Featured New Release

Studio: Bellesa Films
Release date: 8/21/2019


All smartbuydisc.rus > World News Nonsense > Property Ownership Rights Thread
Page 1 of 2 Last
AuthorPost
 
All-Star Member


BOYCOTT JAMES DEEN - BOYCOTT COMPANIES THAT BOOK HIM OR SELL HIS WORK. YES, IT'S THAT BLACK & WHITE.
6939 Posts
8/15
Posted - Jan 9 2019 : 3:02AM
With threats being made toward the owners of lands along the border, And an inter connectedness about what constitutes ownership of various items you can supposedly own, this seems like a good topic.
The letter below was composed by Maree Coote, an author and designer, and this is the article it's referencing.

20190109_183233.jpg
All topics regarding property ownership are on the table.
Thank You SimpleSimon For The Idea.

Edited by - FlacFan on Jan 9 2019

 
All-Star Member

BOYCOTT JAMES DEEN - BOYCOTT COMPANIES THAT BOOK HIM OR SELL HIS WORK. YES, IT'S THAT BLACK & WHITE.
6939 Posts
8/15
Posted - Jan 9 2019 : 3:15AM
If you have to ask permission to change things on your own land, or if the Government can take it away at a moments notice, do you really own it?
If you do not own the media you purchase, why is there no where on that disc that it says that you purchased a licence to use the media but you do not own it?
Why are people prevented from modifying software they paid for?
I paid for the media. I do not profit from showing a film to friends in my house on a film night, why is doing the same thing on line illegal? what's next, They can tell you when you may watch your paid for product?
Apple is being forced to allow home repair, after years of locked supply lines. Why were the able to do so for so long?
Auto makers want to and are making it very hard to work on your car. If you can't do that, do you really own it?
There are many, many more topics that fit under this umbrella. Should be fun.

Senior Member

2970 Posts
2/15
Posted - Jan 9 2019 : 4:37AM
(For context, maybe you should copy over the originating comments. But... can you do that without the posters permission?)
When someone has copied a piece of music (or been heavily "influenced") and released it as their own with no permission or even acknowledgement, and that work is then copied and makes millions, can they really claim their work was stolen? Yes, even if the original work was in the public domain.
There are so many of these suits claiming music has been copied. I heard a claim that record companies, now that music sales are dying, are actually seeing this as a legitimate revenue stream.

