How would our life looked if copyrights and patents were invented 2000 years ago

[chequita guevara]

There is a psychic cost to constant innovation: alienation, detatchment from society and other human beings, etc. Here we have this amazing revolution in human interactivity, the internet, and yet, the more time we spend with people on the internet, the less time we spend with other human beings. This leads to feelings of isolation and depression.

Rage against the machine (I just happen to be reading this at this moment.

[Sava]

Real people suck though... and I can directly control how often I interact with all of you puds

[Imran Siddiqui]

the more time we spend with people on the internet, the less time we spend with other human beings.

We choose to be on the internet with other people. Can't ***** if you made a choice when you had other options on the table.

I don't consider that a valid critique to technology.

[Sirotnikov]

No patents I'm aware of lasts 4000 years.

The point is that with the much faster rate of life, innovation, spread of products around the world, and dependency on a product, giving a patent for a very long time, and copyrights for even a larger time, is extremely unsmart and is simply silly.

Society should adapt to the technology quicker then. Societies that are quick to adapt to technology (such as Scandinavian countries and to some extent parts of the US) tend to be more efficient and richer than those societies that do not.

There is a difference between learning to use, and adapting.

While most people in north scandinavia and israel have adapted to cell phones, there isn't enough culture developed as to what you do with the cell phones - when to turn them off (during exams, lectures, plays), or when to call or not to call people.

che - if not for the internet - I would have had a far less interesting life and woul dhave known much less people.

It's not like I play civ3 with myself all day.

Most of my time is spent interacting with far more different individuals then I would have met in person.

Sure, I need to know how to interact with both, but for instance, studying texts about sociology and human interaction from the web, has lead me to be much less shy and much more extro-verted.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The point is that with the much faster rate of life, innovation, spread of products around the world, and dependency on a product, giving a patent for a very long time, and copyrights for even a larger time, is extremely unsmart and is simply silly.

In the US, patents go 10 years, IIRC. That isn't long at all. Copyrights are given for a long time, and I think that is justified. Why shouldn't copyrights last for a long time? People should have their words protected during their lifetimes, at the least.

there isn't enough culture developed as to what you do with the cell phones - when to turn them off (during exams, lectures, plays), or when to call or not to call people.

What's your point? Culture doesn't matter, technology does.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Society should adapt to the technology quicker then. Societies that are quick to adapt to technology (such as Scandinavian countries and to some extent parts of the US) tend to be more efficient and richer than those societies that do not.

You serious, Imran? Society does not adapt technology just because, it adapts if the technology is beneficial. There are a whole series of socioecomical and environmental costs involved, it's not like pushing a button and you are there. The greater the costs, the slower the change. That's why Scandinavian countries, Hong Kong, and Singapore can adapt to new technology quickly, because of a) small population or b) high population density makes it cheaper to upgrade the underlying infrastructure.

Many of the inventions came out during the dotcom craze are just solutions looking for problems. 3G mobile phones? WAP phone? What the hay? Some have legitimate uses for niche markets. Wireless LAN for example. Some might be big, say, Bluetooth and XML.

[mindseye]

you make money on the service, not on the product.

That's great ... unless the person who had the idea is not the same as the service provider, or unable to provide the service.

[mindseye]

Society should adapt to the technology quicker then.

Should. Unfortunately, I don't think cultural decisions are always made because a culture "should" do something. For example, Americans "should" eat better and exercise more.

Societies that are quick to adapt to technology (such as Scandinavian countries and to some extent parts of the US) tend to be more efficient and richer than those societies that do not.

Richer in what sense? I wonder what you would find if you compared the "richness" of cultures with vastly different rates of television ownership. Do more episodes of "Jackass" equate with greater riches?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Why shouldn't copyrights last for a long time? People should have their words protected during their lifetimes, at the least.

Haven't we gone through that?

Originally, copyright, at least in the US, was intended to be an incentive, not an award. I can agree with that. I cannot agree with monopolising a certain way of expressing things for aeons just because somebody came up with it first. Furthermore, that will be conterproductive. If Mark Twain didn't get $ for his books for all his life, why should Disney get all that $ just from Mickey Mouse?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by mindseye

you make money on the service, not on the product.

That's great ... unless the person who had the idea is not the same as the service provider, or unable to provide the service.

That can be a problem, but to me that seems to be less of an evil than the system in place.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well I don't see why someone should not have a copyright to their works for their lifetime?

Now, Mickey... if I'm not mistaken was created by Walt Disney. Since he's dead, I'd have no problem with having that copyright be expired.

Society does not adapt technology just because, it adapts if the technology is beneficial.

And most technology is beneficial. Societies that adapt faster and easier to new technological benefits end up better for it.

[Urban Ranger]

If somebody could write a book then sit on it for the rest of his life, it would fly in the face of the original intent. Sure, we should give people a limited protection, so they don't have to worry about making ends meet when creating new things. It won't apply if the copyright lasts for a whole lifetime.

As for technology, yes, most are beneficial, in some ways. But how big is the benefit? As it was pointed out before, it usually isn't a good idea to keep adopting every little bit of new invention that comes along because of cost (among other things). Sometimes, an innovation that's really big is being slowly adopted just because of that - witness IP6. If the benefit is too small, the society simply won't adopt it.