Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The Fashion Industry As a Model For IP Reform

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the rip-mix-burn dept.

Youtube 398

Scrameustache writes "In this 15-minute TED talk, Johanna Blakley addresses a subject alien to most here — fashion — but in a way sure to grab our attention. The lesson is about how the fashion industry's lack of copyright protection can teach other industries about what copyright means to innovation. And yes, she mentions open source software. There is one killer slide at 12:20 comparing the gross sales of low-IP-protection industries with those of films and books and music. If you want to know more, or if you prefer text, the Ready To Share project website should give you all the data you crave on the subject."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Flawed Analogy? (5, Funny)

PatrickThomson (712694) | more than 4 years ago | (#32345778)

I had a kneejerk thing to say here about software piracy, but then I realised that in my rush to be relevant, I hadn't RTFA and it was irrelevant.

Yes, I know, this is slashdot, I should GTFO with an attitude like this!

Re:Flawed Analogy? (-1, Offtopic)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 4 years ago | (#32345822)

Yes, I know, this is slashdot, I should GTFO

Or tits.

No, wait, that's 4chan.

lemme get that straight you pieces of shit (1)

Adolf Hitroll (562418) | more than 4 years ago | (#32346484)

nobody cares about your witzes, you're just memers, so shut the fuck up.

What I would use all my moderation points to upvote would be a transcript fo that video.
(and I have a shitload of these since crapdot never closed that JonKatz account of mine)

Only piece-of-shit-retard-teen-agers-wannabe-geeks waste 15 minutes (FIFTEEN MINUTES) of their lame life to learn something. Others get their hands on a formatted transcript and put it on an ftp servers for the other normal, i.e. women fuckers like me.

So, just get that water hose in your rectum as it's what you really sounds like you're sorely missing and leave the internet to the grown-ups.

Re:Flawed Analogy? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32345882)

fuck you nigger

Re:Flawed Analogy? (1)

Kilrah_il (1692978) | more than 4 years ago | (#32345978)

I think in this case you didn't VTFA (View TFA) not RTFA. And yes, it is probably a flawed analogy, but only because it has no cars in it.

Re:Flawed Analogy? (1)

Pharmboy (216950) | more than 4 years ago | (#32346394)

Obviously, you didn't VTFA, as there was car references, as to the fact that you can't copyright the exterior design of them. The analogy regarding OSS having no copyright protection was a bit flawed, but considering the idea behind the GPL is to be copyleft, it was an understandable misinterpretation.

Re:Flawed Analogy? (2, Informative)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 4 years ago | (#32346446)

as to the fact that you can't copyright the exterior design of them.

You don't need to, it's covered by design patents.

VERY, VERY Flawed Analogy... (4, Insightful)

denzacar (181829) | more than 4 years ago | (#32346496)

There is one killer slide at 12:20 [youtube.com] comparing the gross sales of low-IP-protection industries with those of films and books and music.

Seriously?
Comparing food, cars and clothing to films, books and music?

I don't know about you... but I kinda have this habit of eating every day, sometimes even more than once.
I also have this crazy need to change my clothes from time to time. Sometimes I even throw it away as I find it "unwearable", as it gets worn out OR my body changes from all that food I eat every day.

Compared to that, I am yet to throw away any of my DVDs, CDs, books etc. because it is "worn out" or "out of trend" or "I don't want to watch/listen to/read that at the moment".

And putting cars up there... Why not diamonds too? Or "space vacations"?
Come on... You can't compare a price of a car to the price of a lunch, or a pair of pants, or a CD.
Also, note the HUGE difference in the gross sales of the first two industries (food - which everyone buys all the time; cars - which cost much more per single item than the products of any other industry) and the rest of the "IP-freely" industries (fashion - items last a lot longer than food; furniture - lasts virtually forever).
Furniture is right there at the low end with the movies. Despite the fact that a decent bed (or even a cheap one) will set you back a lot more than a fun movie.

 

Also, virtues of copying? [youtube.com]
Ohh... Just TRY incorporating the second two into ANY industry not based on shoe shopping.

"Induced obsolescence"? Really?
How would you like to have to re-buy ALL your software, books, movies, CDs EVERY SEASON instead of every time a new digital media appers?

Why would you have to buy it?
Because of "Acceleration in creative innovation", which translates to:

Fashionistas want to stay ahead of the curve.
They don't want to be wearing what everybody else is wearing and so they want to move on to the next trend as soon as possible.
EVERY SEASON these designers have to struggle to come up with the new fabulous idea that everybody's going to love.
And this [..] is very good for the bottom line.

In other words - snobbery supported by profit margin supported by snobbery.

Sure... you might say that we already have that in constantly changing "modern" music, artsy-fartsy films or even Apple.
But none of those "industries" can be pushed into fashion industry's "season based" product cycle.

Why?
Because fashion is the only "art" that can become OBSOLETE.

Re:VERY, VERY Flawed Analogy... (3, Funny)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 4 years ago | (#32346580)

Because fashion is the only "art" that can become OBSOLETE.

Depends how much storage space you have. I reckon every third or fourth trend is actually a revival.

Given the current economic and political situation I can see the late 70s/80s look coming back. Winter of discontent II here we come!

Sadly unlikely to happen (5, Insightful)

tao (10867) | more than 4 years ago | (#32345782)

A not too wild guess is that this will probably remedied in the wrong way; by adding more IP protection to the fashion industry, rather than following their example.

Re:Sadly unlikely to happen (5, Funny)

OrwellianLurker (1739950) | more than 4 years ago | (#32345806)

I've already submitted a patent for denim material that covers from several inches above the knees to the waist. A button will be used to hold the material together. I call this invention the "not-longs." I've checked and there is no prior art. I am waiting for my patent to be approved.

Re:Sadly unlikely to happen (1)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 4 years ago | (#32345830)

Sorry that is already covered in my "flexible covering for the lower body" patent, which is part of a larger patent war-chest that includes "flexible covering for the upper body", "flexible covering for head", and ""inflexible covering for the head".

Re:Sadly unlikely to happen (4, Funny)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 4 years ago | (#32346248)

Congratulations! You now own patents on 1/5 of the Village People [escapade.co.uk]

Re:Sadly unlikely to happen (3, Funny)

jonaskoelker (922170) | more than 4 years ago | (#32346418)

You're skirting the issue ;-)

Re:Sadly unlikely to happen (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32346094)

It's already got extremely strong IP protection, enforced strongly by the police. The Intellectual Property in their case though is called trademarks.

If you are travelling from China into Paris with twenty Gucci-branded handbags, the police will slap you with a fine that's a lot bigger than the current "fines" for downloading software.

Re:Sadly unlikely to happen (1, Funny)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 4 years ago | (#32346224)

Similar case in Italy.

Of course the irony that since many luxury brands have shifted production to China, you could argue that even the genuine articles are knock-offs.

Re:Sadly unlikely to happen (2, Informative)

Jesus_666 (702802) | more than 4 years ago | (#32346510)

The trademark only applies to the Gucci label, though. You're perfectly fine if you rip off the same designs for your "Cucchi" brand. Replace all the Gs with Cs and you're set.

Re:Sadly unlikely to happen (1)

Jesus_666 (702802) | more than 4 years ago | (#32346498)

Actually, TFP (The Insert-Appropriate-F-Word Presentation) touches on this. Some shoe designers tried to get increased legal protection. The retailers lobbied the motion to hell.

Also, thre already are two markets with such protection for fashion designs. Japan decided that only completely novel designs applied (therefore a new kind of T-shirt wouldn't apply since the T-shirt concept isn't novel); the EU decided that just about anything applies, which apparently includes variations. Amusingly, most of the designs registered are Nike T-shirts; most other fashion companies simply don't bother.

The really important thing is that most of the fashion industry doesn't want IP protection because it would restrict the way they do business.

Umm, are you kidding? (0, Troll)

Numair (77943) | more than 4 years ago | (#32345812)

Obviously nobody has heard of "Forever 21." The fashion industry's biggest problem right now is IP theft -- you talk to any of the young, creative designers that are moving things forward, and they will tell you about how all of their designs are being ripped off by mall stores.

The Slashdot crowd may find this hard to believe, but you should be glad that the megacorps in our industry work to protect the IP of the industry's creative people. Fashion is a perfect example of the corporate machine deciding that theft is a better business plan ... Perhaps the exact opposite of a "model for IP reform"!

Re:Umm, are you kidding? (4, Insightful)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 4 years ago | (#32345842)

you talk to any of the young, creative designers that are moving things forward, and they will tell you about how all of their designs are being ripped off by mall stores.

If I talked to such people, I'd firat ask which rules they used to prove their desings are completely original and the mall's are rip-offs.

Re:Umm, are you kidding? (1)

migla (1099771) | more than 4 years ago | (#32345864)

The young, creative, and potentially starving defsigners should of course be looked after. A little bit of basic income for everyone would solve all these starving artist problems.

The upside of all this IP "theft" is of course that we do get nice desings on the cheap in the malls.

(That most clothes are produced without regard to the environment or working conditions and decent pay is another issue, of course.)

Re:Umm, are you kidding? (2, Insightful)

hitmark (640295) | more than 4 years ago | (#32346450)

or that those cheap clothes will disintegrate within a year of purchase.

Re:Umm, are you kidding? (4, Insightful)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | more than 4 years ago | (#32345872)

Theft? Nobody has been deprived of anything, IP is intangible. These designers are still free to sell whatever they want, to whomever will buy it. Honestly, would Old Navy shoppers really be in the market for a thousand dollar dress that could only be worn once?

And you might want to tone down that "Obviously you haven't heard of *obscure reference*." No, we haven't, and you could consider explaining it instead of telling us how whatever it is makes you sympathetic to megacorps enforcing IP laws. I doubt you'll get a lot of sympathy for that, although I'm sure that wasn't your goal, withering contempt for anyone who's not in "your industry" seemed to be the goal.

Re:Umm, are you kidding? (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 4 years ago | (#32346488)

Honestly, would Old Navy shoppers really be in the market for a thousand dollar dress that could only be worn once?

I was looking at it the other way. There are people who are willing to pay a thousand dollars for a dress - if they can get it before everybody else. There's always a delay (although it's getting shorter) before the knock-offs arrive, and whatever Jefferson may have thought some people are willing to pay for exclusivity, even if it's temporary.

By the time the wally world brigade are wearing it it's already passé, pretty much by definition, and the top flight have moved on to something else.

This is a key difference between fashion and software; the former is driven by a mix of snobbishness and forced obsolescence whereas I don't really care if my kernel is soooooo last season.

Re:Umm, are you kidding? (1)

hitmark (640295) | more than 4 years ago | (#32346584)

until that unpatched kernel allows your personal data to be grabbed by some worm and then having all kinds of expensive objects charged to your credit rating.

Re:Umm, are you kidding? (5, Insightful)

NickFortune (613926) | more than 4 years ago | (#32345898)

you talk to any of the young, creative designers that are moving things forward, and they will tell you about how all of their designs are being ripped off by mall stores.

And yet I wonder how many of those young independent designers would be in business for themselves if the big chains already held patent thickets to prevent emerging competition. I wonder how many of them would find they could only make a living if they worked directly for one of the big chains in such a world.

And I wonder how many of them would see the change as an improvement, if fashion patents were to be allowed.

The Slashdot crowd may find this hard to believe, but you should be glad that the megacorps in our industry work to protect the IP of the industry's creative people

You are absolutely right. I do find that hard to believe

Re:Umm, are you kidding? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32345934)

Well, clearly you didn't watch the video.

They have interview clips with the young, creative fashion designers. As one such designer said of the mall store rip-offs: "Well, the mall customers are not our customers. It doesn't really matter."
Or something to that effect.

Re:Umm, are you kidding? (1)

hitmark (640295) | more than 4 years ago | (#32346456)

i think that person had recently left gucci and was talking some observations that fashion house had done.

Re:Umm, are you kidding? (1)

Takichi (1053302) | more than 4 years ago | (#32345940)

I agree. It's a whole other ball game for people just starting out. It's easy to make money solely off of your brand if you're already established. But is it really all that easy for the small guy to make it in a highly copyrighted industry? Then it's up to whoever has the most lawyers, and the resources that need to be put into that holds the entire industry back.

Re:Umm, are you kidding? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32345994)

I'm the IT manager for a fashion company and as far as I can tell there is not much point in copy protection in our market.
A range lasts only 3 months (ie a 'season') so by the time something new is out and proven popular it's too late to copy it because we're already moving onto the next season.

Our designers build their labels by staying ahead of the curve, and our target market is 'cool' kids who don't settle for anything less than the latest. It's sort of self regulating.
Sure the Mall stores come out with clones of last years popular stuff, but people that buy that junk were never our target market to begin with.

