On 25 Apr 2006 05:41:27 -0700, wrote:


Thanks for your help on this issue CS. I will go out on a limb still
further, and say that a switch to such a system looks likely and
beneficial. More and more these questions are being brought up in
mainstream press, e.g.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/10/...n/edsmiers.php

http://www.ifla.org/documents/infopo...ht/ipmyths.htm

---
The mainstream press???

LOL,

You cite a badly thought out and unimplementable plan by an
obviously socialist publicist, and a set of opinions decrying the
protection of intellectual property with an avenue provided for
dissemination, but with no avenue provided for disagreement.

Yeah, that's the kind of **** I can get behind...
---

Two factors that I see leading to a paradigm shift on this issue:

1) Communication technology. As people are better able to communicate,
those who would try to prevent communication to maintain an IP monopoly
are left with little recourse but to model their business plans in a
more capitalisitic fashion. Unenforceable legislation is doomed.

---
Tricky. You spout a lot of **** and then end it with a sentence
which is true, making it seem like what went before must also,
therefore, be true.
---

2) Corruption. As IP laws have grown and changed, the corruption has
also grown. Now, it is easier to see the problem because people are
using the system in more and more detrimental ways. Nobody minds too
much if e.g. publishers can skim a little more profit, but when
corporations don't let you re-plant your seeds or claim to own your
DNA, and when certain prime numbers are illegal, it's clear something
is wrong.

---
What's wrong is that people like you report not the unvarnished
truth, but just enough of the truth with enough of the details
obscured to suit your cause.

For example, let's look at the issue of genetically engineered
high-yield corn.

It's not like the formula for it came with no effort expended and,
once it was developed, the deals made regarding its cultivation were
unilateral.

Basically, it's buy the seed, plant it, and sell (say) three times
what you could with the old seed corn, but if you want to use the
new seed you have to agree to buy it every time you plant a new crop
instead of saving some of the harvest to use as seed corn.

If you don't want to agree to the deal, then don't.

But if you do, and you raise a second crop with seeds which you
agreed not to plant, then you're clearly in violation of the
contract.

--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer