PDA

View Full Version : On intellectual property



HungryMan
November 4th, 2008, 05:51 PM
I finally got the most concise answer to what intellectual property is.
http://www.wipo.int/about-ip/en/ says:

Intellectual property refers to creations of the mind: inventions, literary and artistic works, and symbols, names, images, and designs used in commerce.

:Unquote
It seems pretty rock solid, but I'm the kind of guy who asks dumb questions in search of loopholes.

Dumb Question #1:
Is a mathematical/scientific formula intellectual property? If so, then all of us should be sued. (This counts as an invention right?)

Dumb Question #2:
In literary works, what exactly is you property in a novel, is it the way the words arranged, or the general plot?

Dumb Question #3:
Did I just infringe wipo.int's copyright when I said: "Intellectual property refers to creations of the mind: inventions, literary and artistic works, and symbols, names, images, and designs used in commerce."

Please take this with a tablespoon of salt (more than a grain of salt, but less than a hell of a lot of seriousness). Please don't flame or scold me. :)

sydbat
November 4th, 2008, 06:00 PM
#3 - Because you referenced the article you quoted, you are fine. This means you did not take credit for the quote.

#2 - A little from column A...Arrangement of words and distinct plot elements are what make it unique. Copying complete passages and claiming they are your own is plagiarism.

#1 - Sort of. However, most respectable mathematicians do not put a copyright on their formulas. It is common practice, however, to attribute the formula to the person who figured it out.

Any other thoughts??

HungryMan
November 4th, 2008, 06:06 PM
#1 - Sort of. However, most respectable mathematicians do not put a copyright on their formulas. It is common practice, however, to attribute the formula to the person who figured it out.
Any other thoughts??

Yup, something really funny I thought about #1.

What if Microsoft went to the field of mathematics? I guess we all have to pay them every time we use or mention "1+1=3".:lolflag:
But then again, you did say respectable mathematicians.
*technically this isn't Windows bashing, it's derogatory Microsoft humor.

Npl
November 4th, 2008, 06:15 PM
HungryMan: be very careful what you write, Intel invented miscalculating (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_FDIV_bug)

HungryMan
November 4th, 2008, 06:50 PM
Npl, oops... hahaha. It doesn't look like it has a copyright though, so I think I'm safe.

On serious talk:
I remembered an ad in the newspaper before that said; "Once you think of it, it's your intellectual property. Join the intellectual property conference..." I wish I had other people to disagree with me on that. It promotes selfishness which, is apparently, bad.

Anyway, it's 2AM and I need to get up at 8AM later, Good Night!(or more appropriately, Good Morning!)

HungryMan
November 7th, 2008, 11:45 AM
Okay, time to be more serious.
Why the heck can Microsoft confiscate computers with illegal Windows!?
I mean, Microsoft is in no way the owner of that physical property! Is the x86 patented by Microsoft? HELL NO!! (if that's the case then x86's should only be allowed to run Windows, not OSX, BSD or Linux)

Confiscating computers is theft, piracy is not theft (to clarify the latter part, please see: http://questioncopyright.org/piracy_is_not_theft).

I feel so pissed at people that think like this! Even other people confiscate "pirated" Ubuntu CD's you know.

BTW, tablespoon of salt please.

brunovecchi
November 7th, 2008, 08:52 PM
I don't think that Intellectual property applies to mathematical formulas, just as it doesn't apply to scientific facts. Formulas make factual relations that are restricted by logic/physics, not by the mind that "created" them. In this sense, formulas are discovered rather than created, hence there is no intellectual property in a formula.

SunnyRabbiera
November 7th, 2008, 08:55 PM
I just thought of the imaginary number of thritty teen seven, anyone who uses it will be teh sewed :D

pp.
November 7th, 2008, 10:15 PM
... thritty teen seven, anyone who uses it will be teh sewed :D

Yet more pirate talk?

HungryMan
November 8th, 2008, 08:07 PM
SunnyRabiera: thrity teen seven, can't sue me, it's a derivative :D

brunovecchi: I've just finished reading the pamphlet (more like read some parts, forget about the rest), the pamphlet says scientific works and discoveries are included, but I'm not quite sure as to what rights and limitations it has. It's not that I'm disagreeing with you, though. Just what I think.

