TorrentFreak

The place where breaking news, BitTorrent and copyright collide

Economists: Abolish Copyright & Patents to Save the Economy

Two economists from Washington University have looked at current copyright and patent laws and concluded that they’re not good. The pair see current Intellectual property laws as similar to ‘medieval trade monopolies’ which were bad for the economy as a whole, and are calling for the system to be reformed.

Press releases from the MPAA and RIAA often emphasize how much the extension of copyright terms helps employment and assists the economy, but it’s their job to push this angle.

It’s when independent experts say that extending terms hurts the economy and stifles innovation that people should sit up and take notice. All too often though, such experts are ignored because they are just people that know the subject, rather than fund politicians campaign contributions. Moreover, they focus on facts and case histories, rather than vague associations or made-up figures.

Two such experts are Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine, economists at the Washington University in St Louis. Boldrin, chairman of the university economics department, points out that what goes by the name ‘Intellectual Property’ is in fact “an intellectual monopoly that hinders rather than helps the competitive free market regime that has delivered wealth and innovation to our doorsteps.”

“From a public policy view, we’d ideally like to eliminate patent and copyright laws altogether,” says Levine, the John H. Biggs Distinguished Professor of Economics. “There’s plenty of protection for inventors and plenty of protection and opportunities to make money for creators. It’s not that we see this as some sort of charitable act that people are going to invent and create things without earning money. Evidence shows very strongly there are lots of ways to make money without patents and copyright.”

In a short video clip, Levine states that copyright shouldn’t been seen as a charitable act, which is a lesson Commissioner McCreevy needs to learn. Also, he states that Intellectual Monopoly is the more appropriate term, and that the property label is a recently-given propaganda title, a subject Richard Stallman of the Free Software Foundation has covered in the past.

The views of the economists are presented in their new book, “Against Intellectual Monopoly”, where they suggest that the copyright and patent systems in the US should at least be brought back into line with their constitutional establishment – that of promoting the progress of science and the useful arts. In the book, they put the case quite simply – “In the decades to come, sustaining economic progress will depend, more and more, on our ability to progressively reduce and eventually eliminate intellectual monopoly.”

It might be that the Pirate Party has some intellectual support for their positions, and perhaps a Missouri party will soon be in the making.

Related Posts

Previous Post | Next Post

  • Anonymous

    cheers.

    I just discussed that yesterday :-) and was told down.

    actually I think things should be more like “copy it if you can” ;-)

  • Brilliant Death

    Interesting stuff. I’ve never really considered it in that way before.

  • Anonymous

    down with intellectual monopolie!

  • psyche

    As a creator of products, that is patents not media, if you take away my right to ownership of our ideas, we will simply not share them and progress will come to halt.

    Patents are legit. Copyright is bullshit.

  • Interesting

    It is said that due to patenting the industrial revolution was pushed down for a decade or so. That is propably one of the first examples that support the view of these people. I wonder how much our current development is pushed down due to patenting and copyrights?

  • Economics

    I seriously hope anyone reading this doesn’t truly believe that no patents/copyright is a good idea, especially in the money-orientated world we live in.

    A key focus in Industrial Organization in the last century has been on patents and copyrights, with most economists concluding infinite, narrow (i.e. imitation is possible) patents as the optimum solution for both innovation and consumer welfare. I would encourage any readers of this article to actually check the multitude of journals written on the subject and make their own decision on the matter.

    Remember, without patents – what is the incentive to innovate/invent?

  • michael

    It is through patents that you can share how something works without fear of your idea being used by someone else first. Imagine I am a small independent medical research company (they do exist my sister works for one) and I invent a treatment for arthritis, I cannot afford to do all the clinical trials, and production of the product and other steps necessary to bring to market, so I need to be able to share my treatment with GSK to bring it to market, but without patent protection I cannot do that. I can either share my idea to GSK for free and hope they take charity and give me some cash. Or sit on my idea indefinitely hoping some day I will be able to afford to do all the trials and production myself. Which would never happen because thanks to the removal of patent laws I have no source of income.

