Abolish copyright? good or bad..

[mb2]

What do people think about radical copyright reform? (inc abolishion of DRM etc)
personally i think its about time, and the issue was highlighted a while back when thepiratebay.org servers were taken down and there was quite a bit of a news about the pirate party.. open source software projects including of course linux have showed IMO that quality software can be produced, which is supplied free.. annd wikipedia has shown this further with information.. people would still go to concerts and cinemas.. and any true artist would work for a 10th of what they get anyway, as long as they can get by comfortably.. one problem area i can see is pc/console games.. i could see the graphics going back a few generations, atleast at first..
obviously exceptions could be made and stuff like copyleft kept.. and anything that was felt needed to encourage r&d etc could be implimented..
but to me it seems like we would benefit massively as a net result; having access to millions of movies , music, software, all for free. (i'm sure many, whilst probably not those who download now, would donate to support their favourite artist/film etc etc, given the increase in disposable income they would have..) whilst the MPAA/RIAA and associated are the real big losers; yes some jobs would be lost, but the increase in disposable income that people would get would surely increase spending and create opportunities for more new jobs..
it does seem rather that governements (all accross the world) seem to have the interests of big business at heart rather than their citezans, which they represent..

discuss..

[Aris]

is this just your personal thought process for the day, or is there any legal presedence on its way down the pipeline that stirred this line of questioning up?

i mean we can discuss what we think should happen all we want, but its not really going to matter unless the subject is actually going to be voted on in real life.

[Denorios]

It's worth discussing. The whole concept of "Intellectual Property" is historically quite recent. The jury is still out on whether copyright is a net benefit to society.

Personally, I wouldn’t complain about seeing the end of the media industry. The mass exploitation of “artâ€

[IsaacKuo]

Note that open source DEPENDS upon copyrights far more than closed source. At least, the GPL half of the Open Source movement which has produced all of this amazingly useful Free software does. There's also the Berkeley licence half, which hasn't produced the explosive software development that GPL has.

If Berkeley license software ever catches up with GPL, then we can talk about copyrights being no longer necessary. I imagine that someday it will catch up, eventually.

Until then, copyrights are important for keeping GPL software development as brisk as it is. The only reason open source development is so strong is because software developers are assured by copyright law that their openly published source code will only be used in projects which further contribute to more open source software.

With the BSD licence, a software developers needs to be more altruistic--willing to accept that their openly published source code could be used or even "hijacked" by closed source developers.

[Beyonder]

and any true artist would work for a 10th of what they get anyway

The irony is that most artists already work for a tenth of what they should receive. The economics of the music industry are heavily slanted in favor of the record companies--not the actual artists themselves. Save for a few bands that achieve a huge amount of market saturation, most artists don't actually end up making a lot of money.

In other words, if consumers really wanted to help out Metallica, they'd pirate their music and then mail Hetfield and friends a check for five bucks. It's a hell of a lot more than they'd make if the CD was purchased through the store. Sadly, members of Metallica are clearly too stupid to realize this, given their support of RIAA.

The above said, I'm in favor of copyright reform and seeing RIAA go up in flames, but I would not be in favor of anything radical like seeing IP/copyrights go away entirely.

[haelduksf]

Copyright may or may not be good for society, but that is irrelevant. What I produce is my property, even if it is not a physical product. If I want to release it under restrictive conditions, I should be allowed to do so. If I wish to release it under a Creative Commons or GNU licence, I should be allowed to do so. I agree that a 75 year term is a bit long, but eliminating copyright can only hurt those who create and innovate, and help those who plagarise and imitate.

[cAPSLOCK]

I think copyright should be more of a guideline, people should be mature enough to buy a CD from an artist that they like, or pay for a software that they think is worth it, but not be penalised if they don't. What this means is that people will pirate media they think is overpriced for what you get, and the publishers would be forced to drop the price to an agreeable level.

The problem is most people aren't responsible enough for this system, on both sides of the game: There are consumers that wouldn't pay for a CD even if they loved the music "if you can get it for free, why pay for it?". Then there are publishers that are always looking to make an extra buck here and there.

All in all, with the current level of the average human's social responsibility, I'm for a status quo, but don't like the increasing trend in lawsuits, and evil DRM software, see: Should we be buying new Vista ready computers?

[mathias]

haelduksf, just because something is yours, doesn't mean you can do whatever you want with it. For example, your organs are also, in a way, your property, and something you've produced, but you're not allowed selling them.

If there was no copyright law, there would be no GPL. But, to what degree do for profit software companies rip off GPL code anyway?