Re:Umm, are you kidding? (4, Funny)

BorgDrone (64343) | more than 4 years ago | (#32346324)

A range lasts only 3 months (ie a 'season') so by the time something new is out and proven popular it's too late to copy it because we're already moving onto the next season.

Thus just goes to prove how crappy the designs are if everyone is already sick of it after 3 months.

Re:Umm, are you kidding? (2, Insightful)

argStyopa (232550) | more than 4 years ago | (#32346462)

Pfft. It's almost like you're saying that a lack of IP protection results in a faster pace of development, forcing innovators to move quickly to develop an idea, get it to market, and profit from it (greatly) in the natural lag before someone comes along and copies it cheaply.

Such an idea is, of course, pure craziness. Fashion design must be a marginal business, with very little profit and those poor, poor innovators living in cardboard boxes and eating cat food to stay alive.

Re:Umm, are you kidding? (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 4 years ago | (#32346502)

This. Don't you think it's bloody wasteful, though? I wonder how much perfectly serviceable clothing ends up in landfill or being pulped for... ummm .... whatever they make out pf pulped clothing.

Re:Umm, are you kidding? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32346088)

So, you're saying that people are upset that they do not have government-enforced Monopolies and that they must constantly innovate to compete against this so-called "theft"? Shocking!

Ask the 99.999% of people who aren't designers but consumers if they feel that there is too little innovation in fashion or if they are upset that cheap imitation fashion is available. I dare you to find one such person who will be upset by all this "theft".

I have no idea why you were modded "Insightful" (those are ironic quotes). You clearly didn't even watch the video and totally missed the entire point. The Constitution allows Monopolies if and only if they 'promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts'. Now go back and reread your comment and explain to me where your argument explained how fashion Monopolies would accomplish such a goal, rather than deter it (which is what they would actually do). You are clearly very confused, as are those who modded you up. Sad.

Re:Umm, are you kidding? (4, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | more than 4 years ago | (#32346142)

Actually, the fashion industry's continued and persistent success proves two things:

1. That IP laws do NOT add incentive to create and it never has. It's a huge lie.
2. That when people copy freely that nobody can make any money. Once again, huge lie. As stated, it turns out that demographic plays a huge role in determining who buys what and for how much. "They are not our customers!"

They are indeed the model for copyright reform. They prove that an industry is in perpetual motion due to its lack of IP protection. The lack has done more to keep people busy and employed and even rich than any amount of protection could offer.

What IP protection offers is a way to slow down and control the evolution of design -- a way to way to invest less in R&D and design and still make money.

Re:Umm, are you kidding? (2, Interesting)

hitmark (640295) | more than 4 years ago | (#32346562)

the biggest problem with copyright is that it was created to do one thing, make sure that writers got a cut of the sales related to printings of texts they had written.

then it got applied to audio recordings, photos, movie recordings and software.

the basic problem was not that someone was printing copies and giving them away, back then the cost of materials and time made that basically impossible. Sure, it had cut down the time vs hand writing a copy greatly, but it still took time to set each page and then make the print; never mind the cost of the letters, press and paper.

This is something that have followed physical creations since we first learned to make things. Price have been based on the time and materials needed, as the time taken to make something would cut into the makers time to do something else. Something like say, tending the field and animals that would feed him.

But as production becomes increasingly automated, and now we are getting flexible tools that only need a new set of instructions to create a new object (3D printers anyone?), the cost in time is dropping through the floor. Heck, a home printer can be set to do its thing while i go do something else that may be more directly involved in my survival. And as the cost in equipment and setup time becomes less, so follows the need to mass produce to make up for the initial effort.

the black and white laser printer can with equal ease be feed the complete works of shakespeare as it can some random report for office or school. And it can change between the two in seconds, not days like the older printing systems needed.

observe how the last book in the harry potter series was scanned, OCR, translated to german and proofread in 48 hours after its initial release. All done by people online doing various other things as their day job or equivalent (or surviving on minimal welfare checks for all i know).

machines are taking over more and more menial tasks, resulting in the jobs left being creative ones. And as more people are free to be creative, the value of those jobs drops like rocks, thanks to basic economics (job market saturation, anyone?).

i just wonder what this increased automation will do to the world economy given time, as with less people working, there is less income to spend on the very products being made.

Re:Umm, are you kidding? (1)

WarJolt (990309) | more than 4 years ago | (#32346160)

The megacorps of the fashion industry give designers jobs. Without them no one would notice their designs. Fashion is about reputation. If designers get a big name company to copy them that gives them a good reputation and probably a loyal following of customers looking for the next hot thing.

OSS is the same way. Big name companies use Linux in their solutions it grows the brand. Everyone knows Linus for inventing Linux. Without the big name companies copying, contributing and using Linux no one would know who Linus is. Now many personal users use Linux.

Re:Umm, are you kidding? (2, Interesting)

jimicus (737525) | more than 4 years ago | (#32346232)

The video addresses exactly this point, and appears to have been made with reference to speaking to big hitters in the fashion industry who've been working in it for decades.

Briefly, it raises a number of points:

1. The people who are buying the knock-offs probably wouldn't be buying the really expensive designer clothes anyway.
2. Industries with relatively low IP protection are much larger than industries with a lot of IP protection. (Though I think this is a bit of a disingenuous point - the industries at the top of the scale are selling things that are necessities rather than luxuries in today's society, so of course they're going to be huge. Specifically, they're food, fashion - remember even a £3 Primark T-shirt comes under the heading of "fashion" - and cars.)
3. IP protection would be really difficult because it's very hard to establish precisely what makes a design original. Set the bar too high and nobody can claim copyright on a design because it's practically impossible to prove that you really were the first to come up with the idea, set it too low and the tiniest change means it's no longer a knock-off. We already see exactly this problem in the music industry when an artist is accused of plagiarising another artists' tune - the resulting legal wrangles go on for years. (cf. "Kookaburra sits in the old gum tree/Down Under" [bbc.co.uk] )
4. Whether you like it or not, it forces people within the industry to work harder. The fashion industry thrives on constantly finding the Next Big Thing, and makes a nice chunk of cash doing so. Who wants to buy the Next Big Thing when it's almost identical to the Last Big Thing which is still sitting in the wardrobe and is in pretty good repair?

Re:Umm, are you kidding? (2, Interesting)

hitmark (640295) | more than 4 years ago | (#32346468)

i wonder what would happen if the laws where changed so that anyone could create their own steam boat willie, but only walt disney company could have ol' walts name attached to it.

