This should really be required reading. Far too often geeks try to classify legal issues using technical classifiers, or even worse, to solve them with technical means. Arguments that make the assumption that the same bits produced in different ways should have identical legal status are very flawed!
I don't think copyright is compatible with the Internet. It's time for everyone to realize that. Times change, and some laws become obsolete. It's not the first time it has happened and it's not going to be the last. Then a couple of decades later you look back at them and realize how absurd they have been. Not all industries have copyright, and they seem to have done pretty well so far without, most likely much better than they would've done with it.
These are some good videos on this, if you haven't seen them already:
I have some pretty strong feelings about IP (I oppose software patents and I think copyright terms are too long) but I suspect that IP will become more sophisticated and pervasive. Robin Hansson has a post about what he calls "IP+" (http://www.overcomingbias.com/2011/07/ip-like-barbed-wire.ht...). I don't like the future he paints but it is better than today's setup.
A large (and growing) part of the world's population will want some kind of guarantee that they'll be compensated for their time and they'll be pushing for some kind of IP. Whether or not this will be better or worse for society, only data can tell us. But regardless of that, people want to optimize for what they think is best for themselves and their offspring and will vote on the basis of that.
Yet another article that completely misses the point of copyright. What's the article trying to say? That you can create all images, therefore you own the copyright?
As a poster on that page says, this will explain it:
There is an interesting IP minefield in the fledgling area of procedural generation. That is, if you can define a procedural texture that looks the same as another procedural texture (but different generating rules), are you breaking copyright? Can you patent the algorithm that generates a tree?
tl;dr : a quantum computer could create every single pixel permutation of an image, which you could then claim copyright for.
However, fundamental difference: in a qc this data is represented by a super-position of states. Which is fine, but I would argue each image has not been individually created. And to write out 9.2 x 10^600,000 images is going to take a fair amount of disk space (and time). Which is what I'd imagine you'd have to do to claim copyright over them all.
If you create a 500x500 pixel image on your computer, you own the copyright on that image. But copyright isn't like patents or trademarks with "prior art": If I also make an image through some means (take a photograph, paint a picture, etc) that ends up being identical at 500x500 pixels, you don't own the copyright on my image.
The article quotes 9.802 * 10^602059 possible images. And that storing these would require massive storage.
Excuse me? The number of atoms in the observable universe is estimated to be 10^80. This idea is obviously complete nonsense, quantum computing or not. Next thing they'll be telling us that they'll find SHA256 collisions by simply trying 2^256 messages...
The Law isn't just going to roll over and admit defeat. Copyright will continue to exist so long as the minority it serves is louder than the majority it hurts. If we want to protect our tubes, at some point we in the Internet industry are going to have to get our hands dirty in DC. The only way to beat them is to out-lobby them, and that's a long game. Google's taken a few tentative steps, but it will be at least a decade before the tech lobby is anywhere near as powerful as the entertainment lobby. Even then, we have to ask ourselves: Is it worth it? Do we really want tech lobbyists writing laws? Do we want Microsoft, Google, Apple, and Oracle deciding what's best for tech and encoding that in law? Or are we better off, in the long run, simply staying faster than the law and letting them legislate against whatever we were doing a year ago?
The question of whether copyright serves the minority or the majority is going to depend very much on who you ask. If you ask the typical hacker, who tends to see digital works as generic stuff in the "tubes", copyright is annoying inefficiency. For people that create that content though, copyright is what makes it possible for them to put food on the table and, more importantly, focus with the attention that good work requires.
If it becomes impossible for people to make a living creating digital work you're soon going to have a super-efficient network of tubes full of nothing but shit.
I can't make all possible 256x256 images, but I COULD describe the space with an algorithm that would make them all. If I walk into the patent office with the algorithm, and tell them that if a new person comes into the patent office, you have to run my algorithm to see if my algorithm hasn't already defined the picture, obviously of which it has. then I can sue them, and take them to court for infringing on my inventions.
[+] [-] tonfa|14 years ago|reply
I highly recommend reading this essay, it answers a very similar question. http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/lawpoli/colour/2004061001.php
[+] [-] ZoFreX|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] redthrowaway|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nextparadigms|14 years ago|reply
These are some good videos on this, if you haven't seen them already:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Q25-S7jzgs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zL2FOrx41N0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Plm1ulrp2s&feature=relat...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajobYLLUstg
[+] [-] wynand|14 years ago|reply
A large (and growing) part of the world's population will want some kind of guarantee that they'll be compensated for their time and they'll be pushing for some kind of IP. Whether or not this will be better or worse for society, only data can tell us. But regardless of that, people want to optimize for what they think is best for themselves and their offspring and will vote on the basis of that.
[+] [-] tzs|14 years ago|reply
You got that completely backwards. See Breyer's essay and Landis and Posner's analysis of it, both cited here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Uneasy_Case_for_Copyright
[+] [-] StavrosK|14 years ago|reply
As a poster on that page says, this will explain it:
http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23
[+] [-] iwwr|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] retube|14 years ago|reply
However, fundamental difference: in a qc this data is represented by a super-position of states. Which is fine, but I would argue each image has not been individually created. And to write out 9.2 x 10^600,000 images is going to take a fair amount of disk space (and time). Which is what I'd imagine you'd have to do to claim copyright over them all.
[+] [-] ZoFreX|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wcoenen|14 years ago|reply
Excuse me? The number of atoms in the observable universe is estimated to be 10^80. This idea is obviously complete nonsense, quantum computing or not. Next thing they'll be telling us that they'll find SHA256 collisions by simply trying 2^256 messages...
[+] [-] redthrowaway|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cageface|14 years ago|reply
If it becomes impossible for people to make a living creating digital work you're soon going to have a super-efficient network of tubes full of nothing but shit.
[+] [-] unknown|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] paulgb|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] maeon3|14 years ago|reply
Brilliant! Someone do this please.
[+] [-] mooism2|14 years ago|reply