Senior Member

2970 Posts
2/15
Posted - Jan 9 2019 : 4:53AM

Edited by - Simple Simon on 1/9/2019 6:46:07 AM
 
All-Star Member

BOYCOTT JAMES DEEN - BOYCOTT COMPANIES THAT BOOK HIM OR SELL HIS WORK. YES, IT'S THAT BLACK & WHITE.
6939 Posts
8/15
Posted - Jan 9 2019 : 5:30AM
Maybe copyright isn't the correct term.
Would patent be more accurate? Things assembled in a specific way are patented and that configuration is then produced.
I purchased all my music, porn, Blurays etc. No where on any of it does it say that I purchased a license to play that media.
No where on any brand of anything does it state that I purchased a license to wear or use an item or wear clothing. I own that.
I have a serious mental and emotional problem {if you couldn't tell} that makes long term exposure to in person friends problematic.
I fail to see how me enjoying a video and chatting with people about it on line is any different than having people over to my house to listen and/or watch the same media they would be enjoying in my apartment, were I able.
I am not talking about blatant abuse for profit as seen on tube sites, although Mindgeek's playing both sides of the fence certainly fits in this thread.
I fail to see any difference between having friends over to your dwelling and having friends over to a chat as you watch. It isn't really my thing, but how can video game people shut down players on line?
They paid for the game and the console, so this, as Simple said above, is the industry trying to squeeze every drop out of the people who have already paid.
The copyright claims of artists vs artists, IMO, is a different animal. Those bands, if they did use the structure of the songs and/or words, should be credited and publishing fees paid. However, how long should that last?
A general utility patent lasts 14 years from date of issuance. Why are songs/media different? One side or the other has to be out of order there. If a patent on, say a lawn mower, lasts 14 years, then why would a copyright on a song be good for 70 years AFTER the artist dies? The guy who invented the lawn mower doesn't keep getting paid for his idea. Big money media companies have used the law to extend rights well beyond what most the normal patent mark is.
And all this because in reality it isn't a physical tangible process to end in a physical product. Except you have to have the physical product to use the media.
If you applied the same rules to everyday patents, there would be one brand of everything unless someone allowed the use of the patent. In the late 70's, with a 1979 launch date, Kozo Ohsone, and a few others at Sony invented the Walkman, the first device to easily play music in portable format. Within a year dozens of companies had similar products on the market; But shouldn't they have had to pay royalties on every unit sold to Valdemar Poulsen?
In 1898 Valdemar Poulsen discovered the magnetic recording principle while working as a mechanic in the Copenhagen Telegraph Company (1894). In 1898 he patented the telegraphone, the first successful magnetic recording device (USF patent 661,619), using the media theory, every maker producing these units should have had to pay him and his family through 2012. But after 14 years they were no longer covered.
So why is media different? It's all intellectual property. but durable goods expire in 14 years. and an Intellectual Property 70 after the creators death. Why? One or the other has to be wrong, because it's two sides of the same coin.
Edited by - FlacFan on 1/9/2019 7:44:11 AM
to see fewer adsAdult DVD Talk is Sponsored by
email for advertising info

Senior Member

1181 Posts
12/12
Posted - Jan 9 2019 : 6:10AM
There’s a fallacy in the article’s argumentation: about the "moving in to my land and use it" after 75 years... With Intellectual Property: when someone else uses it, I still can use it, whereas the land, when used by another person, cannot be used by me.
What I cannot do (after 75 years): I cannot use it exclusively anymore. In other words: my children’s children may have to do their own work and cannot rely on the royalty checks coming in anymore. Whereas property passed down from generation to generation (at least in theory) requires effort by the inheritors, be it maintenance, management, or simply property taxes.

Senior Member

2970 Posts
2/15
Posted - Jan 9 2019 : 6:27AM
^ I actually think it's a valid argument, that I'd honestly never considered. We all just accept that intellectual property goes into the public domain after X years. But why? We don't that with inherited land or an inherited business.
From the instigating article.
"Even those normally on the side of copyright restrictions in order to protect artists' incomes have conceded it's time for works from the 1920s to enter the public domain.
Mary Rasemberger, executive director of America's Authors Guild, has suggested there comes a time when a piece of work "belongs to history as much as to its authors [and authors' descendants]"."
But no one's saying that work is otherwise going to be locked away. It's acknowledging that intellectual property is still someone's property, and, like other property, should be able to be passed down.
The music/art one is interesting. If someone has genuinly created their own original work, and then someone else deliberately copies it without acknowledgement and makes millions of dollars, the original artist should have legal protection. But in reality, how often is that actually the case.
 
All-Star Member

BOYCOTT JAMES DEEN - BOYCOTT COMPANIES THAT BOOK HIM OR SELL HIS WORK. YES, IT'S THAT BLACK & WHITE.
6939 Posts
8/15
Posted - Jan 9 2019 : 7:51AM
^
While I do see your point [and the articles}, I would suggest they are flawed because a person doesn't create their land. They didn't intellectually do any more than direct its buildings and it's use. It was always there, they just happened to buy it.
A persons intelligence may have had a factor in developing it but that's as far as that goes on the intellectual front.
Edit:
Whether or not the government should be able to take it from you for public use is an entirely different discussion in terms of rights and ownership.
Edited by - FlacFan on 1/9/2019 8:02:20 AM
 