Re:Umm, are you kidding? (1)

jimicus (737525) | more than 4 years ago | (#32346590)

Don't even need to do that, just substantially lower the bar on how different something has to be before it's considered a separate work rather than plagiarised.

Right now if you take just a few musical notes at random that sound good together, there's a very strong chance you'll wind up with something that has already been done, is still under copyright protection and has a pack of hungry lawyers to prove it. There was a podcast somewhere which explained this and pointed out the absurdity complete with examples, but I've forgotten where it was and a quick search doesn't reveal anything particularly helpful.

Re:Umm, are you kidding? (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 4 years ago | (#32346600)

We already see exactly this problem in the music industry when an artist is accused of plagiarising another artists' tune - the resulting legal wrangles go on for years. (cf. "Kookaburra sits in the old gum tree/Down Under")

I may have tin ears, but they don't sound remotely similar to me.

Re:Umm, are you kidding? (2, Insightful)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 4 years ago | (#32346260)

Isn't ACTA the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, originally conceived to prevent the distribution of imitation designer goods (Versace handbags, Christian Dior watches etc)?

Yet it becomes one of the most prohibitive pieces of copyright and IP legislation in existence. Way to go, fashion industry.

Re:Umm, are you kidding? (2, Insightful)

Raumkraut (518382) | more than 4 years ago | (#32346318)

Don't blame the instigator for what the implementors do.

AFAICT, the fashion industry is only really concerned about Trademarks. Gucci probably couldn't care less if someone tried to sell "Krauti" handbags, which looked almost exactly like Gucci ones. They know that their customers wouldn't buy Krauti handbags even if they were physically identical atom-for-atom (barring the branding).

Re:Umm, are you kidding? (2, Funny)

nschubach (922175) | more than 4 years ago | (#32346522)

So... like Apple? ;) (Oh come one, you know it's true. How many people bought an iPod instead of another MP3 player that was more capable?)

Re:Umm, are you kidding? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32346384)

What's wrong with mall stores ripping off good designs? I like cheap clothes that look good

Haute Propriété Intellectuelle (-1, Offtopic)

Decollete (1637235) | more than 4 years ago | (#32345820)

I wonder who will be the official members of the Chambre Syndicale de la Haute Propriété Intellectuelle

Plenty of garment based patents. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32345834)

http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=KrsEAAAAEBAJ&dq=denim

http://www.google.com/patents?lr=&q=fashion+clothing&spell=1&oi=spell

http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=nX4CAAAAEBAJ&dq=clothing

for just a sampler.

Planned obsolescene is in common (3, Interesting)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | more than 4 years ago | (#32345856)

In fashion, women are required to constantly buy new clothes lest they be considered "frumpy". Last year's clothes are perfectly good, quality-wise, but a culture has been created by which anyone who wears them is subject to public ridicule. The point of all this is to keep the fashion industry's pockets full. What kind of developer, oops I mean designer, doesn't enjoy working on new designs? They want everyone buying the latest greatest design, even if it's not as good as last year's.

Likewise in software, where upgrades are mandatory even though the current software works just fine. "But it's old tech!" the developer shouts at his utterly stupid users. "Why won't you upgrade? I really enjoyed working on this!" I recently asked a question on a support forum about Drupal. I didn't get my question answered, as the developers immediately discussed the fact I was using the "old tech" version (5) and the entire discussion became about when I was going to upgrade to the latest greatest version (7). Why should I? My software works just fine and customers are happy. Security upgrades are more like obscurity upgrades. "Because it's last year's fashion, daaahling"

Drupal (3, Informative)

ArsenneLupin (766289) | more than 4 years ago | (#32345908)

I didn't get my question answered, as the developers immediately discussed the fact I was using the "old tech" version (5) and the entire discussion became about when I was going to upgrade to the latest greatest version (7).

7 is still alpha. I wouldn't use that for production system. What's more, most modules are still unavailable for 7.

Heck, some useful modules are even unavailable for 6, such as views_ticker. Or are there any other tickers that show titles of nodes of a view? There are plenty which show all nodes of a certain type, or featuring certain taxonomy keywords, or from a hand-picked list, but no tickers based on a view. For that you have to stay with 5.

With drupal, you've got a good excuse for wearing last year's fashion: your favourite module or theme is still unavailable.

Re:Planned obsolescene is in common (2, Insightful)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | more than 4 years ago | (#32345914)

The point of all this is to keep the fashion industry's pockets full.

I don't think so, especially since this system is implemented exclusively by the consumers, not the fashion industry. There's nothing whatsoever preventing people from buying last year's fashion (or fashion from several years ago), and many people do. They choose to make themselves look different every season, and a high price, because that's important to them. The "quality" of the clothes (if you only consider practical utility) is but a minor factor when compared against their need to look different every season.

Re:Planned obsolescene is in common (1)

Luther Blisset (1770282) | more than 4 years ago | (#32346222)

There's nothing whatsoever preventing people from buying last year's fashion (or fashion from several years ago), and many people do.

And those that don't, they all choose to do so out of their own free will, completely unaffected by any external influence? Frankly, I doubt that, and therefore doubt that "this system is implemented exclusively by the consumers". Brands wouldn't spend as much as they do on advertising and marketing if didn't have an effect on at least some people.

Re:Planned obsolescene is in common (1)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | more than 4 years ago | (#32346548)

And those that don't, they all choose to do so out of their own free will, completely unaffected by any external influence?

Since when was free will, on any subject, completely unaffected by any external influence? The point is that it's still their choice, and if they would chose not to buy new fashions when they come out, then no amount of redesigning or marketing will "keep the industry's pockets full". Ultimately, it is up to their customers how much money enters their pockets.

I think it's pretty funny that you pointedly exclude "those that don't", as though they aren't influenced by companies when they buy clothes. I have seen many advertising campaigns for clothes stores centred around the fact that they are not up-market fashion centres. People who don't buy into the latest fashions form their own market, and this market has its own share of influences.

Re:Planned obsolescene is in common (1)

nacturation (646836) | more than 4 years ago | (#32345960)

I have this really great reply to your post, but it'll have to wait as Fedora 13 just came out and I have to upgrade as the older Fedora versions are no longer supported.

Re:Planned obsolescene is in common (1)

bluesatin (1350681) | more than 4 years ago | (#32346008)

In fashion, women are required to constantly buy new clothes lest they be considered "frumpy". Last year's clothes are perfectly good, quality-wise, but a culture has been created by which anyone who wears them is subject to public ridicule.

This only applies to people that buy into fads of fashion, good clothes are timeless and will always look good no matter when you bought them; unless you bought them when you were a few sizes smaller that is.