  • Reasoned Mind

    Yeah, so says two mid-level academics with guaranteed incomes, guaranteed benefits and retirements and guaranteed lifelong employment through protectionist tenure, THEIR FORM of teaching monopoly.

    Ho hum. Next?

  • nd

    No doubt.

    It is bad for the economy. If you think about it it’s quite obvious. It creates a different system, but a better one for the soceity as a whole. However, less good for some individuals, and they’ll always defend their money off course.

  • http://neuron2neuron.blogspot.com Ben Jones

    Economics – I’m actually with you party. I’m an engineer by education (and hold a patent). The system does need comprehensive overhaul, and the best, quickest, cleanest way would be to wipe out current patent legislation, and have a new one. the what, the why and the how long should be more clearly defined.

    It’s the same with commercial copyright, and it’s the same platofmr I’ve had for many years – http://neuron2neuron.blogspot.com/2006/07/copyright-is-right.html

    The idea is sound, the execution of it right now, is not. Regardless, this is a news site, and i try and keep my personal opinions seperate.

  • Gordon

    @4 Patents are great, until whores start hoarding them (CSIRO, MCI Worldcom) and suing anybody creates a product similar to the patented idea. The patent office is broken and horribly corrupted, due to “intellectual” property. Back when you had to have a physical product in hand to patent, you had innovation. Now, people just sit their writing out ideas and patenting them, then not making products, and suing anybody else who does make a product.

  • hsas

    @Reasoned Mind

    So? What benefit does it give them to say this? It’s their job to research, and share the results. Not to preach one side of the argument.

  • Sam

    Both patents and copyright have a perpose, to encourage creation. Without them, there is no incentive to make new media. BUT! The trend has gone the wrong way. P+Cs were made up in an age where it could take years or even decades to market your product to maximum potential, and P+Cs were a way to make sure no one cheated by taking something new out to a new market and profit off another’s work. Nowadays, nearly every media can be distributed worldwide to any home as fast as the connection allows. Terms should have shrunk gradually over the last century, not grown at a rate so fast nothing would enter public domain.
    4 years is plenty for nearly any media, considering that’s longer than it takes for the next major version for most things if there will be one. Allowing an extension by giving a master copy (A high resolution copy of images, the cutting room floor of films, the source code..) to a government vault, to be released at the end of the extension, would help even more.
    As for patents, that system is so broken it needs to be nuked from orbit.
    Firstly, they’re horribly understaffed, leading to approval of things that should never have been, things that can’t exist, or something that the entire industry has used for years, but is so small or could be replicated by anyone with common sense. Also, it makes people reinvent the wheel over and over again in slightly different shapes to avoid lawsuit.

  • Ben

    @5 Can’t say I’ve created any kind of product worth protecting, but I agree that we need a system like patents so that the creators of an idea can still get credit.

    Though I think the issue they have is with increasingly vague principles being patented to make money of anyone trying anything similar.

  • rincewind

    I’d suggest those interested (and against their statement) to actually read their book. It’s not quite new – I read it quite some time ago. When it comes to patents, they say for example that in stead of patenting something (costs money, takes time, makes the idea publicly available, though “protected”), you sell exclusive access to the idea. For example, if Pfizer wants to have an advantage over Eli-lilly, they basically give you money to NOT TELL E-L about it. Within medicine they do however also need to address trials, but they write it better in their book than I can here. :)

    Have a very good and interesting read!

  • h33t

    an example of a real crime of intellectual monopoly is the failure to supply Africa with anti-malaria and anti-AIDS drugs etc (which can be supplied at marginal cost to the manufacturer)

  • Some Person or Other

    @5 patents are bullshit as well. Perhaps even more so than copyright.

    People can and do own patents which cover things like phasers, light sabers, etc…. All without ever having built a working prototype.

    As long as they keep the language of the patent generic enough they can then use it to sue the people who actually devlop and market the item covered by the patent.

    Just look at the lawsuits over Nintendo controllers. Or as another example how WotC (Hasbro) hold patents over mechanics of collectable card games.

    They may not always hold up in court but just having to fight them would be stifiling to development.