Without copyright law, companies would probably just switch to selling software purely by trying to make you unable to copy it, and carry on not too differently. But if the source code got leaked out, acquirced through hacking, or even obtained by sneaking into software companies' buildings, then it could be open sourced. I heard some russian hackers already got the code for windows once.

[m0002a]

The real problem is patents, not copyrights.

Patents allow people to protect ideas and concepts, which may be good for manufactured items, but not so good in software. Often times the people who obtain software patents are not the ones who actually invented the idea, but they just have more lawyers to file for patent protection. The vast majority of software patents are obtained for common sense ideas that many different people would independently discover on their own if they were trying to solve the same problem. These ideas should not be patentable.

OTOH, a copyright protects authors from others using an exact replication of their work, such as books, music, video, software, etc. I can't imagine why anyone would think that it should be allowed to exactly copy someone else's work without permission, or without paying royalties. If someone wants to write open-source code, that is their choice, but if they don’t, then the code should be able to be copyrighted.

Applying the concepts above, it seems ludicrous to me that Apple could think they were entitled to copyright or patent protection for a GUI interface for computer systems (remember they sued Microsoft over Windows--and lost). Certainly, Apple should be able to protect via copyright their own OS code, but they should not be able to patent the broad concepts of GUI interface (of course, we know that Apple stole the idea from Xerox-PARC anyway, but that is another discussion).

[m0002a]

The irony is that most artists already work for a tenth of what they should receive. The economics of the music industry are heavily slanted in favor of the record companies--not the actual artists themselves. Save for a few bands that achieve a huge amount of market saturation, most artists don't actually end up making a lot of money.

In other words, if consumers really wanted to help out Metallica, they'd pirate their music and then mail Hetfield and friends a check for five bucks. It's a hell of a lot more than they'd make if the CD was purchased through the store. Sadly, members of Metallica are clearly too stupid to realize this, given their support of RIAA.

The above said, I'm in favor of copyright reform and seeing RIAA go up in flames, but I would not be in favor of anything radical like seeing IP/copyrights go away entirely.

If you think that owning a record company is so profitable, why don't you start one yourself, or invest your life savings in the stock of an existing company.

The fact is that almost all record companies are on life-suuport.

Technology is changing the recording industry, both in terms of production costs (it is now feasible for musicians to make their own CD's for a few thousand dollars), and distribution costs (primarily distribution via the internet). I think that these changes will reduce the cost of recordings, and at the same time increase the artist's share, without destroying the copyright system.

[Butcher]

Open-source software needs no arguments. Even games can be developed – there have been graphically complex open-source gaming projects – Vega Strike to name but one.

Lack of copyright and IP rights would kill games. Vega strike has been in development for over 3 years and is still way below the quality threshold for a AAA title. It's barely into the bargain bin at present. Games cost a lot of money to make, if everyone just copied them for free no one would pay to produce games and hence there'd be few games.

The same is true for a lot of software really. How many people actually make a living off writing open source software? It's not very many, and most of those work for large companies and are thus subsidised by closed source sales. The majority of open source is done by people in their spare time, while they work a paying job to put food on the table.

[mathias]

If you think that owning a record company is so profitable, why don't you start one yourself

Because of the stranglehold the big whatever-number have on the industry.

or invest your life savings in the stock of an existing company.

Because of the huge cut that excecutives and their cronies take.

[m0002a]

Because of the stranglehold the big whatever-number have on the industry.

Because of the huge cut that excecutives and their cronies take.

Not true. At one time (decades ago) there were a few large labels that controlled the industry, but that is no longer true and there are now hundreds of independent labels, and one can even make their own CD now.

The big labels are all owned by large corporations, and the executives may be well paid, they don't take a huge cut as you claim. The companies may take a large cut, but they take on substantial risks and incur substantial marketing costs. No one is forced to sign with a large label, or any label for that matter, if you want to make your own CD and market it yourself. As I said previously, if you think the large labels are making so much money, you should invest in those companies.

Here is a link that shows the major recording companies and the labels they own, in addition to a list of the hundreds (almost 1000) of independent record labels.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_record_labels

[haelduksf]

haelduksf, just because something is yours, doesn't mean you can do whatever you want with it. For example, your organs are also, in a way, your property, and something you've produced, but you're not allowed selling them.

That's because the government is meddling in my affairs.

If there was no copyright law, there would be no GPL. But, to what degree do for profit software companies rip off GPL code anyway?

This seems irrelevant- if this does occur, it can be (and has been) dealt with in civil courts.