Question #4:
The pamphlet says:

Copyright law protects only the forms of expression of ideas, not the ideas themselves.
and


...in it's final "mode or form of expression", it (computer programs) can be understood only by a machine (the computer), not by humans."
Does this mean that source code is not intellectual property/covered by copyright?

Question #5:
Does covering a song without the original artist's consent for public performance (and/or for recording, then selling a digital copy of it) infringe copyrights?

Question #6:
What exactly is distortion/deriviation/modification, does renaming the characters/places/title/etc... but retaining the exact words and plot in a story constitute as distortion that infringes copyright?

Question #7:
If you record the output of a TV using the lens of a camcorder (I call this a clear copy, as opposed to a DVD copy), what rights do you violate?

Sorry for all the questions, it's just that I want to be clear about copyrights.

HungryMan
November 8th, 2008, 08:16 PM
SunnyRabiera: thrity teen seven, can't sue me, it's a derivative :D

brunovecchi: I've just finished reading the pamphlet (more like read some parts, forget about the rest), the pamphlet says scientific works and discoveries are included, but I'm not quite sure as to what rights and limitations it has. It's not that I'm disagreeing with you, though. Just what I think.

Question #4:
The pamphlet says:

Copyright law protects only the forms of expression of ideas, not the ideas themselves.
and


...in it's final "mode or form of expression", it (computer programs) can be understood only by a machine (the computer), not by humans."
Does this mean that source code is not intellectual property/covered by copyright?

Question #5:
Does covering a song without the original artist's consent for public performance (and/or for recording, then selling a digital copy of it) infringe copyrights?

Question #6:
What exactly is distortion/deriviation/modification, does renaming the characters/places/title/etc... but retaining the exact words and plot in a story constitute as distortion that infringes copyright?

Question #7:
If you record the output of a TV using the lens of a camcorder (I call this a clear copy, as opposed to a DVD copy), what rights do you violate?

Sorry for all the questions, it's just that I want to be clear about copyrights.

Capt. Mac
November 8th, 2008, 08:35 PM
I like the Free Software Foundation's definition (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#IntellectualProperty) of intellectual property:


“Intellectual property”

Publishers and lawyers like to describe copyright as “intellectual property”—a term that also includes patents, trademarks, and other more obscure areas of law. These laws have so little in common, and differ so much, that it is ill-advised to generalize about them. It is best to talk specifically about “copyright,” or about “patents,” or about “trademarks.”

The term “intellectual property” carries a hidden assumption—that the way to think about all these disparate issues is based on an analogy with physical objects, and our ideas of physical property.

When it comes to copying, this analogy disregards the crucial difference between material objects and information: information can be copied and shared almost effortlessly, while material objects can't be.

To avoid the bias and confusion of this term, it is best to make a firm decision not to speak or even think in terms of “intellectual property”.

HungryMan
November 8th, 2008, 09:41 PM
Capt. Mac: I agree! Intellectual property (I'd like to change this but, old habits die hard) is impossible to take ownership of. It is not a tangible thing that you can claim. I think that intellectual property "can be copied and shared almost effortlessly" hence, it should be shared (but I'm not condemning people who claim ownership of intellectual property, they do have the freedom to choose to do so). Thanks for the link, didn't know that I agreed with Richard Stallman on photoshop,powerpoint and mp3 players(other people think ipods are different from mp3/audio players :lolflag:)

hahaha WIPO called the GPL and FOSS "impressive".

HungryMan
November 10th, 2008, 03:12 PM
I just wanted to go back to one of my old questions, what right does any "authority" have to confiscate computers running pirated Windows (computer=mobo, memory, hd's, drives, and monitor,...)?

I haven't seen/experienced this personally, but I just confirmed that rumor recently, because my classmate told me that the computer shop she goes to closed down because Microsoft was in town confiscating computers and from a news report: here (http://www.gmanews.tv/story/130827/NBI-agents-seize-P2M-worth-of-computers-using-pirated-software).

Confiscating physical property is theft, piracy is not theft!(http://questioncopyright.org/piracy_is_not_theft)

I agree with Richard Stallman on the illusion of IP.

Oh and by the way, I'm using microXP (super stripped down version of XP) right now, so in case anyone wants to confiscate my "computer" they should know, microXP is in a 4GB (too much for a normal XP+games) hard drive that clanks often, and lies between my 20GB drive that has Hardy and my DVD drive.

YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO CONFISCATE COMPUTERS, PHYSICAL PROPERTY THIEVES!!!