If the code is open source, why don't YOU do it? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32346058)

If the code is open source, why don't YOU do it?

Or, alternatively, if it means that much to you, PAY someone to do it?

Or ask someone else who has that version and wants that fix, pooling resources?

Or ... not waste your time bitching on slashdot about how bad done by you are.

Re:Planned obsolescene is in common (3, Insightful)

Kilrah_il (1692978) | more than 4 years ago | (#32346070)

I liked what the designer said in the video she showed: "The knockoff customer is not our customer". Let's say Apple has a new design (e.g. iPhone OS). So some Chinese company "steals" the design and manufactures a device that looks the same. Obviously it has a cheaper overall build. Who would buy it? Probably not the people who would pay the big(er) bucks for an iPhone/iPad. Of course, there isn't a clear cut distinction between the 2 populations, but I believe the loss suffered by Apple is minimal, while the gain to the entire industry (and also for Apple - because it is forced to innovate) is huge. Note: Apple is just an example. This could work for Google, HP, RIAA, MPAA, you-name-it.
This video is the first argument that really convinced me that software IP is damaging and music piracy isn't such a bad thing. I believed in it for a long time, but here I got a good example of how a different culture has bred a better (and more profitable) industry.

Re:Planned obsolescene is in common (1)

Zarel (900479) | more than 4 years ago | (#32346188)

Likewise in software, where upgrades are mandatory even though the current software works just fine. "But it's old tech!" the developer shouts at his utterly stupid users. "Why won't you upgrade? I really enjoyed working on this!" I recently asked a question on a support forum about Drupal. I didn't get my question answered, as the developers immediately discussed the fact I was using the "old tech" version (5) and the entire discussion became about when I was going to upgrade to the latest greatest version (7). Why should I? My software works just fine and customers are happy.

Your software clearly doesn't "work just fine" if you're asking a support question.

Okay, developers have many reasons for wanting users on the latest version (e.g. userbase fragmentation, which especially sucks if what you're making is multiplayer), but the biggest one is that it's hella frustrating to get bug reports about old versions. I've heard users ask "Why isn't this bug fixed yet?" about bugs that were fixed ages ago. You want to use an old version, that's fine, but if you want support, you should be using the newest version.

Especially with open-source software. We're not getting paid to support old versions, so we're going to keep on working on the latest and greatest. Even if it's not a bug report, it's just a question about how to do something - we're not going to remember how we implemented the feature two versions and three years ago. We just know how it's done now, which is probably a better way, anyway.

And in open-source software, upgrading is generally a good thing. Sure, in proprietary software, they often just release new versions to draw money out of customers even though nothing's actually improved, but in open-source, if we release a new version, it's generally because it's actually better. If you disagree, go ahead and use the old version, maybe even fork it if it's that popular, but, again, you're not going to get any support from us guys working on the newest version.

Security upgrades are more like obscurity upgrades. "Because it's last year's fashion, daaahling"

Okay, see, normally, I don't really care how much you screw up your own computer. You generally don't notice when you have security problems, since it's in malware's best interest not to be noticed - if it gets noticed, it gets removed. Instead, it sits there, silently being a part of a botnet, and, at that point, you're not just screwing up your own computer, and you better be taking responsibility for all the DDoSing and spamming your computer is doing because you're too lazy to apply a #^%$ing security update.

Some big differences... (4, Insightful)

techmuse (160085) | more than 4 years ago | (#32345862)

People copy fashions of high end items. Most people can't afford those anyway. They're too expensive. So no sales are lots.

Clothing is a physical good. If you can make one instance of it, you still need to repeat the whole manufacturing process to make more. This is not true of digital information.

The value of a good drops with the availability of the good. Digital information can be replicated infinitely. Clothing is much harder to replicate.

The value of clothing drops dramatically within 3 months because fashions are seasonal. So if you can replicate it after 1 year, no one cares. This is not true of software, movies, music, etc. A lot of IP retains its value for decades or longer.

Re:Some big differences... (5, Insightful)

MadKeithV (102058) | more than 4 years ago | (#32345988)

This is not true of software, movies, music, etc. A lot of IP retains its value for decades or longer.

Bovine excrement.
Most modern IP loses most of its value quite quickly. A hit song quickly stops being a hit song as new songs claw up the charts. A movie drops out of theaters after a few months. Software might have a bit more longevity, but even there it's probably around 2 to 5 years, not decades.

Only a few classics retain value longer - but that's also true for the fashion industry. Some "vintage" haute couture is still very much sought-after.

Re:Some big differences... (4, Insightful)

LordLucless (582312) | more than 4 years ago | (#32346006)

How old's the TCP/IP stack running most computers? How old's the Linux/OSX/Windows kernel? What about the MP3 file format?

The difference between fashion and software (well, one of the many) is that software can be improved on iteratively. Even if your software is old, if it's solid and mature, people will want to built new shinies on top of its old reliable, and therefore, it was value to them.

The TCP/IP stack isn't protected. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32346078)

The TCP/IP stack isn't protected. Fail.

The difference between fashion and software (well, one of the many) is that software can be improved on iteratively.

And that improved version gets a NEW copyright, therefore the OLD one doesn't need it any more.

Even if your software is old, if it's solid and mature, people will want to built new shinies on top of its old reliable, and therefore, it was value to them.

Except with closed source (heck, even most Open Source but not FOSS), you CANNOT. Go update Windows 95 so it supports the new Atom subnotes.

Re:Some big differences... (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 4 years ago | (#32346556)

One could argue that clothing can be iteration-al... Take pants for example. You know those cell phone pockets some of them have now? It's still a pretty standard design with pockets in the same locations but someone came along and added a pocket to suit a specific need. Otherwise, pants look and operate pretty much the same as every other pair of pants.

Just like networking and protocols.

Re:Some big differences... (1)

SerpentMage (13390) | more than 4 years ago | (#32346042)

Huh???

Let's try Mickey Mouse shall we?

Or how about all of those stations that play 70's 80's or 90's music. You know the "real" music. 70's music is 40 YEARS ago...

Or what about all of those remakes, and rereleases? I mean let's not start on the discussion of which is the real Star Trek... You know the original series that is nearly 50 years old...

Re:Some big differences... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32346252)

"Real Star Trek"?

Puh-lease. The Next Generation was way better.

Re:Some big differences... (1)

NickFortune (613926) | more than 4 years ago | (#32346422)

Let's try Mickey Mouse shall we?