Without copyright law, companies would probably just switch to selling software purely by trying to make you unable to copy it, and carry on not too differently. But if the source code got leaked out, acquirced through hacking, or even obtained by sneaking into software companies' buildings, then it could be open sourced. I heard some russian hackers already got the code for windows once.

So, in other words, if one gets away with a theft, they should be rewarded? Microsoft put thousands of man-hours and millions of dollars into Windows- what gives you the right to take it from them and sell it?

If I have an idea, no matter if it deals with a process for creating a back hoe, or a more efficient network stack, or a great American novel, the theft
of my idea is immoral and unjust.

In the same manner, one can argue (as I heard once, quite convincingly, from a source whose URL I forget, though I think it ended up on Slashdot) that software patents are necessary for the same reason. If someone invents a method to (for example) use eye movements to control a mouse cursor, why should one be able to steal the idea simply by changing the GUI and the structure of the code? The USPTO is comically ill-equipped to deal with software patents- they wouldn't know "non-obvious" if it bit them when it comes to code- but the idea behind software patents is valid. Just as a chemical process can be patented, and should be (though the government need not be involved), and just as a design for an appliance may be patented, so software processes and designs should be patentable.

[mathias]

Because of the stranglehold the big whatever-number have on the industry.

Because of the huge cut that excecutives and their cronies take.

Not true. At one time (decades ago) there were a few large labels that controlled the industry, but that is no longer true and there are now hundreds of independent labels, and one can even make their own CD now.

Ahem, from wikipedia: "Nielsen SoundScan reported that the big four accounted for 81.87% of the world music market in 2005:[1]" "Record companies and music publishers that are not under the control of the Big Four are generally considered to be independent, even if they are large corporations with complex structures" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_record_labels , you don't call that a stranglehold? Also, keep in mind that remaining "independant" category can include other orginizations with large financial backers and means to manipulate the industry.

The big labels are all owned by large corporations, and the executives may be well paid, they don't take a huge cut as you claim. The companies may take a large cut, but they take on substantial risks and incur substantial marketing costs.

Of course they incur substantial marketing costs, it's their own fault they chose to make ramming whatever they think people should be listening to down their throats their method of operation.

Are you including buying laws under "marketing costs"?

No one is forced to sign with a large label, or any label for that matter, if you want to make your own CD and market it yourself. As I said previously, if you think the large labels are making so much money, you should invest in those companies.

Like who, sony? I've been reading slashdot, and they're convinced that sony is going to be shooting themselves in the foot with a double barrel 10 gauge with the PS3. Unversal or Warner? They're throwing truckloads of money at cokehead actors and extravagant and unorriginal movies in general, same thing with sony.

Here is a link that shows the major recording companies and the labels they own, in addition to a list of the hundreds (almost 1000) of independent record labels.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_record_labels

Yes, the important thing is that big labels are just four entities out of almost a thousand, so it's really like they're less than 1% of the industry.

[mathias]

haelduksf, just because something is yours, doesn't mean you can do whatever you want with it. For example, your organs are also, in a way, your property, and something you've produced, but you're not allowed selling them.

That's because the government is meddling in my affairs.

Yeah, that's what gov'ts do. If you don't like it, go to Somalia.

If there was no copyright law, there would be no GPL. But, to what degree do for profit software companies rip off GPL code anyway?

This seems irrelevant- if this does occur, it can be (and has been) dealt with in civil courts.

How? Open source software writers cannot audit the code of software companies, although software companies can go after open source for alleged copyright violation, which is done, even when there is no basis for it(sco).

Without copyright law, companies would probably just switch to selling software purely by trying to make you unable to copy it, and carry on not too differently. But if the source code got leaked out, acquirced through hacking, or even obtained by sneaking into software companies' buildings, then it could be open sourced. I heard some russian hackers already got the code for windows once.

So, in other words, if one gets away with a theft, they should be rewarded? Microsoft put thousands of man-hours and millions of dollars into Windows- what gives you the right to take it from them and sell it?

Revenge! Microsoft has abused their monopoly to keep Linux down, crush Apple and kill BeOS and OS/2, they have been convicted of said monopoly abuse in spite of having the US gov't in their pocket, they've even hired sco as a hatchetman against Linux(they've invested in them). They've also used "piracy" as a mechanism for dumping in order to capture markets.

If I have an idea, no matter if it deals with a process for creating a back hoe, or a more efficient network stack, or a great American novel, the theft
of my idea is immoral and unjust.

Especially if it's done accidentally? You should keep that idea to yourself, unless you actually plan to make use of it.

In the same manner, one can argue (as I heard once, quite convincingly, from a source whose URL I forget, though I think it ended up on Slashdot) that software patents are necessary for the same reason. If someone invents a method to (for example) use eye movements to control a mouse cursor, why should one be able to steal the idea simply by changing the GUI and the structure of the code?

