Hey, there! Log in / Register
Arrrr: You can now register to vote in Massachusetts as a pirate, me hearties
By adamg on Sat, 02/26/2011 - 11:22am
The Massachusetts Pirate Party fires across the bow of the Democrats and the Republicans.
The MAPP will advocate for putting people before corporations, opening up government, maintaining personal privacy, promoting culture and knowledge through copyright reform, and fostering innovation by abolishing patents. We call for people to join together and stand for the rights of the common citizen and expect basic honesty from our government.
The MAPP is currently focusing on defeating the Combating Online Infringements and Counterfeits Act (COICA) and other bills that would allow our government to censor the internet. We are looking for people who wish to show and present the truth. We believe that standing up for rights long guaranteed to regular citizens of America is something on which all Americans can agree.
Would it surprise you to learn it's based in Somerville?
Topics:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Abolish patents? This, from
Abolish patents? This, from people who have never produced a thing in their lives.
I don't think that patents
I don't think that patents should be universally abolished, but there is a big difference between being an inventor and being able to identify flaws with our patent laws and policy.
Otherwise you wind up with absurd results like not being able to be for or against space exploration unless you're an astronaut. Or not being able to support laws against discrimination if you've never been discriminated against.
So they want to abolish patents? What if they're right, and that would be the most sensible national policy to have? It's not as though the US is obligated to grant them in the first place. You'd do better to show why they're wrong on the merits, rather than because of who they are.
Yeah, that one caught me, too...
... not because I have done patentable work -- copyrightable, only -- but because the problems with patents is failure to investigate for prior art. There are lots of junk patents out there that should never have been issued, either because the patent is for something that's already common practice, or because the people who invented it think that it was bloody obvious and therefore fails the obviousness test. So some third party patent farm notices that an existing process that has never been patented, gets the patent and starts suing Earthlink and GMail and Mom&PopISP. GRRRRRR.
Copyright reform -- back to the 14+14, or to the end of the author's life, would be far saner and promote more original production rather than the neverending sequels.
the problems with patents is
the problems with patents is failure to investigate for prior art.
There are other problems too. Remember that patents are meant to stimulate invention, disclosure, and bringing to market of novel and nonobvious useful inventions when that otherwise would not have occurred.
If it would have occurred, granting a patent is just wasteful. This is probably the case in the software and business method fields now; I doubt that patents in those fields have caused anything to happen that would not have happened regardless, and in fact they may be acting to slow down those fields, which is directly contrary to the goal of patents.
If programmers or businesspeople stop being as inventive as they have been, let's look at patents then. But right now, we'd probably be better off without them in those fields.
Copyright reform -- back to the 14+14, or to the end of the author's life, would be far saner and promote more original production rather than the neverending sequels.
Well, I disagree. Massive reform is needed for copyright, but the precise timeframe should be determined by what best serves our needs now, not what people used to do back in the 18th and early 19th centuries. This could involve different terms for different types of works, shorter terms with more numerous and more frequent renewals (e.g. 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1), etc. Life terms should be avoided; they're not predictable enough, and in any event will usually be too long. (Most of the copyright-related value of a work is realized within a few years, if not sooner, assuming there's any at all, which is actually pretty rare)
As for original works v. sequels, who cares? Copyright should be concerned with quantity not quality; the government isn't equipped to determine which works are better than others artistically, shouldn't get involved, and it's pretty subjective anyway. Besides which, you can have sequels, or other derivative works, which are as good as, or better than, the works that came before. Indeed, one of the benefits of shorter terms is that works enter the public domain sooner, allowing for anyone to make a derivative work sooner. Most of them will be bad, I agree, but then, most original works are bad too. The good ones will be worth it, since we can just forget all of the rest.