D&D 4E Piracy and 4e

[xechnao]

It's about all of those things and more. There was little to no commercial interest driving investment of time and resources into those types of technologies therefore the USSR tended to lag behind overall (with certain specific exceptions naturally) in those areas. Now that was because of communism not copyright infringement. But if you did away with copyright protection in general or failed to enforce it on the corporate level then you would have the same lack of investment and stagnation of technological progress.

His argument was that 1st world countries that enforce copyrights will privately invest more heavilly in technology and therefore advance faster. And he's correct.

I disagree. You can't prove any of this. "...about all of those things and more..." is your generalization and actually proves nothing of your argument. Btw this whole R&D argument is totally irrelevant with copyright. R&D is not protected by copyright but by patent law. But patent law has nothing to do with my argument about knowledge Dannyalcatraz was quoting me about.

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

What makes you think that won't happen?

Precisely take a look at the net, you can find pretty much anything if you look and business hasn't crashed to a screeching halt.

And I shudder to think of a world where IP isn't protected under law.

You mean like the vast majority of the history of the human species up to the last century or so?

But hey, as long as you get your splat books for free from a Torrent, right?

Ah yes and the inevitable insults and accusations arrive. First the appeal to emotion then the accusation, highly predictable of you. I've bought more than 70 books for 3e or OGL systems at least 1/2s of those from WoTC. Every pdf I have was either purchased or a duplicate of one I already bought in hardcopy. But don't let that get in the way of your accusations.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Heh- My browser locked up so I lost my response...so, here goes try #2.

If the recipe was known the only difference is that people could perhaps be able to produce it themselves and that coca cola company would have a commercial distribution competition.

Without being able to protect their recipe, Coke wouldn't have the profits to make their version of flavored water available all over the world, invest in R&D into additives that lengthen shelf-life, or artificial sweeteners that allow diabetics and those allergic to corn syrup enjoy their product.

They wouldn't have the cash to employ thousands of people all around the world.

They wouldn't have the cash to invest in creating all of the other products in their lines, including things like sports drinks and the like.

So did USSR have a R&D problem? Do you know about the cold war and weapons competition?

As Makaze said, yes and yes!

While an innovator in the 1940's and 50's, Russian tech has lagged horribly since then.

Their major innovations since beating the US to space:

1) A type of ultraquiet submarine propeller. The US has an equivalent.

2) A fantastic and as yet unique thrust system on the current incarnation of the MIG jet fighter that allows it to "hover" or "stand" vertically on its own thrust. In contrast, the US developed 2 generations of stealth for aircraft, and one generation of stealth for naval craft.

3) The AK-47, which has been copied by China and so many other countries that the Russian military can't sell them at more than a token profit. In contrast, US, Israeli, and even Czech rifles and personal arms remain extremely profitable for both governments and arms dealer resellers.

4) An attempt at building an autoloading main gun for their Main Battle Tanks resulted in a system that, when operated at full speed, loaded the gunner (well, a part of him) into the firing chamber. The US, in contrast, has a MBT that is faster, more heavily armed, can fire on the run and *surprise* has an autoloader that works as designed.

In addition to that, a large portion of the early budget for the International Space Station involved getting Russian scientists up to speed with NASA. The Russian space agency lagged in almost every aspect of modern space exploration, including special alloys and ceramics, superconduction, safety and insulation.

What is that civilian technology that is a product of Dannyalcatraz's correctness? Is is about medicine? Is it about food? Is it about communications?

Medicine, definitely. It takes many millions of dollars of R&D- not to mention physical plant- to bring a new drug to market, even in countries with more relaxed safety standards than the USA. Why invest that $$$ if someone can simply and without legal repercussion negate any attempt to recoup that investment by stealing the recipe that is the end result of the research?

Why spend hundreds of thousands of dollars learning the skills to get a degree learning the skills to create those drugs when some miscreant can steal your end product?

What countries have led the world in innovations in communications & commercial devices? Name a major cell phone company based in Russia. Name a video game platform created by a Chinese company. On which side of the Sea of Japan would you find the most companies devoted to making things like flat-screen televisions?

On what side of that sea would you find the highest percentages of a country's population with ownership of cell phones, video game platforms, and flat-screen televisions?

Or cars?

 

[Makaze]

I disagree. You can't prove any of this. "...about all of those things and more..." is your generalization and actually proves nothing of your argument.

How so? Total investment in R&D by the USSR in non-militarily related technology was far lower than the US. It was the US private sector and not the US government that accounted for the majority of that. Lower investment in R&D leads to less advanced technology. That's pretty much indisputable fact.