Oh shit, someone's going to sue me for that foot-trackball scroll wheel/mutilated keyboard thread. Or maybe not, maybe I should be rushing to the patent office.

The USPTO is comically ill-equipped to deal with software patents- they wouldn't know "non-obvious" if it bit them when it comes to code- but the idea behind software patents is valid.

"The important thing is that the gov't tries"? So if it's unfeasible to have a system in place at a moderate cost and not let it get abused, then we should have a horribly broken version of that system anyway, because it would just be so great if we somehow did have one that worked properly?

[m0002a]

Yes, the important thing is that big labels are just four entities out of almost a thousand, so it's really like they're [independents] less than 1% of the industry.

I don't agree with your interpretation of the facts. Apparently muscians don't think it is such a bad deal if they sign with a major label, especially since they usually get an advance before a single record is sold.

If you don't like it, start your own record company or make your own records and quit complaining about how other people choose to do business in a free society.

[mathias]

They accept the lousy contracts, because they can't understand them completely due to not speaking legalese(okay, and because they're foolish, and eager to be propaganda tools). In this "free society" of yours, the biggest right you have is the right to hire lawyers. If you can't afford a good team of them, you're f#$@ed in a lot of situations.

[cAPSLOCK]

In this "free society" of yours, the biggest right you have is the right to hire lawyers. If you can't afford a good team of them, you're f#$@ed in a lot of situations.

Yup, it's not the law of the strongest anymore, it's the law of the richest, that's the foundation of capitalism.

[m0002a]

Yup, it's not the law of the strongest anymore, it's the law of the richest, that's the foundation of capitalism. :evil:

Nope, it is the law of the laziest. Most people don't read contracts because they are too lazy, whether it is with recording studios, loan papers, rental agreements, etc. Someone who is smart enough to record music or write a book is smart enough to understand 99.99% of a contract if they take the time to read it.

It is pretty well understood in the recording industry, or the publishing business, that an artist or author only gets about $2.00 per CD or book sold. But of course they do often get that non-refundable advance money, even if the CD or book does not sell well at all.

The fact is that people who do sell a lot of CD's or books usually end of paying for those who don't sell (especially first timers). For proven recording artists and authors, where there is less risk to the recording company or publisher, then they usually can negotiate better deals, or publish their own works.

So do you think that recording artists and authors make more money in socialist countries? People are free to move to socialist countries if they want to, but I don’t see that happening too much.

[mathias]

Yup, it's not the law of the strongest anymore, it's the law of the richest, that's the foundation of capitalism.

Nope, it is the law of the laziest. Most people don't read contracts because they are too lazy, whether it is with recording studios, loan papers, rental agreements, etc.

Don't forget EULA's, patent records, obscure tax codes, the DMCA, the patriot act, etc...

Someone who is smart enough to record music or write a book is smart enough to understand 99.99% of a contract if they take the time to read it.

If they were able to understand it and confident in their ability to understand it, they'd find plenty of disagreeable content by just reading a limited portion of it.

It is pretty well understood in the recording industry, or the publishing business, that an artist or author only gets about $2.00 per CD or book sold.

$2? Sounds very high. For itunes sales, it's $0.045 per track, which is about 75 cents per album, and the price is supposedly like that because it's treated the same way as CD sales:
http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/7515.cfm

But of course they do often get that non-refundable advance money, even if the CD or book does not sell well at all.

"Unless worded otherwise, any advances or upfront money paid to a recording artist is owed back to the label, whether the recordings to follow sell well or not." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recording_contract

The fact is that people who do sell a lot of CD's or books usually end of paying for those who don't sell (especially first timers).

Right, pop "artists" aren't rich.</sarcasm>

For proven recording artists and authors, where there is less risk to the recording company or publisher, then they usually can negotiate better deals, or publish their own works.

What good would it do an artists to be proven and highly valued by their record company when they're locked into a contract anyway?

So do you think that recording artists and authors make more money in socialist countries?

Define socialist countries. If you're refering to continental western europe, then the big difference is that the big recording companies, and entities with large amounts of money in general, can't try to hunt down average people with hordes of lawyers as easily.

People are free to move to socialist countries if they want to, but I don’t see that happening too much.

*sigh* Not this shit again. Yeah, I'm free to move to a less american-like country. Not only that, but if it gets taken over by an american backed group, I'll most likely be free to move again!

[qviri]

People are free to move to socialist countries if they want to, but I don’t see that happening too much.

