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

91–100 of 133 posts

Re: Chomsky on Intellectual Property

#91

Post by me_again »

maxharris wrote: post #51
calibraxis wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Blue-sky research is much higher risk. That wouldn't stop people from doing it privately. For example, biochemist Peter Mitchell ( https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Peter_D._Mitc... ) won a Nobel in Chemistry in 1978 for work he did entirely without government funding, out of a house he owned. (It's not some little thing he discovered, either - if you take an undergraduate course in biochemistry, you'll…

Interesting example. Pete was actually my step-grandfather, and I visited Glynn quite often as a kid. One thing worth bearing in mind is that he was quite wealthy, having inherited a lot of money (from the wimpey family I believe). So while it is clearly true that some blue sky research can occur without government funding, his path may not be all that easily replicated by others

Re: Chomsky on Intellectual Property

#92

Post by pbhjpbhj »

angus77 wrote: post #87
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?

>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/

Re: Chomsky on Intellectual Property

#93

Post by bostonscott »

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…

There's false premises in that argument.

If Chomsky wants to argue that government funded research is the source of innovation, then he should also ask, what is the source of government funds?

Government takes dollars from those who earn it, and spends it according to collective values at best, or in favor of corrupt interests at worst.

Who is to say that if those dollars were left in the hands of those who earned them, they wouldn't be spent more wisely?

Re: Chomsky on Intellectual Property

#94

Post by pbhjpbhj »

angus77 wrote: post #89
davidw wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

>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/Kia with a Lambo shell. But it will definitely be a knock-off.

Lamborghinis will still be expensive not because of scarcity but because they're a huge waste of money and so in practise few people really want to spend the money on them.

If you wanted a Volvo instead I think you have a chance but you'll probably find it extremely hard to get one that lasts more than a few months, is safe. It will probably be even harder to get parts that are actually worth fitting.

If you wanted an iPad then I think you stand a chance and it might actually be half decent, Chinese factories are already making ripoffs of such things after all. Apple would have to own the supply chain outright otherwise the manufacturer will undercut them (sell at lower price exact same product) and Apple would be left with the R&D and design bills.

Re: Chomsky on Intellectual Property

#95

Post by intended »

davidw wrote: post #74
loup-vaillant wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It always* comes from scarcity of some kind.* Meaning, if you want to gain any wealth, then work on something scarce, and make sure it stays scarce. Let everyone do that, and we get a world of scarcity. Hmm… I thought that a world of abundance was better?

Competition has a way of ensuring that scarce things become abundant. Look at, say, automobiles or computers or food or most normal goods. Sure, monopolies exist, but we also have laws to limit their harm as well. You don't just get to wave your hands and make things "abundant", someone has to do the work, and in order to do the work they have to make a living at it, at the very least.

Counter example - affordable new AIDS medicines Or better internet connectivity/speeds in America.

While competition does have its place for helping humanity, it should also be recognized as not being useful in the production of other types of goods.

Re: Chomsky on Intellectual Property

#96

Post by kragen »

dexen wrote: post #53
davidw wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

He is `set' because he continuously fulfills the expectation of the employer: he publishes (and teaches etc.). And expectations of the wide public: he provides information to us. The employer (university) is happy, because those publications bring them money, even if indirectly. And you were going to say that's a bad thing because...? Sure university is a somewhat special case; we don't expect everybody to become a p…

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

> He is `set' because he continuously fulfills the expectation of the employer: he publishes (and teaches etc.). And expectations of the wide public: he provides information to us.

I don't think you understand what "tenure" means. Think of it like having your stock options fully vested and exercised, except that the company pays dividends every year, and you had so many options that you can live on the dividends.

Re: Chomsky on Intellectual Property

#97

Post by dasil003 »

monochromatic wrote: post #8

Does anyone seriously still listen to Chomsky? This guy has zero credibility as far as I'm concerned.

Chomsky is just one man, and thus subject to the same intellectual failings as other individuals, but his integrity is well beyond the vast majority of people with a pulpit. You should definitely read and consider what he has to say, because otherwise you may be hearing only lobbyists' perspectives.

Re: Chomsky on Intellectual Property

#98

Post by intended »

loup-vaillant wrote: post #73
maxharris wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Blue-sky research is much higher risk. That wouldn't stop people from doing it privately. For example, biochemist Peter Mitchell ( https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Peter_D._Mitc... ) won a Nobel in Chemistry in 1978 for work he did entirely without government funding, out of a house he owned. (It's not some little thing he discovered, either - if you take an undergraduate course in biochemistry, you'll…

Conversely, the impossibility to exclude (copyright and patents) didn't stop the industry from funding the Linux kernel. But both cases are probably marginal. In a world where one has to earn money to survive, innovation is slowed down, either because of copyright and patents, or the lack of funding. The trick is to get a world where one doesn't need to earn money.

"The trick is to get a world where one doesn't need to earn money."

At the very least we need to move towards a place where money is not the final arbiter of 'Good'.

"Intellectual property rights has very little to do with individual initiative. I mean, Einstein didn't have any intellectual property rights on relativity theory. Science and innovation is carried out by people that are interested in it. That's the way science works. There's an effort in very recent years to commercialize it, like they commercialize everything else. "

Re: Chomsky on Intellectual Property

#99

Post by RobertL »

TomOfTTB wrote: post #43
anon1385 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Chomsky's other problem is he's not an "intellectual". He's just a popular college prof who babbles a lot.

Re: Chomsky on Intellectual Property

#100

Post by intended »

maxharris wrote: post #55
jbooth wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, pardon my phrasing here, but all you're doing here is doubling down on the hand-wavey bullshit in longer form. I could give you a similar academic paragraph from a trotskyist, it would be just as substantive and just as wrong. To his point, in the last 30 years, we've slashed taxes for the rich and really slashed welfare. Shouldn't the poor be picking themselves up by their bootstraps by now? Or is something a…

You haven't laid out the first reason why I wouldn't be poisoned by a bottle of cough syrup from duane reade or why it should be on me vs the drug company to prove that their cough syrup is safe. No, just see the other comment right below: 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. As to your comment about the financial industry:…

Its pretty established that the financial firms doubled down on leverage and then blew up. A free market would have made things worse, faster and earlier. Nothing could save you from people who are lying to you, and have begun to believe their own horse. No amount of informational accuracy will help.
Post reply on HN