I don't see why not. It's been years since "Steamboat Willie" was on general release. Eighty Two of them, in point of fact. I don't think there's much value left in that particular expression of the idea.

That's if we're talking about copyright, of course. Patents happily have yet to be applied to the area, although I'd love to see the application form ("method and apparatus for extracting money from parents by means of an animated anthropomorphic animal").

The trade mark, of course, is rather valuable. But I don't think anyone's discussing abolishing that aspect of IP law. The fashion world already has those, no less than the software industry, and it seems quite adept at monetizing them.

So that only leaves ... ermmm... I'm sorry, what was your point, again?

Re:Some big differences... (1)

hitmark (640295) | more than 4 years ago | (#32346594)

sad thing is that the long term copyright we have today came into being because the french where mixing aspects of trademark with aspects of copyright, and this got transplanted to the world with the berne convention.

Re:Some big differences... (1)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 4 years ago | (#32346132)

The value of clothing drops dramatically within 3 months because fashions are seasonal. So if you can replicate it after 1 year, no one cares. This is not true of software, movies, music, etc. A lot of IP retains its value for decades or longer.

Only a partial retort, but the music industry already has its own version of scarcity goods : concert tickets.

Re:Some big differences... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32346184)

Have it ever occurerd to you that fashion might be a product of the lax ip laws? The rate of innovation is the only think keeping designers afloat, which rockets the market forward faster then any other.

Re:Some big differences... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32346220)

"People copy fashions of high end items. Most people can't afford those anyway. They're too expensive. So no sales are lost."

People copy eBooks,DVDs,etc of high end originals. Most people can't afford those anyway. They're too expensive. So no sales are lost.

Okay, but... (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32345892)

First off, fashion occupies a unique niche in culture and purchasing decisions. As noted http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/597 [publicknowledge.org] on a relevent blog "The fashion industry profits by setting trends in clothing, and then inducing consumers to follow those trends. This process leads us to treat clothing as a status-conferring good to be replaced once the fashion changes, rather than as a durable good to be replaced only when all the buttons fall off. Trend-driven consumption is good for the fashion industry, because it sells more clothing. " That nature is hardly applicable to software, literature, film, or design.

The New York times http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/04/us/04fashion.html?_r=2&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=all [nytimes.com] ran a story that included this telling quote, "“If I see something on Style.com, all I have to do is e-mail the picture to my factory and say, ‘I want something similar, or a silhouette made just like this,’ ” Ms. Anand said. The factory, in Jaipur, India, can deliver stores a knockoff months before the designer version."

An NPR story http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1434815 [npr.org] noted that "it's expensive and risky to actually create new designs. It's cheaper and easier to simply knock off successful ones."

The entire point of IP is to encourage social and cultural development through the protection of initial investment. The fashion industry demonstrates what happens when IP is weakened or non-existant - a disincentive to create and develop and a thriving copy-culture.

Re:Okay, but... (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#32345930)

Trend-driven consumption is good for the fashion industry, because it sells more clothing. " That nature is hardly applicable to software, literature, film, or design.

What? There's more literature, possibly films (at the least - the "old" ones are cheap; for various values of old - I'm still speechless when somebody considers films made during last decade "old", which happens often) in the public domain than you could possibly consume in your entrire lifetime. Designs are also for the taking. Don't start me on planned obsolescence of software...

And yet that's what everybody are doing and are quite happy.

Perhaps building our societies on overconsumption is the only problem here...

Don't care about Copyright? (4, Informative)

Statecraftsman (718862) | more than 4 years ago | (#32345948)

She said (paraphrasing), "Open Source. Those people decided they wanted nothing to do with copyright."

She's a little bit wrong there when you consider that the GNU General Public License uses copyright as the vehicle through which the license is enforced. What she meant to say was that the free software movement requires people be able to copy and modify their software as part of the definition of software freedom. Not quite as good for a sound bite but a truer meaning for those who care.

Re:Don't care about Copyright? (1)

Lord Bitman (95493) | more than 4 years ago | (#32345970)

Open Source is the exact opposite of "low-IP industries", as those tend to value trade secrets very highly.

Re:Don't care about Copyright? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32346018)

The GPL is designed as a "patch" for copyright law, therefore it requires copyright law to operate. If there was some different law, some GPL-like license could be written to fix that, if required; and then it would be a patch to *that* law . If there was *no* law interfering in the software market, GPL becomes less necessary. If there was a "software freedom" law, there would also be less or no need for a GPL.

Re:Don't care about Copyright? (2, Insightful)

metacell (523607) | more than 4 years ago | (#32346370)

That's not the whole reason the GPL requires copyright. The GPL ensures that a purchaser of a program always has access to the source code so he can make needed changes, and that would not be possible without copyright. In a copyright-free world, every program would be free to copy, but nobody could force anyone to release the source code.

Re:Don't care about Copyright? (3, Informative)

David Jao (2759) | more than 4 years ago | (#32346050)

She said (paraphrasing), "Open Source. Those people decided they wanted nothing to do with copyright." She's a little bit wrong there when you consider that the GNU General Public License uses copyright as the vehicle through which the license is enforced. What she meant to say was that the free software movement requires people be able to copy and modify their software as part of the definition of software freedom. Not quite as good for a sound bite but a truer meaning for those who care.

Your claim is not correct either. Just because the GNU GPL uses copyright as a vehicle to enforce the license does not mean that the FSF wants, endorses, or supports software copyright. In fact, if you search through Richard Stallman's writings and speeches, he makes it pretty clear that using software copyrights in the GPL is merely his way of making the best of a bad situation. Although the GPL uses software copyrights, the FSF does not support software copyright, by any means.

For example, in "Why Software Should Not Have Owners" [gnu.org] , Richard Stallman writes:

Digital technology is more flexible than the printing press: when information has digital form, you can easily copy it to share it with others. This very flexibility makes a bad fit with a system like copyright.

That's a clear and unambiguous statement against software copyright. The motivation for the GPL and copyleft is described as follows [gnu.org] :

I figure that since proprietary software developers use copyright to stop us from sharing, we cooperators can use copyright to give other cooperators an advantage of their own: they can use our code.

In summary, it's not entirely correct to say that the FSF wants anything to do with copyright just because the GPL uses copyright. It's more accurate to say that the FSF wants nothing to do with copyright, but that practical considerations forced them to participate in the copyright system against their will.

Of course, it's certainly true that not all developers agree with the FSF, but if you're going to cite the GPL as an example of the free software community's stance on software copyright, then you are obliged to give greater weight than usual to the FSF's position on software copyright in this context, because the FSF created the GPL.