Golden Age Classic

13508 Posts
5/01
Posted - Jan 9 2019 : 11:07AM
Actually, many do state that it is licensed for home use only.
You can watch it and chat with people online, you can't rebroadcast it. Which means that you can't play it online for the people you are chatting with. That is a violation. It is a different scenario.
The difference is rebroadcasting. In your home, it is limited to a select group of friends, who can comfortably fit in your house. Online, it is rebroadcasting, which can be watched by an infinite amount of people from their own homes. Whether or not there are tons, it is a rebroadcast and different.
Speaking as a writer, forever. Some writers, for instance, will work in one world their whole life. If it is a world of their creation, why should someone else be able to steal it and work within it? Take Stephen King's Dark Tower series. The first book came out in 1982. The most recent was 2016. That is a 34-year span. Why should other authors, potentially less talented ones, be allowed to take over and destroy this world of his?
As for patents, since I don't work in that field I can't discuss that.
 
All-Star Member

BOYCOTT JAMES DEEN - BOYCOTT COMPANIES THAT BOOK HIM OR SELL HIS WORK. YES, IT'S THAT BLACK & WHITE.
6939 Posts
8/15
Posted - Jan 9 2019 : 11:52AM
Protections against altering the work without consent, I can see. I was referring to "in perpetuity" residuals.
Edited by - FlacFan on 1/9/2019 11:53:04 AM
 
Golden Age Classic

13508 Posts
5/01
Posted - Jan 9 2019 : 12:25PM
Profits don't matter. You also can't go and fill a barn with people and play it for them either even if you collect no money. It is not the same thing. Your license is for what is considered personal use. Rebroadcasting is not personal use. Hosting a showing, is not personal use. Having a few friends over is considered personal use. However, if you find issue with that, feel free to ensure you are the only one home when you watch something.
Why shouldn't the artist remain perpetual ownership of their creation? After 14 years are you saying that United Artists can just take Dark Tower and make a movie? Artists rely on residuals, that is what pays them while new work is being created.
Click to expand
 
All-Star Member

BOYCOTT JAMES DEEN - BOYCOTT COMPANIES THAT BOOK HIM OR SELL HIS WORK. YES, IT'S THAT BLACK & WHITE.
6939 Posts
8/15
Posted - Jan 9 2019 : 12:41PM
^
Yeah o.k. It;s the same thing.
And inventors don't rely on money either? Why isn't there perpetual residuals on inventions? It's the same thing.

Senior Member

1181 Posts
12/12
Posted - Jan 9 2019 : 12:51PM
But there’s a difference: do you want to forbid others (unless agreed—and paid for—with the author) to not write works based on the Dark Tower saga for eternity, or do you want to allow others to create works based on the Dark Tower series 75 years after Stephen King’s passing (not that anyone of us would live to see that day)?
Retroactively forbid any vampire novella, because Bram Stoker was first (read about the german "Nosferatu" movie, which had major problems with the Bram Stoker estate about it being too similar)
When should it end? When does a become vacant? When there’s no heir anymore? What about Shakespeare’s works? How could you be sure that after you made a fortune from a derivative work based on a long-since-passed author, some 11th grade grand-grand-grandson appears and sues you for 90% of the profits?

Senior Member

"In Defense of Rape and Incest" by Steve King
6995 Posts
11/13
Posted - Jan 9 2019 : 2:07PM
Does your car have wheels?
 
Golden Age Classic

13508 Posts
5/01
Posted - Jan 9 2019 : 2:23PM
The other route it can go, if people want everything to be opened up, is non-public releases, which is an option instead of a patent. The work of art would become marked as a trade secret. The author can sell you a copy for $1,500, $2,000, whatever he or she sees fit. And you can share it with no one. If you let someone read it and the author can prove it, you will become bankrupt overnight in lawsuits. Art -- be it books, movies, etc -- will be for the rich only and the middle and lower class won't have any new art.
to see fewer adsAdult DVD Talk is Sponsored by
email for advertising info

