced by some rich patron or only by very low-budget amateurs, because otherwise, how do you recoup the money? I am not sure why you are discussing wine; it is n…

You need to consider opportunity cost. What amazing things are we prevented from realising as a result of restrictive law and the practices it supports? There was a time where the church could point to its awesome musical, architectural and wine traditions and say that they wouldn't exist without the strong forced support of the populace, land privileges, the right to cut the balls off young boys, education monopoly…

> What amazing things are we prevented from realising as a result of restrictive law and the practices it supports?

If you look at open source software, there's a lot of very good stuff out there, but it's not some amazing new world, really, except for the people who take it and use it, and give nothing back. They get a ton of value for free. That's ok, open source producers signed up to that world voluntarily, and in general, it sort of works out.

By taking away IP, you would force everyone to contribute their work for free to zillions of other people, thus collapsing the market - plenty of people contribute to open source for fun, but if they were forced to, a whole lot of people would get out of the software business.

Re: Chomsky on Intellectual Property

#109

Post by wlievens »

maxharris wrote: post #47
jbooth wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

We have. We've chosen the government, because they're probably more neutral and objective than a private entity, and that's more important than them probably being less efficient.

Re: Chomsky on Intellectual Property

#110

Post by danssig »

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?

There's always someone trying to make everyone out to be a hypocrite. It is not a conflict to both have a belief and not act within that belief. If the world suddenly started working the way he described and he still tried to sell things he expected others to give away then it would be hypocritical behavior.
Post reply on HN