Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Castle -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MSI who wrote (1001)	1/18/2003 10:42:57 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7936

Arguments I hear these days on this issue lose all public purpose in favor of total entitlement I'm not sure I see where the two diverge. While there are instances (for example, the patenting of gene sequences) where you can make the case either way, none come to mind that are just so extreme that you would have to conclude there is zero public interest consideration in them. Perhaps you can think of some..

To: MSI who wrote (1001)	1/19/2003 9:41:56 AM
From: i-node	Respond to of 7936

Imagine our education system if this keeps up, with digital micropayments and further legislation making nothing available for less than an eager price, and for 75 years-plus an understanding of creative materials when combined, becoming prohibitive to review. I.e., only lucky or wealthy can have broad overview of things published, spoken, drawn, programmed, filmed anytime in recent history. If one could imagine such a thing, it would, indeed, be the worst possible outcome. But it is merely imagination, as it doesn't comport at all with the reality of the situation. There is no wild over-use of the copyright and patent protections. I point you to the "open source" movement, in which a the free Linux operating system has become a major competitive influence. Just last week, Turbopower, a major VCL component developer, closed its retail component business -- making all its products open source. Copyright isn't running rampant. As to what's going on in the music and film business, the major corporate players totally closed their eyes to the digital revolution (or more aptly, the BANDWIDTH revolution). So they made their beds. At the same time, shouldn't they have a right to protect what their money creates? I think clearly, they should, else it would never be created. I find no reason that Disney should be forced to turn over its profit-making cartoon-movies, even though from the 50s, for free use. Disney has found that by releasing movies for a while, then withdrawing them, they can keep them fresh for another generation -- these assets can then be productive for them for decades. WHY NOT? They developed them.