Senior Member

"In Defense of Rape and Incest" by Steve King
6995 Posts
11/13
Posted - Jan 9 2019 : 2:34PM
^^
The inventor of the wheel probably has millions of descendants, so royalties wouldn't amount to much per person. I don't know who would process the paperwork for the payments.
What would the price of a car be, if for the wheels alone you had to pay royalties to descendants of the inventor of the wheel, the inventor of smelted metals, particular smelting processes, the inventor of vulcanized rubber, the inventor of hub caps, the inventor of tire treads, the inventor of inner tubes, the designer of valve stems, etc. I'm sure there are patented processes to reduce or eliminate bubbles in processed rubber, etc. ad infinitum.
I think owning something until many years after you are dead is enough. It's hard to really feel that you own anything when you're dead.
 
All-Star Member

BOYCOTT JAMES DEEN - BOYCOTT COMPANIES THAT BOOK HIM OR SELL HIS WORK. YES, IT'S THAT BLACK & WHITE.
6939 Posts
8/15
Posted - Jan 9 2019 : 2:38PM
^
While that maybe true, I doubt many artists will do so. There isn't enough money to live off of doing it that way. And no, I am not taking any money away from an author/actor/studio by playing a film for as many people as I want to at home.
I am not arguing against the rights of the author to protect his work, but to say that I can't play a purchased work for as many people as I want on my own property is laughable.
Characters created by authors are protected, and have been, for ages. lex von v is correct about Dracula, there have been multiple suits over that title.

Senior Member

"In Defense of Rape and Incest" by Steve King
6995 Posts
11/13
Posted - Jan 9 2019 : 2:39PM
The incremental nature of discovery is BECAUSE inventions build upon the inventions of others.
Without electricity, nobody is inventing the toaster. Once we have electricity, the toaster is inevitable. Without the computer, nobody is inventing programming languages. Without programming languages, nobody is producing software.


Member

990 Posts
8/17
Posted - Jan 9 2019 : 3:41PM
That depends on your definition of "really owning it". If you define ownership as an absolute inalienable right of possessing something then "no" is the answer to your question. In the real world, ownership is a legal status subject to complying with safety, maintaining civil harmony, respecting protected status and not being under martial law so the answer in that case is "yes".
Much of the time, you're paying not for the software but a for licence to install and use it subject to accepting the terms of the End User Licence Agreement, where there is usually a clause where by installing the software, you agree unreservedly not to access or modify the source code, nor will you reverse engineer the software beyond what the developer allows you to modify.

Senior Member

"In Defense of Rape and Incest" by Steve King
6995 Posts
11/13
Posted - Jan 9 2019 : 6:58PM
The people who draft regulations about patents and copyrights have to balance protection and innovation. Having copyrights and patents that last too long can stifle innovation and competition. Not having them at all would give little incentive to people to innovate (though some people would anyway).
The original article is wrong. Public domain is not an invention of people who want to exploit the intellectual property of others. It's not an invention at all.
Copyright protection IS the invention. Prior to that, anyone could use anything.


Senior Member

2970 Posts
2/15
Posted - Jan 10 2019 : 5:20AM
^ Going by that logic, the whole concept of private ownership is a modern construct.
The piece above is a response to the article posted; it is not in regard to the concept of the public domain. Specifically, I think it's the statement "copyrighted works published in the US in the early 20th century entered the public domain". They are an author themselves and are stating their view on this legal change.

Senior Member

"In Defense of Rape and Incest" by Steve King
6995 Posts
11/13
Posted - Jan 10 2019 : 12:28PM
I didn't post 'logic', I posted history.
Nobody invented 'public domain' -- the realm of unprotected material. Unprotected material was all that existed. 'Public domain' is just a phrase to give it a name, after the 'invention' of protected material.

Senior Member

2970 Posts
2/15
Posted - Jan 11 2019 : 2:47AM
^ So it used to be there was no such thing as private ownership. Land, inventions, stories, everything was free for everyone to use and profit from. Then the concept of private ownership was formed. People could lay claim to physical/intellectual property, such as land, businesses, inventions, stories; and that ownership could be passed down. But then it was decided that for intellectual property, that ownership would expire after X years. Why?
Again, I'm not necessarily saying I agree with the above letter, Prior to reading it, I'd actually never thought of it.

