NOT POLITICAL: Is the law strangling creativity?

[MorGrendel]

Is the law strangling creativity? or how to get your Dad to call you an anarchist....

THIS IS NOT POLITICAL, I KNOW IT SOUNDS THAT WAY.

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/larr ... ivity.html

Worth a watch. If your a parent, probably doublely so. Sorry, its like 20 minutes long.

[MorGrendel]

I'm bumping this. I really think it is worth the watch.

[Berserker]

He makes very interesting arguments. It is however a very grey area he's trying to adress. For example, how much of a movie should one be allowed to use to make something creative out before it is copyright infrindgement? 1 minute, 20 minutes? If one is using a copyrighted piece for something that is not for commercial use, that should be ok right? What if that piece brings the person a whole lot of fame which then makes him rich. Does the owner of the piece the dude used to become famous deserve compensation?

What if someone took our phoenix symbol and animated it so the flames are moving and then used it for his website. Would that make you mad as the artist that originally created this that someone else is now using without asking you about it? How much of the picture would he have to change before it no longer bothered you?

I do recommend the rest of you listen to this though. It's a different perspective.

[MorGrendel]

OK, now that he has been on Colbert you should watch it.

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colber ... nce-lessig

Post if you even read my posts.

[Rachel]

Now I havn't watched the second one yet but I did just watch the first. I have a bit of trouble with streaming video because I'm on WLAN that doesn't always like to work for 20 min straight. It was very interesting, the argument was very well built and presented. April liked the stripping Jesus, and the rest of it too..

The concept of artists choice is very interesting there too. So if you wanted to keep the phoenix just for us, but had other published drawings that were free for all (and so did many other artists), then someone who wanted a phonenix for there own use could find one from that category and there would be no need to take what someone wanted to be just for themselves.

I would tend to think if something like the recombinant art did bring someone fame and fortune that would be due to the ingenuity of what combination that produced a new artwork with its own meaning. I really like his call to the artists to make there art avalible for this purpose to create market pressure and allow amatures the chance to show there brilliance without needing to be rich first. If some amiture creator did become famous with the freely shared music used of an amiture band, that band could ride that fame as well. Seems win win in many ways.

[MorGrendel]

All very valid points.
Allow me this question, what whould you like to see considered public domain?

[MorGrendel]

My great fear is that we live in a world where creativity is squashed. Not because it offends or infringes on natural laws, but because it is against the status quo; As what does not conform is considered ugly and vile. That as a people, we do not put pen to paper or paint to canvas for fear of the end result and comparisons that will be made to what has come before.

I argue that there is no grey area, nothing is wholely new or original. I did not borrow ideas for the phoenix; I stole the lines, the shapes, and the flow from a tribal tattoo and an internet image. Both the tattoo and the pixelated bird were not natural to their environment, so they must have been stolen from somewhere else. The day I created the Phoenix and showed it to the world, whether it was on my chest or on the internet, I was prepared to have it stolen. I would not expect the man with the tattoo to return his work, nor would I expect a thief to not steal.

However, I would sooner dine with the thief that shares his loot, then the one who locks it away; For is a thief that shares, truelly a thief. I believe the real thieves are the devices that are put in place to rob us of our creativity.

* * *

http://www.goshen.edu/art/ed/creativitykillers.html

[Fritz]

Apple just got a patent in an attempt to strangle the Palm Pre in its craddle:

http://www.technewsworld.com/story/Will ... 65977.html

Fuck you Apple.

[MorGrendel]

"We try to monetize ... the inventions we create through the licensing of technology," said Kevin Light, vice president and deputy general counsel of intellectual property and IP licensing at HP.

US Patent Awards: Where Has All the Innovation Gone?
IBM doesn't have a close contender when it comes to snagging patents in the U.S. However, a glance at the line-up reveals a somewhat jarring state of affairs: 23 of the top 35 companies awarded U.S. patents in 2008 are not U.S. companies. Does that mean America has lost its innovation edge?

http://www.ecommercetimes.com/story/65983.html


You'll still get your Pre, it will just never be cheaper than a IPhone.