  • djnforce9

    @5: You are correct unless of course there are already OTHER protections in place that prevent someone from taking your idea and selling it off as their own (or even taking credit for it) and/or doing something to profit from your creation without your permission.

    If this is true though “There’s plenty of protection for inventors and plenty of protection and opportunities to make money for creators”, then patents are redundant because content creators are already protected by OTHER means. If not, then patents should stay, copyright should be abolished.

    That’s my opinion.

  • Bugs Bunny

    Patents are great if you have a million bucks or so to get a patent.

  • SteveO

    Yeah, The RIAA is taking a LOOK at how the torrent is doing it, now they want to shut them down and use that technology to make money for themselves. Thats how I see it.

  • Vince

    Boldrin and Levine are not at the University of Washington; they are at Washington University in St. Louis. The University of Washington is in Seattle.

    [TF] – Thanks for pointing that out, edited.

  • Ethereal

    not erased theres gotta be something. whats to stop a giant corp from taking everything when it comes out and having everything in one place.. like a walmart. who’s gonna go looking for every single thing in dif places when they can go to one place and get it all. gotta be atleast some time for creators to have ownerships over things they make…

  • http://www.10ch.org/ www.10ch.org

    @6 Economics
    “Remember, without patents – what is the incentive to innovate/invent?”
    READ THE ARTICLE you dope.

    “Evidence shows very strongly there are lots of ways to make money without patents and copyright.”

    Perhaps you could also use common sense. A company which creates an invention could profit by using this invention.

    Patents may actually not be entirely bad of an idea, but it should be extremely limited, for exmaple, by limiting it only to commercial activities.

  • Pieter Hulshoff

    @7,

    Theory is nice, but now look at reality: GSK will simply take your “invention”, and market it. You try to sue them, and they laugh at you while you go bankrupt trying to cough up the millions it costs to defend your patent and get buried in the paperwork of 100s of patents they feel YOU have been infringing as you discovered your patented invention.

  • Pingback: Schaf copyright en patenten af! 2 economen aan het woord | Marco Raaphorst

  • sllorts

    Copyrights should be tougher – the period that works are under copyright should be radically extended to say 500 years in order for the artists family to benefit from their work after their death.

  • shadowblack

    Or better yet, make copyright last for eternity, so that all of a person’s descendants can benefit from his work.

    /sarcasm

  • Human Freedom

    Finally some sensible thinking on on copyrights. Originally copyrights were an unfair advantage granted only to certain fields of endeavor such as the arts and sciences to facilitate their growth. The corporate greed culture through deep pockets was able to manipulate the laws and politics of copyright in it’s favor…. hence we have the mess that exists today. Instead of Corporations serving the people… It’s been the people serving the corporations. Luckily we are getting to the end of this kind of abusive thinking.. People see the Corporate world for what it really is, blood sucking leeches…. They only serve themselves….

    In the same sense globalization is just a a false term used to open the gates to corporate enslavement of humanity, through debt, to subservient servitude….

    It’s nice to see the world slowly come back to it’s senses….

  • citizen

    copyrights, terrorism, child pornography have all become the “Willy Horton” of the latest media hum. They would have us shut down the internet or give it over to the private use of the mpaa/ifpi while waving these canards in the air.

    Rage

  • grizz

    C+P should be limited to say 5 years. After that it should be open to the public. There are several “secrets” that have been burried by big companies that would otherwise have made HUGE diferences in our world. Chevy had an electric car-the EVO -that was tested, and then destroyed. Other battery ideas that were hidden and the list goes on. The patients were bought by the oil companies and are gone for ever now and it’s due to corporate greed.
    Our economies and health are the 2 biggest things that suffer and people don’t care. Yes , C+P need to be in place, but for a limited time. Then , those ideas could be released, and improved on.
    5 years is long enough for the rights hoilers to get a head start in the market to make their profit and, with the knowledge that it will be open, it would give them incentive to keep improving.
    That would be kind of an example of how to keep our world moving ahead, have incentive, and keep good ideas from being burried.

  • Human Freedom

    “Your response is awaiting moderation.”

    (((Oh really..?!!)))