Senior Member

2970 Posts
2/15
Posted - Jan 11 2019 : 2:57AM
A very interesting one is drug companies. Putting aside the actual realities - because it just turns into name calling - a drug company spends millions researching and developing actual life saving drugs. Now, the company needs to profit from this. But it is immoral that people that are unable to pay for such drugs are unable to access them. But the incentive is needed in order for the research to be undertaken.
(I've heard the reason we have developed almost no new antibiotics in recent times is because there is no profit incentive to do so. Antibiotics are only used for a few weeks, and actually aim to eradicate their purpose.)

Senior Member

2970 Posts
2/15
Posted - Jan 11 2019 : 3:57AM
From the News feed thread
"Nothing written in the 1700's is protected by copyright."
"There is no argument to be made that you can't use a song from the 1700's. You absolutely can, in absolutely any way you wish."
Yes you can, and without seeking any permissions. The question is, if someone then copies your work, should you then be entitled to sue them?
(I didn't want to mention this case, because it has a very sad ending. The Men At Work song 'Down Under' was involved in a successful copyright suit a few years ago. However, there are reliable claims that the original piece of music was actually written hundreds of years ago, long before either of the pieces involved in the suit.)
Edited by - Simple Simon on 1/11/2019 4:07:38 AM
to see fewer adsAdult DVD Talk is Sponsored by
email for advertising info

Senior Member

"In Defense of Rape and Incest" by Steve King
6995 Posts
11/13
Posted - Jan 11 2019 : 11:23AM
Oh, for Christ's sake.
This information is readily accessible and has been referenced already.
You may produce Shakespeare's plays, music from the 1700's, etc., because they are not protected works.
More recent works have protection under a series of complicated copyright, trademark, and patent laws. I'm talking about intellectual property here -- physical property has a different set of complicated laws.
You may not produce a Harry Potter movie without negotiating a fee.

Senior Member

"In Defense of Rape and Incest" by Steve King
6995 Posts
11/13
Posted - Jan 11 2019 : 11:37AM
It's not even that hard to understand why.
Tribal groups told stories around the fire, and their stories, songs, and mythologies were passed from generation to generation and enriched and so forth.
At some point, people started receiving remuneration for making music and telling stories. That's when the bickering starts. For hundreds of years, if someone wrote a symphony that was derivative of what you wrote, all you could do was publicly mock him and try to ruin his reputation. But at some point someone thought to create a protected class of material.
Copyrights and patents expire because the people drafting the laws did not want to stifle innovation. As someone mentioned before, nobody would be able to do a vampire movie because Bram Stoker 'originated' the concept. But now we have such glories as Pride and Prejudice and Zombies. The (modified) characters originated with Jane Austen. The idea of zombies originated in West African and was brought to Haiti by slaves.
And you can see the problems with sending royalties to tens of thousands and millions of Haitians and West Africans for using the idea of zombies.

Senior Member

"In Defense of Rape and Incest" by Steve King
6995 Posts
11/13
Posted - Jan 11 2019 : 11:45AM
The people who draft laws for the protection of intellectual property are balancing the need to have an incentive to create -- protection for your idea so you may profit from it -- against the need for newer innovations from other people further developing your idea.
Frankly, receiving copyright royalties until you die seems sufficient, because after that you are dead and can't benefit from anything, but 70 years after you die is usually about 3 or 4 generations after your grandchild. If you have three kids and 6 grandkids, 12 great grandchildren, etc., that leads to hundreds of people sharing the proceeds before it expires.


Senior Member

"In Defense of Rape and Incest" by Steve King
6995 Posts
11/13
Posted - Jan 11 2019 : 12:16PM
This is also complicated.