[hypo]

Apple just got a patent in an attempt to strangle the Palm Pre in its craddle:

http://www.technewsworld.com/story/Will ... 65977.html

Fuck you Apple.

Correction Apple has a patent and is making sure that no one else can use it
There is a difference.

[Fritz]

Apple just got a patent in an attempt to strangle the Palm Pre in its craddle:

http://www.technewsworld.com/story/Will ... 65977.html

Fuck you Apple.

Correction Apple has a patent and is making sure that no one else can use it
There is a difference.

The Pre is being developed with totally different software which Palm built from scratch, which in my mind means they stole nothing from Apple. What Apple did was take touch screen technology and put it on a phone. Yes, they were the first ones to have the idea of putting it on a phone. Where they the first ones to think of touch screen technology? Hell no. They weren't even the first ones to make a 3G phone, or even a smartphone. If they want to get fight dirty, Palm should suit Apple for "steal" smartphone technology since Palm made the first smartphones and PDAs. Hell, OS X stole a thousand ideas from Windows (and vice versa). Apple is being hypocritical and they know it. Apple doesn't want to actually improve their product, so they're trying to monopolize the market instead. Good for their business, bad for the consumer and the market.

And yes, I am one of those tech nerds that have a pathological hatred of anything Apple. I don't mind their products so much (the iPod and iPhone were revolutionary and I'll admit that in a heartbeat). What I hate is their business practices and extremely deceptive marketing. They're proprietary ass holes. Open development is always better. That is why PCs remain more popular than Macs. You can upgrade them, customize them, and build them from scratch all without sending them back to the factory. You still aren't allowed to do any of that with a Mac. Even if the average users pay the Apple Tax for the bright, shinny, pretty looking Macs, nerd-dom will never convert over. PCs allow more freedom and are just plain more bang for your buck. That's also why I think Android and the Open Handset Alliance (led by Google, the champion of open source development) will eventually beat out Apple and the iPhone. The more minds and the more freedom you have to work on a product, the better it is going to be in the end.

Ok, I've got my anti-Apple tirade out of my system. This thread may now continue as originally intended

[hypo]

It even stated it in the article that it is not the touch screen or the OS but the software behind the touch screen that the PRE is using is the Apple platform for touch screens with the how to distinguish if you finger touches two buttons how it determines what it touched and expanding and contracting pages. You can't just use the SAME thing and call it your own. They have to pay or make something new.

[Fritz]

The article does not state that the pre is using the same software, merely that its software has managed to accomplish the same feature. If the Pre was using the same software then, yes they should have to pay. However, Web OS was scratch built from the ground up independent of Apple. What Apple is attempting to cover with the patent is not just the software, but also the feature, which I find to be bullshit. If you want to talk features, then Apple stole mobile email from Palm and Blackberry.

Oh and this little bit pissed me off too:
"It is not just the Pre whose prospects are in doubt now, thanks to Apple's new patent, which also describes features that are not in the iPhone but are included in other products. U.S. law does not require a patent seeker to restrict its claim to products they have in development, he explained. 'So long as the many rigorous descriptive and other statutory patent requirements are met, patentees can obtain coverage on features found in competitors' products.' "

[Fritz]

Found another article that cooled me down a bit. It's a balanced legal look at what both sides can bring to bare. The bottom line appears to be that if both Palm and Apple go head to head it could be a bloodbath, which is in nobody's interest.

http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/28/appl ... -analysis/

[MorGrendel]

I wonder if I can patent "the method of book reading for visual interfaces". Oh well, this is why we still don't have an electric car.

To return it to the post, does the law help the common good in this case? Does bureaucratic bulling and lawyer wrangling cost us something in social capital and does it discourage entrepreneurship? By not allowing a device that capitalizes on the way humans interface with the world around them, in this case touch (feel but also see and hear), how do we set a precedent to do this in other ways?

Pick a topic . . . or start your own. I have not had coffee yet.