Re:Don't care about Copyright? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32346126)

Blakley's understanding of the issue is better then your own. GPL is merely a copyright-hack. Yes, it only exists because copyright exists, but nobody argues that software freedom requires copyright enforcement. Without copyright ALL software would be free.

Re:Don't care about Copyright? (2, Insightful)

metacell (523607) | more than 4 years ago | (#32346382)

No. Without copyright, all programs would be free to copy, but the source code would not be available. GPL forces anyone who distributes a program to also distribute the source code, and without copyright there would be no way to enforce it.

Re:Don't care about Copyright? (1)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 4 years ago | (#32346150)

It is a vehicle to mandate openness of sources. Remove copyright laws and mandate source code bundling when selling binaries of a software and free software fans will be more than happy.

Re:Don't care about Copyright? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32346178)

Actually, she's got the right spirit of the GPL. The GPL uses copyright only against those that would not share (with the exception of in-house use, but that's details) - specifically, it aims to realize sharing of ideas, whether by encouragement or force (and only in this part does its use of copyright come in). The point of the talk was industries that do not keep secrets or require explicit IP cashflows can do well - and the GPL falls squarely in that category.

Please get your facts right in TED talks! (4, Informative)

Qubit (100461) | more than 4 years ago | (#32345964)

TED talks might be "ideas worth spreading," but unfortunately Johanna Blakley is spreading nothing but half-truths and misconceptions about FOSS in her talk.

Don't get me wrong -- I have no impression that she's acting with malicious intent. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if she was supportive of the open source business model. But regardless of intent, her voice carries great weight when she's given the microphone at a TED talk.

11:50
"Open source software. These guys decided they didn't want copyright protection. They thought it'd be more innovative without it."

False. Some FOSS developers eschew some of the protections granted to them through copyright law and grant everyone very permissive licenses to their code. Other developers have used a clever hack to create a body of "copyleft" work -- code that can be used and expanded upon, contingent upon derivative works being distributed under the same terms as the original work.

Very few FOSS developers put their code into the public domain.

13:50
Around this point she shows a chart.

The chart has two axes:
X: "Property (Art)" -> "Free (Utility)" and
Y: "Physical Fixed Expression" -> "Idea/Digital Manifestation".

The left two quadrants are colored grey and have "COPYRIGHT PROTECTED" written above them. The right two quadrants and colored white and have "NOT COPYRIGHT PROTECTED" above them.

She plots "OPEN SOURCE CODE" on the chart exactly in between "Idea/Digital Manifestation" and "Free (Utility)", placing it on the right hand, "NOT COPYRIGHT PROTECTED" side of the chart.

At least for the moment, computer code is copyrightable in the US. And as I stated before, most FOSS code is copyright protected.

I think that Blakley has a lot of interesting ideas, and certainly knows more about the fashion industry than I, but she's needlessly negligent in her characterization of how FOSS interacts with copyright law.

Perhaps I should write her a polite letter...

Re:Please get your facts right in TED talks! (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32346206)

...she's needlessly negligent in her characterization of how FOSS interacts with copyright law.

Yes ... but in this context, the difference isn't that important (and might have confused her audience). There's no source/binary distinction with clothing - producing duplicates of a new garment is trivial compared to reverse-engineering a compiled binary. The GPL uses copyright to prevent people from locking up source code - but in fashion, that ability has never existed in the first place, so from their point of view open-source coders are giving up all the parts of copyright that matter to them.

Re:Please get your facts right in TED talks! (2)

RCC42 (1457439) | more than 4 years ago | (#32346262)

My instinct tells me you're being sarcastic, but if not... holy crap on a cracker you need to get out more!

What free culture? (4, Funny)

asto21 (1797450) | more than 4 years ago | (#32345968)

What free culture? This is an industry that has no qualms about charging thousands of dollars for a pretty piece of cloth!

IP (1)

dandart (1274360) | more than 4 years ago | (#32345984)

I read "IP Railway". While that would be pretty cool to see, I'm very worried about my eyes now.

Talk was wrong... (3, Insightful)

SerpentMage (13390) | more than 4 years ago | (#32346022)

The speaker is getting her things mixed up.

Open source is copyrighted. And if it were not then people would copy without any regards. For example the GPL works BECAUSE of copyright. It uses copyright to keep free.

Re:Talk was wrong... (1)

MeNeXT (200840) | more than 4 years ago | (#32346552)

The GPL exists because of copyright to keep the code free. Her point is simple and accurate. You need to read up on FSF and Richard Stallman.

Re:Talk was wrong... (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 4 years ago | (#32346596)

One could argue that it works because companies make money off of IP alone in the software industry and that it HAS to have a copyright protection to keep said companies from profiting off it.

If companies could only make profit off the cumulation of software code into a package and the underlying code was free to use by anyone I think the software industry wouldn't need the GPL.

IE: If Microsoft made it's money selling a software package, like an operating system composed of packages of freely available code that everyone likes, and they continued to improve upon it giving their customers the leading edge without forcing them to debug and stabilize it... then you see a software industry that doesn't need such protections and operates on pure competition of service and support.

I still can't download a dress!! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32346028)

can you help me?

Re:I still can't download a dress!! (2, Funny)

Errol backfiring (1280012) | more than 4 years ago | (#32346174)

The main problem is that any tarball will spoil the clothes inside it. But "make dress" should work if you do it by hand.

Re:I still can't download a dress!! (1)

oDDmON oUT (231200) | more than 4 years ago | (#32346258)

They're working on that [makerbot.com] .

Examples not transferable - TM violate = jailtime. (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32346048)

Fashion is about standing out, getting attention and signalling belonging to an elite clique. Items cannot be replicated infinitely. Because items are easy to create, many are created. Brand matters.
Computer software is about utility - does it work or not. Items can be replicated infinitely. Because items are difficult to create, very few are created. Brand does not matter.

With fashion, what you pay for is 1) the physical item itself, 2) the time that went into designing the item, 3) the prestige the creator has built for themselves.
With computer software, there is clearly no point in paying for the physical item itself, and no point in paying for any prestige either.

You could say that "if you could download clothes fully made there would still be an industry based around design" - true, but the example isn't transferable, because clothes, as mentioned above, are easy to create and many are created. If designing a dress cost $200m, and copies made of it were sold _marked with the same brand and in the same stores_, it would never be designed in the first place.