That's a good thing. It's supposed to provide a less biased result than research funded by corporations and special interest groups (like drug companies and the tobacco industry).
Drug companies fund about 60 percent of drug research. The government funds about a third, with grants and donations covering the rest.
So the point here is that we pay 40% of the drug development costs, and drug companies pay more for ads than they do for research, and more for stock buybacks than for medical research.
They just don't make the argument that they need their giant, giant profits to cover the cost of advertising and stock buybacks, and they don't share the giant, giant profits back to us.
They aren't struggling to recoup their research investment. They aren't lacking in incentives.

Senior Member

"In Defense of Rape and Incest" by Steve King
6995 Posts
11/13
Posted - Jan 11 2019 : 12:22PM



Senior Member

2970 Posts
2/15
Posted - Jan 11 2019 : 5:01PM

"the first Copyright Act was passed in the United States in 1790, the maximum term was 28 years. Over the decades, lawmakers repeatedly prolonged the terms, which now stretch to more than a century for many works."
 
All-Star Member

BOYCOTT JAMES DEEN - BOYCOTT COMPANIES THAT BOOK HIM OR SELL HIS WORK. YES, IT'S THAT BLACK & WHITE.
6939 Posts
8/15
Posted - Jan 11 2019 : 8:06PM
Will people actively defend their property against a government seizure of their land?
I can sense some very nasty confrontations coming.

Senior Member

2970 Posts
2/15
Posted - Jan 12 2019 : 5:41AM
^ That's just a theoretical equivalence; isn't the real question here why all intellectual property automatically becomes public property after X years?
With the examples given, they aren't life altering works, that they must be. But more importantly, they have been available to the public. It's just that acknowledgement and permission was needed, and if a profit is involved, that part of that be shared.

Senior Member

2970 Posts
2/15
Posted - Jan 12 2019 : 5:45AM
Hmmm... yes I guess that is the logical extreme.
 
All-Star Member

BOYCOTT JAMES DEEN - BOYCOTT COMPANIES THAT BOOK HIM OR SELL HIS WORK. YES, IT'S THAT BLACK & WHITE.
6939 Posts
8/15
Posted - Jan 12 2019 : 7:03AM
Actually I meant what is about to take place in the south western states when seizures begin to build the wall of shame.
Edited by - FlacFan on 1/12/2019 7:04:57 AM

Senior Member

2970 Posts
2/15
Posted - Jan 16 2019 : 6:33AM
I see no one has addressed the instigating letter's point: Why is it all fine for inherited intellectual property to become public property X years after death, but incomprehensible that inherited physical/company property to become so?
Yes, i know this is a moot point as inheritees of $million+ properties/businesses would never allow this.
 
All-Star Member

BOYCOTT JAMES DEEN - BOYCOTT COMPANIES THAT BOOK HIM OR SELL HIS WORK. YES, IT'S THAT BLACK & WHITE.
6939 Posts
8/15
Posted - Jan 16 2019 : 9:12AM
^
I somewhat did in Post 5