  • Justaguy

    Patents and especially copyrights have been pushed to extreme limits. When self-serving companies like Disney successfully lobby to keep Mickey Mouse in their pocket well past reasonable time limits, we all loose. Everyone knows who created Mickey Mouse, no matter who is selling it.

  • Jonico

    Thanks for the good article & the video~

  • Smarterthanyou

    You all know that they’re specifically referring to INTELLECTUAL patents and copyrights, right?

    Nobody’s suggesting that you shouldn’t be able to patent the latest medical device or some specific implementation that requires skill, materials, and a prototype.

    They’re saying stuff like Amazon.com’s “One Click Checkout” isn’t something that should be patented. Or NCSofts “show ads during game loading screens”. Protecting IDEAS and not THINGS is what stifles technological progress.

    Intel can hold it’s patents on processor hardware, but Microsoft should probably lose the patent on it’s Start Menu. See the difference?

    I think the smartest thing to do is to make the patent/copyright expire with the lifespan of the filer/author. Your descendants aren’t OWED your ideas. Will them the money you made with it. Or teach them how to improve your idea so when you’re gone they can continue to be the “expert” on the subject.

    The other rule is to have a shorter “to implementation” window. Currently you never have to DO anything with a patent. Give it 5 years. If you can’t find a company to finance your idea 10 years after patent approval, or can’t build it yourself in that time. So you file the patent and gain your protection. You have a decade to bring a product to market that uses the patent. If you can’t do it in 10 years, the patent expires. That should fix the stockpiling of IP or “preemptive patenting” since you really don’t want to waste time holding patents you don’t intend to use right away.

  • truth

    Patent trolls are a good example of this patent an algorithm/idea/concept, with no intention of ever developing it. wait until it is used everywhere. Then, to get your money for no real work, sue everyone for patent infringement.

  • pirateprideWW

    Funny how a bunch of pro-copyright stooges are showing up here, isn’t it? Why would they be browsing around on this site, exactly?

    In any case, I’m very glad this book is getting attention. It’s very relevant to the debate. You guys should check out the Mises Institute for similar kind of (libertarian) ideas… they’ve been on a rip lately against IP.

  • Antinomian

    FYI: There is a similar work available online by an attorney giving the same argument only from a legal as opposed to an economic perspective. It’s Against Intellectual Property by Stephan Kinsella.

    The questionable legitimacy of IP has been an ongoing debate within the Libertarian community for many years and you can find many articles and threads on the subject at mises.org .

  • AF

    @ 32

    I’ve always wondered why anti-file sharers come on torrent freak, their like Jehovah witnesses, unwanted, not welcome , annoying and pathetic

  • meh

    In the book, they argue that copyright should be abolished, but not that products should be given away for free. Their idea is that the creator of a media work will sell it to multiple publishers, who will in turn compete against each other when selling that.

    It’s not really in line with what most people here think of when abolishing copyright (i.e. media should be free). The authors of the book don’t think things should be free.

  • Mike

    Filesharing is the future.

    People are waking up.

  • dissenter

    @6 Economics
    “Remember, without patents – what is the incentive to innovate/invent?”

    Oh I don’t know, necessity, inspiration, creativity. Instead of greed.

  • Jon

    i don’t know about completely abolishing… in the end would only hurt the little guy.

    they should definitely make it less strict, which in the end hurts everyone.

  • Antinomian

    @40 dissenter

    No it’ll still be greed and there is nothing wrong with that. One common fallacy is in thinking that there can be no profit without IP. There was life and profit before IP and there will be after IP is gone – and it will be gone.

  • chet

    there is an underlining motivation here… perhaps the motivation is to do just the opposite… because truly the laws do not give the RIAA/IFPI/MPAA the right to stop ppl from freely trading now… they are just strong arming ppl to believe it so just as the IRS makes ppl believe they own taxes when they dont.

    maybe if they push the idea hard enough to abolish copyrights on intellectual property it will get the ones that would be hurt to stand up and fight the laws for them to give them a good image (that theyre not the bad guys)because the image of the RIAA/IFPI is causing more damage now to the industry because of the bad politics then if it where just left alone…

    so my bet on this subject if one would look for the resources for this im betting you could find traces back to the RIAA/IFPI/MPAA ect…

  • Henry Emrich

    “don’t know about completely abolishing… in the end would only hurt the little guy.”