In fact, the important thing in fashion isn't about copyright protection, it's about trademark protection. Why does Armani sell? Because, although people can copy their style, they cannot copy their brand. It's trademark protection that is key to the profitability of the fashion industry - which she does NOT mention at all. Trademark is to fashion what copyright is to computers. Ask a designer how they would feel if trademark protection was removed, and you would see any "brand" they seek to create for themselves copied identically by mass producers. By pretending that the fashion industry thrives with no copyright protection, she fails to point out that their "intellectual property" is their TM, which they guard like hawks. This is deceptive. You go to jail for violating fashion trademarks. I would even argue that fashion trademarks are even stricter than computer copyrights.

Not to mention that to base projections about downloads on current download/sales ratios are deceptive - because if copyright violation was legal, companies would rapidly spring up, in the style of Steam, with a menu of software ready to pipe to home computers. Why pay for a movie in a store when you can have a library of every movie ever created instantly available only for the cost of bandwidth? With the current torrent system, at least a) your bandwidth may be limited, which market pressure would stop it from if copyright violation was legal; b) there are a few steps involved in burning the ISO; c) you will miss out on patches and downloadable content. If copyright violation was legal a Steam-like system would spring up in 2-3 months, with a well-managed system of circumventing copy protection. This would again lead to an explosion of even stricter anti-circumvention, probably involving hardware, which would add multiple layers of cost.

Why must KDawson be evil enough to put forward deceptive examples uncritically to serve his ideology? Can everyone else do the same thing? Or is being deceptive good as long as it serves the cause of good? It doesn't exactly inspire me to show much regard in return.

Re:Examples not transferable - TM violate = jailti (3, Insightful)

oDDmON oUT (231200) | more than 4 years ago | (#32346442)

It's trademark protection that is key to the profitability of the fashion industry - which she does NOT mention at all.

Actually, she does. More than once. Did you watch the video?

The point that she makes is that the ability to create derivative works fuels innovation, makes money, and fosters creativity, a point that I totally agree with.

Your assertion that "If designing a dress cost $200m, and copies made of it were sold _marked with the same brand and in the same stores_, it would never be designed in the first place." is specious.

Movies that cost $200M (and more, much more), are greenlighted all the time, bomb at the box office, die in the dustbins of discount DVDs, still don't recover their budgetary costs, and yet that doesn't stop more from being made. Does it?

Which leads to the question: Why do movies that cost millions to make generally suck the most?

Could it be that the old business models, dinosaurian management, and a sense of protected entitlement, foster a culture that recycles themes, prizes visual efx over story, stifles creativity and throttles risk taking?

Look at some of the most successful, highest grossing movies of the last 15 years and I think you'll see more that were made on relatively small budgets (Blair Witch Project being the poster child, but there are others [wikipedia.org] ) than you will Summer Blockbusters. My Big Fat Greek Wedding was turned down for production by all the major studios until Playtone picked it up, dropped it in the can for $5M and to date it's grossed $369M worldwide.

No, I'm with Johanna Blakely, less protectionism, less legislation, and less artificial control will foster change, evolution and creation, and that's something we should look forward to.

Ho-ho. (1)

SeaFox (739806) | more than 4 years ago | (#32346276)

Nice pun in the title there, kdawson.

Lies, damned lies... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32346374)

I can't believe no-one seems to have commented yet on the "killer slide" comparing expenditure on "low-IP" and "high-IP" industries. People spend more money on food, clothes, cars and furniture than music and DVDs, and this is some big strike against IP protection? How about the fact that people spend more money on necessities than luxuries?

The video makes some good points of varying levels of validity, but equating "people spend more money on food than DVDs" with "copying shit rulez" is nonsensical- I saw more honest statistics used in the general election last month.

Software = Recipe (4, Interesting)

cthulhuology (746986) | more than 4 years ago | (#32346406)

I loved the rationale that a recipe is "just a list of instructions and therefore not copyrightable". Maybe we should apply the same logic to software which is "just a list of instructions" and somehow therefore copyrightable? It does not compute... Personally, I have in the past 27 years of programming not once directly profited from copyright. The only software to which I've retained copyright is software that I wrote under the GPL, and all of the other software has been work for hire. Of the work for hire, not a single line of that code was ever sold! All of the code that was distributed as done so freely, usually to capture and audience or promote another product or event. Would it make any difference to me if software were not copyrightable? Hell Yes! I would have just as much programming to do, but I could re-use software I have already written. As it stands now, the only software I can reuse on each job is the code I wrote under that I placed under GPL! And it is because of that code, that I always have work that I have to turn down due to lack of time. So for some of us, the Fashion model is reality in software, just we end up knocking our own work off over and over again for different clients with different tastes.

Re:Software = Recipe (1)

Stumbles (602007) | more than 4 years ago | (#32346598)

I agree a program IS nothing more than a list of instructions. I do not have to much of an issue with copyrights as they pertain to software, but patents? That I just cannot agree with and there is not a single person on this planet that can justify their rational that it should happen. At its very basic level, software is nothing more than adding or subtracting numbers with an occasional shift left or right.

The Fashion Industry As a Model For IP Reform (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32346464)

I haven't RTFA, but I don't need to, any industry that has created things had something to teach software does not, developers do not, developers != geeks geeks = some sort of brain, developers != brain, sorry software patents, IP trolls, patenting life it has gotten out of hand to much is prior art to much is none unique to much is FAIL not real, to much is wrong and can't think, wait like the fashion industry, can't believe people are arguing for patents.
but what the fuck do I know, I realized the other day I didn't have any connection, in my day Gaming meant things you did with geeks and books and pencils sorry that was before you could stroke your ego with web site of the week, wait that was before web sites and people ,made other thing based on knowledge acquired by other people I think there was once a description for this progress science no I can't remember much to long ago

Impossible mission on the other hand or trade wars and Oh ya reasonable behaviour

Sorry get off my fucking lawn

your all a bunch of douche bags and trolls again, don't need to RTFA have just seen things done things fuck you web 2.0 and all your adherents go learn none languages live none lives and help to kill and oppress the rest of use for USA uber alles or insert state uber alles fuck

Write out one hundred times (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 4 years ago | (#32346540)

With that bar chart at around 12:24 - is she implying that correlation == causation? Here, in the slashdots?

Also, I'd like to see what's included within the food category. Restaurant & takeaway only? Or are branded convenience foods included? How about basic ingredients?

you wouldn't download armani suits.. (2, Funny)

hldn (1085833) | more than 4 years ago | (#32346568)

fuck you, i would if i could.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?