Jacob Davis a 1 v \1 I Inventor \Vitnesses AM, FHOTD-UTHOGRAPHIC c0v 1w (osaonws's PROCESS} USPO.} patented the denim jean as we know it. That patent was his until he died, after which Levis retained only the trademark.
It isn't allowed in one area, yet is mandated in another. Why? Why are patents on inventions different than copyrights on entertainment ideas? It's the same thing just in a different format.
It's the same principal, you invented a product, you own the patent for your life time, able to profit off your intellectual property then it enters the public domain and anyone is free to use it.
I fail to see how just because it is a media copyright/patent that it should be longer and you can bequeath it? It doesn't make sense, until you look at the entertainment industry. They used the idea that intellectual property should be treated differently and they are wrong. Their position would infer that every other invention took no intellect to create it. You either apply one rule to the other or the reverse. There's no way that industrial/physical patents will change.
Should a studio, not a person, retain perpetual rights to an idea? It's the only industry on the planet where that is happening. Sure a company retains the Copyright/trademark on the Style/Name of your Invention, but the patent on the figurative nuts and bolts doesn't past the inventors life. Why is someone prevented from remaking a film without permission, yet they can make denim under a different name. It's the same thing.
So, if an artist wanted to release his/her/their version of Jimi Hendrix's Red House, since Jimi left us in 1970, the only thing they should be prevented from is claiming that they are Jimi Hendrix because they aren't. The Experience Hendrix owns that brand name. Why do they have to pay royalties or get permission? It isn't that way in any other business. You get a patent on the design /style for an item design and then it falls into public domain upon your death and then every one is free to follow that pattern, the only thing they are usually prohibited from doing is saying "It's an iPhone" or "They're Levis" "or "It's A Corvette" due to trademarking the brand of device. The entertainment industry very cleverly managed to merge the trademark/brand name into the patent even though they are separate entities. One does not equate the other.
It is the only industry that extends intellectual property aka the inventors idea past the life of the creator. The original "inventor" died, the patent on his idea no longer exists. It's the exact same thing. The only thing they should not be able to do is say that they are The Jimi Hendrix Experience. because that would violate the brand name that would remain in existence.
Edited by - FlacFan on 1/16/2019 10:43:17 AM
 
All-Star Member

Your other left
28339 Posts
3/02
Posted - Jan 16 2019 : 10:15AM
Because it redounds to the benefit of the general public.
If the practice of making land public property after the death of its owner was instigated then what incentive would I have to improve, or even maintain my property?
On the other hand, the inventor has an incentive to bring her invention to the public, because she is granted exclusive rights to it. Were that not the case, we'd be back in the Dark Ages with everybody hoarding their secret formulas. The concept of intellectual property rewards the creator for bringing said property to the general public, while insuring that the 'property' created is not lost to society upon the death of its creator.

Senior Member

2970 Posts
2/15
Posted - Jan 17 2019 : 6:06AM
^^ Maybe it's related to what the letter claimed. Inventions and patents are generally by individuals, and generally of modest means. Entertainment ideas are generally owned by corporations.
^ Yes, with property and businesses that makes sense. But we're not talking about upon death; as per current art, it would be 75 years after death. So your children and grandchildren would still benefit.
On a related point, it's amazing how many billionaires not only inherited their fortunes from their parents, but their parents actually inherited it from their parents. Good luck to them. But they then present themselves as these amazing business entrepreneurs - and people believe them. (Sorry, probably for another thread.)
 
All-Star Member

BOYCOTT JAMES DEEN - BOYCOTT COMPANIES THAT BOOK HIM OR SELL HIS WORK. YES, IT'S THAT BLACK & WHITE.
6939 Posts
8/15
Posted - Jan 17 2019 : 9:03AM
^
That is exactly what it is, but that still doesn't make it right. It means they had the lawyers and the money to buy the influence to get the law passed.
Medical patents are deemed a public need and have a finite patent life of {usually} 20 years.
I tried to locate the expiration date on the iPhone patent and couldn't find it, but there are also multiple applications due to changes in design, so I do not know if that extends the original patent as well.

Senior Member

3890 Posts
2/03
Posted - Jan 18 2019 : 10:56AM
Who? Maybe a Ford qualifies.

Senior Member

2970 Posts
2/15
Posted - Jan 18 2019 : 1:17PM
^ Ummm... Donald Trump.

Member

990 Posts
8/17
Posted - Jan 18 2019 : 2:42PM
Astutely pointed out by Will Hunting when he called out that douchebag jock on how social classes are typically formed by inherited wealth. "New money" is often looked down upon.

Senior Member

2970 Posts
2/15
Posted - Jan 18 2019 : 2:59PM

Senior Member

2970 Posts
2/15
Posted - Jan 22 2019 : 7:27AM

Senior Member

2970 Posts
2/15
Posted - Feb 9 2019 : 3:27PM
^

"US music giant Universal has launched legal action against Clive Palmer for alleged copyright infringement, after the United Australia Party frontman used a re-worked version of Twisted Sister's 1980s hit We're Not Gonna Take It in political advertisements supporting his re-election bid.