    Uhh, what “little guy” are you referencing?
    The vast majority of folks who don’t ‘own” a patent, who are gouged because pharmaceutical prices aren’t allowed to be lowered via the “market competition” capitalist types are always talking about?

    Or maybe you’re thinking of the “little guys” like musicians and customers, busily getting harassed and bankrupted by the RIAA/IPFI?

    Yeah, Patents and copyright really hlep the “little guy”.

    “Without patents and copyright, where’s the incentive to create or innovate”?

    So you’re saying, then, that the “market doesn’t work?” Patents and copyright are about ONE thing: stopping the vaunted “market competition” your type is always blathering about as such a good thing.

    Or maybe you’re saying that “market competition” should only be permitted in a field where “innovation” isn’t that big of a concern (like, for example, several grocery-stores being permitted to all sell cans of corn.)

    Really, it’s hilarious to watch capitalist/business-types line up in favor of a State-granted monopoly privilege. One wonders what happens to their “Free market” blather, but maybe hypocrisy is too strong a word.

    (Of course, we’re seeing far bigger “capitalist” fish lining up for the Big Bad “Nanny State” to save their asses, and nobody calls them on it. I don’t buy it. The medieval “guilds” probably loved THEIR system of privileges as well.

  • CCC

    don’t waste your time. the only way for patent to reform is when a important technology patented by non us company . at the time when people start thinking that the patent law actually do harm to US.

    this may sound selfish but that how human is .

  • stevenaballmer
  • Stephan Kinsella

    My argument against IP is not really “legal,” but moral and political, and anchored in private property principles informed by sound free market economic reasoning.

  • overlooker

    MercExchange vs. eBay has proven that patenting your idea is pretty much useless against the theft of that idea.

  • SinsI

    @7, you are living in an ideal world that doesn’t exist.
    If you make a useful invention, a big bad corporate company comes and beats the hell out of you, forcing you to give up all your rights at a fraction of their future profits from said technology.

    As for computer programs – they don’t disclose their source texts so they don’t “share how something works” at all – but they still profit from the copyright(at the taxpayer’s expense)!

  • WTF

    Often engineers hold patents for inventions they develop for the companies they are working for. In my personal experience. it is difficult enough to get paid for your inventions, even if you have a patent. With the abolition of all patents, these engineers would be totally screwed. I doubt these two ever created anything in their life.
    However, If an invention becomes so important society becomes dependent on this technology, a review board could decide to move this into the free domain and/ or require the payment of reasonable usage fees, based on profit and sales.
    I don’t know anyone who would invent anything, if they had zero protection. Maybe in a utopian world like in Star Trek, where there is no more money or hunger, but remember that is a fantasy film not reality

  • Pingback: socialwebcms.com

  • Pieter Hulshoff

    @50,

    Inventions will always be created if they are financially viable. With the short life cycle of products these days, trade secrets are often more useful than patents. If your competition has to wait until you’ve brought your product to the market, disect it, and then build their own product, their product will be useless by the time it’s available. If they develop the same technology without looking at your products, you should not have been allowed a patent monopoly on it in the first place, since it’s obviously and obvious advancement in the field (since multiple companies independently come to the same solution).

  • h33t

    filesharing is without boundaries reaching a global audience. patents and copyright extend only as far as the national boundaries of the jurisdiction within which they are manufactured (+ treaties with third party domains)

    filesharing extends far outside of the market boundaries of the intellectual property holders. copyright content is otherwise unavailable outside of its own domain for all the structural reasons. the cynical arrogance of the MPAA and RIAA is to extend their systems outside of their domain of control

    a strict interpretation says that people lacking resources to pay the market price for content are also outside of the copyright domain e.g. the old, infirm, young, poor, disabled, students, teachers, clergy, government employees etc

  • h33t

    we must put an end to this world of “haves” and “have nots” especially when digital reproduction costs are so low

    the global price of separateness is dollar envy and war

    equality of data, access and opportunity is a right for everyone on this planet

    the days of privilege of information for those who can afford it are well and truly over. likewise the days of control of information are similarily dead

  • GFORGX

    I think abolishing just this stupid DMCA will be great.

