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

81–90 of 133 posts

Re: Chomsky on Intellectual Property

#81

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

Re: Chomsky on Intellectual Property

#82

Post by Estragon »

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 certainly crushed the Indian textiles industry economically, which speaks to his broader point that the dominant players only talk about free markets etc. when it suits them.

Re: Chomsky on Intellectual Property

#83

Post by cturner »

davidw wrote: post #63
rbranson wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wrote a gigantic direct reasoning post in response to this, but I think a gigantic anecdotal analogy will work better. In the state of Tennessee, where I live, there is currently a debate about repealing some laws that regulate the sale of wine, which would allow grocery stores to sell it. Polls put 70% of consumers favoring the measure. Arguments are being made mostly by liquor & wine store owners and employees th…

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 and other ludicrous concessions.

I'm a huge fan of the results of some these traditions, but there's more to life.

I think the parent post was very apt. Copyright and patents are both forms of protectionsim, like the Tennessee license laws he describes.

Re: Chomsky on Intellectual Property

#84

Post by kaffiene »

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?

Charging for a book is quite different from patenting the ideas it contains. If Chomsky writes a book on language, you can still write your own work. Product Patents don't work like that. Get the difference?

Free to compete != free of charge.

Libre vs Gratis.

Free as in speech vs free as in beer.

Get it?

Re: Chomsky on Intellectual Property

#85

Post by gojomo »

dexen wrote: post #61
davidw wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you read what I wrote, I made no criticism of him for doing his job. I said it would be a poorer world were the only people who could afford to write those with independent sources of income. > artists earn money by performing What you're saying, in economic terms, is that musicians have rivalrous, excludable goods they can produce: the concert experience. That's not bad, although it would have the IMO negative ef…

> (...) WHERE DOES THE MONEY COME FROM in those paid-for projects? Scarcity is where it comes from (...) Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Google, IBM and the likes earn by selling services and goods rather than artificially limiting intellectual property. ((cue Android download link and AdWords control panel link))

The services Google sells are dependent on a lot of trade-secret intellectual property.

Re: Chomsky on Intellectual Property

#86

Post by defen »

hasenj wrote: post #31
maxharris wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a BSD fan myself, but startups are possible without open source. Stack Overflow runs on Windows, for example. The one thing that startups need is freedom to make what people want so that those people will freely choose to pay the startup (how many startups existed in the USSR in 1970?). OSS is just a nice-to-have once you look at it that way. If it was a necessity, you'd have to explain how there were startups be…

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, if half of the blocks in a city have "parking prohibited" signs, and no such signs elsewhere, that "proves" that parking is in fact allowed on the other blocks, since the signs are excepting the general rule. In other words, why would there be a sign if it was understood that there is no parking?

Sorry to make such a big point out of a small matter, but we already lost one good phrase ("Begging the question") to widespread improper usage. Wikipedia has more info, including the origin of the phrase: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_rule

Re: Chomsky on Intellectual Property

#87

Post by angus77 »

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?

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?

Re: Chomsky on Intellectual Property

#88

Post by calibraxis »

dexen wrote: post #56
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…

> In software terms, this is like saying that all the hard work is done because someone banged out a prototype over the weekend. It's full of bugs and doesn't have the features people want yet. That's the early Google, Facebook etc. for you. Of course most of such ventures fail, but sometimes they get it done and gain traction. I guess his argument is based on the premise it takes organization on scale of a state (co…

Yes, and Chomsky also offered his view on Bell Labs. An off-the-cuff interview: (http://tech.mit.edu/V128/N51/chomsky.html). A bit more detail, if you search for the word "transistor": (http://www.chomsky.info/talks/199805--.htm).

Re: Chomsky on Intellectual Property

#89

Post by angus77 »

davidw wrote: post #14
DuncanIdaho wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that producing stuff is difficult is enough to create an opportunity. If you produce better stuff (price,quality,marketing) you get to sell more and earn more. This gives you an opportunity to invest more in to the system. So you get to be ahead of your competitors. And everybody gets to be ahead as side result with time as well, thus you need to keep investing and keep on trying. The problem is that some in…

> producing stuff is difficult is enough to create an opportunity Producing "information stuff" is difficult, but copying it is extremely easy. You can pay a team of 100 guys to work for a year creating a program, a movie, or whatever, and then have it copied around the internet in a few hours, for free. Leaving you zero income, and a large loss on your sunk costs. That's why IP exists. There is ample scope for argui…

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.

Re: Chomsky on Intellectual Property

#90

Post by angus77 »

eyeforgotmyname wrote: post #20
rick888 wrote: post #2

"I mean, Einstein didn't have any intellectual property rights on relativity theory." I'm fine with scientific facts not being patented, but something like Photoshop or Microsoft windows isn't scientific fact.

It's ironic that Einstein couldn't file a patent on relativity.

To whoever downvoted this:

I think eyeforgotmyname was saying it was ironic considering Einstein worked in a patent office, not that he thought Einstein should have been able to patent it.

It was a joke. You were supposed to laugh.

Post reply on HN