Non-enforcement of intellectual property rights on a commercial level leads to less private R&D investment and therefore less advanced technology. Now you can debate that one.

You brought up the USSR, it's a terrible example

R&D is not protected by copyright but by patent law

Agreed with the exception of computer R&D in some cases. I should have said intellectual property rights not copyrights.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

But patent law has nothing to do with my argument about knowledge Dannyalcatraz was quoting me about.

Yes it does.

The accretion of knowledge involved in being able to actually patent something costs money. If I were to discover a way to do "Cold" fusion and had no legal recourse against someone who stole my designs, all that time and money sunk into my education, materials, etc. would be lost for potentially no gain.

Why, then, even start down that path?

China's own experiences with home-grown pirates is a perfect illustration. Think- a totalitarian government that favors lax protection of IP rights and delights with every theft of Western IP can't keep those same pirates from hobbling Chinese companies because of the very environment they've fostered.

And Russia? I've been to Russia. You go to Moscow, you'll find a mall just off of Red Square that is the equal or better of anything I've ever seen in the USA...and the prices in it mean that only the wealthy and the foreign tourists can buy anything in them.

And furthermore, journeying a few blocks away from that mall in any direction gets you into slums as dangerous as you'd care to enter.

Once upon a time, the Russian Czars protected IP and their country prospered for it- go to St. Petersburg and see the Hermitage- their version of the Smithsonian or the Louvre. Its a testiment to the wealth that the Czars attracted to the country.

After the Revolution, however, you don't see much native innovation added to the things gracing its halls.

 

[xechnao]

Heh- My browser locked up so I lost my response...so, here goes try #2.



Without being able to protect their recipe, Coke wouldn't have the profits to make their version of flavored water available all over the world, invest in R&D into additives that lengthen shelf-life, or artificial sweeteners that allow diabetics and those allergic to corn syrup enjoy their product.

They wouldn't have the cash to employ thousands of people all around the world.

They wouldn't have the cash to invest in creating all of the other products in their lines, including things like sports drinks and the like.

The thing with Coke is that it uses an exotic material. What you are arguing here is that more people would be making profits and drinking beer and we would have more variety if the recipe was a secret and patent protected.

As Makaze said, yes and yes!

While an innovator in the 1940's and 50's, Russian tech has lagged horribly since then.

Their major innovations since beating the US to space:

1) A type of ultraquiet submarine propeller. The US has an equivalent.

2) A fantastic and as yet unique thrust system on the current incarnation of the MIG jet fighter that allows it to "hover" or "stand" vertically on its own thrust. In contrast, the US developed 2 generations of stealth for aircraft, and one generation of stealth for naval craft.

3) The AK-47, which has been copied by China and so many other countries that the Russian military can't sell them at more than a token profit. In contrast, US, Israeli, and even Czech rifles and personal arms remain extremely profitable for both governments and arms dealer resellers.

4) An attempt at building an autoloading main gun for their Main Battle Tanks resulted in a system that, when operated at full speed, loaded the gunner (well, a part of him) into the firing chamber. The US, in contrast, has a MBT that is faster, more heavily armed, can fire on the run and *surprise* has an autoloader that works as designed.

In addition to that, a large portion of the early budget for the International Space Station involved getting Russian scientists up to speed with NASA. The Russian space agency lagged in almost every aspect of modern space exploration, including special alloys and ceramics, superconduction, safety and insulation.

Yeah so are you saying that what you are saying here proves that USSR had a problem of R&D due to lack of copyright law? Because I fail to see the connection.

Medicine, definitely. It takes many millions of dollars of R&D- not to mention physical plant- to bring a new drug to market, even in countries with more relaxed safety standards than the USA. Why invest that $$$ if someone can simply and without legal repercussion negate any attempt to recoup that investment by stealing the recipe that is the end result of the research?

Why spend hundreds of thousands of dollars learning the skills to get a degree learning the skills to create those drugs when some miscreant can steal your end product?

It does not take many millions of dollars. It does take a lot of experiments. I am positive that people should still care to make experiments that matter to protect their health. Flemming and Pasteur had nothing to do with what you are talking about. Btw do you know that Bayer fares as the worst corporation regarding ethics?

What countries have led the world in innovations in communications & commercial devices? Name a major cell phone company based in Russia. Name a video game platform created by a Chinese company. On which side of the Sea of Japan would you find the most companies devoted to making things like flat-screen televisions?