[...]

Mr Palmer said Twisted Sister's song was based on the 18th century hymn O Come, All Ye Faithful and "others may have documented the instrumentation, but the melody was already present".

“As Twisted Sister never remunerated the original arranger, we do not understand how they have ever had any claim to its copyright," he said.

Conservative politicians appear to have a particular affinity with the anthem, including Donald Trump who used the song during the US presidential campaign. Mr Trump initially had Mr Snider's approval ..."


Senior Member

2970 Posts
2/15
Posted - Feb 10 2019 : 1:08AM

"We know neoprene as the material most commonly used in wetsuits and, more recently, clothing. But when ... Desley Maidment and Brigitte MacGowan developed their Escape bag, the first product for their State of Escape brand, they knew they were on to something special.

The thing is, within 12 months of their launch, so did countless copycats, who quickly ripped off the fabrication and sailing rope features, selling bags and pouches far below the $299 pricetag of the original."

Edited by - Drew Black on 2/11/2019 7:17:20 AM

Edited by - Simple Simon on 2/11/2019 7:29:43 AM


Senior Member

2970 Posts
2/15
Posted - Mar 8 2019 : 2:58AM

From the comments.

"the patent system does not exist for the benefit of inventors"

"Theres often a reason some brands succeed where others fail, and its often to do with which company is the more ruthless and flagrant... Its just how Capitalism works, ethics and fairness are trumped by greed."

" "We are confused as to why the claim in regards to infringing on a patent from 2010 for pregnancy support garments and medical compression garments have been bought against us when there are many ... brands that design similar garments."

Wow while acknowledging that Lorna Jane (LJ) is infringing, they now argue that "but everyone else is doing it...." "


Senior Member

2970 Posts
2/15
Posted - Mar 25 2019 : 4:02AM
^^ From the comments.

"Lyn1
Have worked in and on the fringes of the rag trade and related creative industries for decades and copying has been going on for ever. Big fashion houses copy little 'art' makers as well as each other, cheap overseas makers rip off big and little designers and makers. Last century (before the internet) I had big brands bring photo's of garments and fabrics to me and ask me to copy the print... standard practice. The hilarious thing was when two different companies would bring a photo of the same piece to me less than a week apart ! Which of them would claim the other was copying them when their product hit the shops ?
The internet has only made it easier (and quicker and cheaper) to find pieces to copy, and easier to find out you have been copied."


Senior Member

2970 Posts
2/15
Posted - May 9 2019 : 4:21AM

Not really sure this should go here, but I’ve tried to pick out relevant quotes

A top former US spy chief has warned Western democracies will fall behind China in developing the cutting-edge technology that is going to drive future economies unless governments intervene to help their private sectors.

[…] China has got ahead of the West by having a "national strategy" for areas such as 5G mobile, artificial intelligence and quantum computing.

The traditional Western economic model, in which the private sector shapes the direction of innovation with only a light government footprint, needs to change for the digital era

We always said to ourselves in a Western democracy, 'We're capitalist societies, the role of government is not to get in the way of the private sector. And the private sector … will out-innovate any competitor.”

“The Western model was based on companies competing on a level playing field, he said. But this was no longer happening. Western companies could not compete with the entire Chinese national endeavour.

China had helped its technology sector by stealing intellectual property through cybertheft, forcing foreign companies wanting to do business in China to share their innovation secrets, and subsidising Chinese firms to become national champions”

 


Senior Member

"In Defense of Rape and Incest" by Steve King
6995 Posts
11/13
Posted - May 9 2019 : 10:21AM
While the U.S. intentionally suppresses clean energy and rewards big oil,

We are stupid. We have leadership that demonizes renewable energy.

Page 1 of 2 Last



Jump To:

Online porn video at mobile phone