  • Anonymous

    Finally prominent people understand this and speak out!

  • Pingback: www.buzzflash.net

  • Hacker/pirates of the world UNITE

    @psyche
    booo hoo
    go look at how great open source is
    thats YOUR future
    an actor or musician WHO doantes to the benefit of mankind
    perhaps we will if we like you a lot
    request that you send us your rent tab or your food bill
    that is all
    opensource movies and music OUT

    thats WHAT THEY FEAR PEOPLE
    its not art they are money grubbing whineys

  • freetard

    “also, he states that Intellectual Monopoly is the more appropriate term, and that the property label is a recently-given propaganda title”
    ————————–

    WRONG!

    the phrase “intellectual property” is almost two hundred years old.

    “Yeah, so says two mid-level academics with guaranteed incomes, guaranteed benefits and retirements and guaranteed lifelong employment through protectionist tenure, THEIR FORM of teaching monopoly.”
    ———————-

    LOL! exactly…

    a couple of low level, mouthy hypocrites. where can i sign up for their newsletter?

    ““Evidence shows very strongly there are lots of ways to make money without patents and copyright.””
    ————————–

    O RLY?

    where is this “evidence”? i see no specific mention of it in the article or video posted. funny, they left that out…

    “When self-serving companies like Disney successfully lobby to keep Mickey Mouse in their pocket well past reasonable time limits, we all loose. Everyone knows who created Mickey Mouse, no matter who is selling it.”
    ———————

    LOL!

    exactly how do we all “lose” given the fact that mickey mouse still isn’t in the public domain? is that REALLY affecting your daily life?

    the only people disadvantaged by this are parasitic knock-off companies who want to benefit financially from some other person’s creativity and innovation. frankly, i’d prefer knock-off non-artists starve to death in the gutters rather than make a mint riding someone else’s coattails.

    “I’ve always wondered why anti-file sharers come on torrent freak, their like Jehovah witnesses, unwanted, not welcome , annoying and pathetic”
    ——————–

    whine more. this is a website designed around discussion not your own private circle jerk. also, the word is “they’re” not “their”. i hope english isn’t your first language.

    “patents and copyright are about ONE thing: stopping the vaunted “market competition””
    ———————

    LOL!

    illegal filesharing does NOT constitute “market competition”. don’t be ridiculous.

    “equality of data, access and opportunity is a right for everyone on this planet”
    ———————–

    LOL!

    you do not have a god-given right to the newest summer blockbuster or hit record, free of charge. don’t be ridiculous. recorded entertainment is not a bodily need. you have no inalienable right to something you merely “want”.

    god ezee, i bet you have a closet full of che guevara shirts…

  • Pingback: opassande » Blog Archive » Upphovsrättslagstiftning förhindrar innovation och samhällsutveckling

  • Interesting ideas. The way I see it patents should be completely abolished globally. They are bad for innovation and they are bad
    for the world in general. As for copyright most Free Software/
    Open Source uses copyright but the terms on copyright are absurd.

    They should be reduced drastically. And the one thing that copyright
    should be limited to is to people… Human beings NOT corporations
    it should be not transferable to corporations, companies and so forth.

  • Pingback: Tekniken snabbare än lagstiftarna « Tomas sida

  • Antinomian

    @58

    The reason open source organizations utilize a form of copyright is that under current law if you don’t copyright your work someone else can.

  • Pingback: [TF] Economists: Abolish Copyright & Patents to Save the Economy - Overclock.net - Overclocking.net

  • Idea Man

    I’ve got an idea! Patents and copyrights should have a cap. What I mean is, if the owner of the patent or copyright is able to report a cumulative profit within one taxable year of, let’s say, over $10 US million, then the patent or copyright becomes open to the public. This also helps with the socialist “share the wealth” message (if that’s your thing). The only people who would obviously oppose this idea are the greedy individuals and corporations who feel as if $10 million isn’t enough for their genius/innovation. Flame away!