On what side of that sea would you find the highest percentages of a country's population with ownership of cell phones, video game platforms, and flat-screen televisions?

Or cars?

Are you kidding me? Appart from cell phones that have nothing to do with copyrights video games as an example of civil technology progress is laughable.

 

[xechnao]

Yes it does.

The accretion of knowledge involved in being able to actually patent something costs money. If I were to discover a way to do "Cold" fusion and had no legal recourse against someone who stole my designs, all that time and money sunk into my education, materials, etc. would be lost for potentially no gain.

He was saying that you must pay for knowledge. Patent law means that you must pay for the rights to commercialy produce something. Can you understand the difference?
You can't compare knowledge to money. Money is a closed balance system while knowledge is an open system.

And Russia? I've been to Russia. You go to Moscow, you'll find a mall just off of Red Square that is the equal or better of anything I've ever seen in the USA...and the prices in it mean that only the wealthy and the foreign tourists can buy anything in them.

And furthermore, journeying a few blocks away from that mall in any direction gets you into slums as dangerous as you'd care to enter.

Once upon a time, the Russian Czars protected IP and their country prospered for it- go to St. Petersburg and see the Hermitage- their version of the Smithsonian or the Louvre. Its a testiment to the wealth that the Czars attracted to the country.

After the Revolution, however, you don't see much native innovation added to the things gracing its halls.

What innovation are you talking about? Architectural monuments and monumental art have nothing to do with copyrights and patents. You have managed to link in your sentence the prosperity of Czars' Russia and IP. Both of these statements are not historically correct but out of your mind.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

What you are arguing here is that more people would be making profits and drinking beer and we would have more variety if the recipe was a secret and patent protected.

I'm arguing that IP laws protect the ability of IP creators to profit from their creations, and that yes, society is better off for it, as evidenced in the availability of a wide variety of affordable products and the jobs created in the industries that provide those products.

The laws that cover physical property lets a farmer or rancher profit from their efforts, why should IP creators be any less protected?

Do you honestly think that if Coke's recipe was revealed that there wouldn't be massive layoffs (in Coke itself as well as those companies that provide ancillary services to it) as its profits eroded? And that those jobs created by the smaller companies would add up to the number of jobs lost (again, within Coke and associated companies)? And that those smaller companies could satisfy the worldwide demand for "Coke" in a more or equally efficient and environmentally friendly way- completely at odds with the principle of "economies of scale?"

I'm pretty sure any economist would strenuously disagree.

Are you kidding me? Appart from cell phones that have nothing to do with copyrights video games as an example of civil technology progress is laughable.

Video games? Its a billlion dollar+ industry that depends upon millions of lines of copyright-protected lines of code and patent-protected console and chip designs.

Cell phones are much the same.

 

[xechnao]

I'm arguing that IP laws protect the ability of IP creators to profit from their creations, and that yes, society is better off for it, as evidenced in the availability of a wide variety of affordable products and the jobs created in the industries that provide those products.

The way our current society and economic system are now IP is a necessity. This does not by any way mean that generally human societies and economies are better off for it. You can not connect IP to the value of knowledge that is and must be a right to every civil human being. Democracy is based on knowledge. Aristocracy is based on arbitrary definitions and generalizations. Can you see my point?

The laws that cover physical property lets a farmer or rancher profit from their efforts, why should IP creators be any less protected?

Their profits should be protected. What I am arguing here is that the availability of knowledge has to be open too in civilization. Do not try to connect the one to the other, otherwise you are jumping to dangerous territory.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

He was saying that you must pay for knowledge. Patent law means that you must pay for the rights to commercialy produce something. Can you understand the difference?
You can't compare knowledge to money.

Sure- in the information age, knowledge is money, insofar as it gives you the power to make money.

Patent law, for instance, means you must pay for the knowledge of how to build a product or perform a process.

Architectural monuments and art have nothing to do with copyrights and patents.

Actually, designs for architectural monuments and art ARE copyrightable forms of IP.

(Check http://www.uspto.gov/main/howdoi.htm if you doubt me, under the "Get a copyright" link.)

You have managed to link in your sentence the prosperity of Czars' Russia and IP.

Yes, I did.

Russia lagged behind Europe in most forms of IP for a long time- including military technology like cannon, until Czar Peter 1, a.k.a. Peter the Great, began a program of westernizing his country, including economic reforms that featured a more western approach to supporting artists and inventors.

Admittedly, it wasn't as advanced as modern IP laws, but Russia went from being an intellectual backwater to having as nearly as robust an intellectual community as any country in Europe- the standard of the day.