  • Nathanael

    Patents need to satisfy the “patent bargain” to be worthwhile economically:

    (1) The inventor should be perfectly capable of keeping the product a trade secret and profiting from it anyway.

    (2) In order to get a patent, the inventor should be obligated to release complete specs so that any idiot could completely clone the product.

    That way, the patent provides monopolistic benefits which would have been obtained anyway by trade secret without the patent, but gives the public information for later use. (The patenter benefits by not having to guard his secret.)

    Other than that patents are worthless. If you have no right to patent your work, but you can’t keep it secret while selling it, you’ll share it anyway — you’ll advertise as ‘The Original’ and ‘The Inventor’ and make money. If you don’t share it you make nothing.

  • Pingback: How to lose millions of friends in 10 years « Soundness in a soundless world

  • Natanael L

    “Remember, without patents – what is the incentive to innovate/invent?”

    Have you ever heard about open source? It has already been mentioned several times.

    Linux, OpenOffice, Firefox, etc… They all live on donations – and they get plenty.
    Want to clone their products?
    Feel free to, as long as you follow the license.
    If you take Firefox’s codebas you can even keep your modifications secret if you want (MPL), or you can publish it and demand that others publish their modifications (GPL).

    I’m a big fan of open source, and contribute everything I can think of. I’ve already gotten a shirt sent home to me as thanks without asking for it. The idea has already been implemented. (www.openlina.org)

    Sure, I can’t live of that – but what’s up with that thing they call “day jobs”?
    Oh right – I’m currently on educating myself to become an electrician.

    I don’t know if my name are on a “thank you page” somewhere, and I don’t really care. My ideas are being used and are helping people. If I would demand money for everything they would never have been used.

    If everybody would have been that “territorial” about “their” ideas (a lot of my “original” ideas have already been thought of), then I wouldn’t have an entire operating system on my computer where I can do ANYTHING I want – I can get the latest kernel’s source whenever I want, I can create my own file systems, I can replace the GUI, and whatever I want.

    Do you know an OS where that is illegal? I do, and you probably have it on your computer (88% chance, ir rather “risk”).

  • Pingback: Daily newsfeed 03/19/2009 « baixachiado

  • Uncle B

    China apparently does not respect U.S. patent law and look what they have done! SEE:
    “The astounding Chinese have epoched the great GM, of U.S.A. in producing an Electric/gas/plug-in car! They are driving them in the streets of China as we speak, they will be retailed in the U.S.A. by 2011, they will cost half the price of a “Volt” and they are “On Order” for Israel! GM, take a deep breath, your naughty parts have just been cut off by a Chinese high-tech competitor, and the “Volt” is still “Vapor-ware”!” See:http://www.cleantech.com/news/3983/chinas-byd-sells-first-mass-produced-plug-cars

  • BTGuard - BitTorrent Anonymously

NewsBits

Even more news...

  • The Pirate Bay Isn’t Down Completely, Just Having a Few Issues

    Twitter and Facebook, not to mention the TorrentFreak inbox, are currently alive with complaints that The...

  • Pirate Bay Founder Gottfrid Svartholm on Freedom of Speech

    Freedom of speech is a highly valued commodity, but should people be allowed to say whatever...

  • Blu-ray Anti-Piracy Tech Stops Discs and Promotes Purchases

    An anti-piracy system present in all official Blu-ray players since 2012 has received a fresh update...

  • Foxtel Breeds Pirates by Locking Up Game of Thrones

    One of the main reasons why people turn to piracy is the lack of legal alternatives....

  • UK Student Admits Breaching Sony Copyrights With Leak of PS3 SDK

    Last year an Internet user known as El Nomeo leaked version 3.70 of Sony’s Playstation3 SDK...

MostDiscussed

Below are TorrentFreak's most discussed articles of the past month. Join the discussion if you like.

CopyQuote

Left Quote

“The Pirate Bay has been one of the most important movements in Sweden for freedom of speech, working against corruption and censorship.

Peter Sunde Left Quote

PopularArticles

A selection of some TorrentFreak's classics dug up from our archives.