Pray tell, how do I go about moving to North Korea?

[m0002a]

Pray tell, how do I go about moving to North Korea?

You can easily move to Cuba. I am sure you will get a great deal from the record companies in Cuba.

[Butcher]

Don't bother, the blinkers are on and m0002a will not be swayed from his dogma. :p

[Beyonder]

If you think that owning a record company is so profitable, why don't you start one yourself, or invest your life savings in the stock of an existing company.

The fact is that almost all record companies are on life-suuport.

Umm, according to whom? I can find absolutely no information that indicates these companies are struggling. RIAA statistics do not constitute real information, for the record.

There's a pretty obvious reason that owning my own record company wouldn't be profitable--well in excess of 80% of the industry is owned by corporate conglomerates, who also have a strangle-hold on the radio industry and other outlets used to promote music sales. VH-1 is owned by Time Warner, which also owns Warner Music Group, one of the big four. MTV is owned by Viacom, which isn't a big four record label, but I doubt they do business with independant labels either.

Lastly, I can't just "invest" in those companies, because they are composed of giant corporate conglomerates--so thank you for the offer, but it's not exactly a legitimate one. I can invest in Sony, but I cannot invest explicitly in their music entity. I might be able to invest in Vivendi SA (a media conglomerate--not a record company), but I cannot explicitly invest in Universal Music Group, which is a wholly owned subsidiary. I can invest in Time Warner, but that is a media conglomerate composed of far, far more than a record label.

I think that these changes will reduce the cost of recordings, and at the same time increase the artist's share, without destroying the copyright system.

Who said anything about destroying the copyright system? It wasn't me.

[Beyonder]

This is hardly what I'd call "life support."

Nor is this.

Vivendi SA (which owns Universal Music Group) is going through hard times, but it's hard to say if it has anything to do with the recording industry. They also own Blizzard Software, which makes World of Warcraft (among other things), giving one an idea of the diversity of the business.

I would invest in Blizzard in a heartbeat, given that WoW is now a billion dollar enterprise unto itself and experiencing unbelievable growth, but the option isn't available, because Blizzard is a subsidiary of Vivendi.

[breunor]

An unfortunate side effect of getting rid of laws which limit what you can do at the expense of others, is that eventually someone will take advantage of you using those same new freedoms. Take the argument for downloading music as an example-some people download it for free even though they should pay for it, but don't care that they're breaking laws. They're fighting the Man! Then a large company pulls up with their armored bus and take you away to work in a sweat shop making more CDs without being paid, because hey why should they have to pay for workers when they can just break a few laws and get them for free right? It's the same argument, I'll take XYZ because I can...

Now copyrights are a bit different of course, as it's ideas rather than a physical product. Yes many copyrights/patents are for pretty basic stuff and are too generic IMO. A weak/stupid patent office is to blame for that. But many people would rather there not be copyrights or patents because they have nothing to lose. As soon as your making a living from your ideas/patents/copyrights, you'll change your tune about their usefulness.

[jaganath]

Take the argument for downloading music as an example-some people download it for free even though they should pay for it, but don't care that they're breaking laws.

Downloading music from P2P networks is more like sharing your files with lots of people, and them sharing their files with you in return. How is it any different from sharing a cigarette with someone, and that's not illegal? Why is it not illegal when you record a song you heard on the radio, but it is when you get it from a P2P network? This is a grey area, legally speaking IMO. Public libraries "share" music all the time, why is this not illegal?

[breunor]

Libraries don't offer copying services to members, they let them borrow the original media to listen to for a couple days. You can hand your original CD to a friend to share it without breaking the law. The library is just like a video store, except they don't charge as much if at all (mine charges $1 for audio CDs and $2 for a movie for example). But they don't have the right to make hundreds of copies and give them away to anyone who walks into the building, which is a better analogy to a P2P system. Radios are licensed to broadcast to the public and pay a fee to do so, you'd have to visit the station and read their rules to determine the fine print about recording it.

A cigarette is a 1 time use item, like renting a pay-per-view movie. You can share that with others because no matter how many experience it, it's a finite product. You buy 1 nicotine delivery device for a certain amount, but are unable to make more to share with others from that single one. The big issue here is the fact that you can replicate a digital product with little to no effort, and people equate (easy to break the law+hard to be caught+nobody there to watch/catch me)=(shouldn't be illegal).

[haelduksf]

haelduksf, just because something is yours, doesn't mean you can do whatever you want with it. For example, your organs are also, in a way, your property, and something you've produced, but you're not allowed selling them.

That's because the government is meddling in my affairs.

Yeah, that's what gov'ts do. If you don't like it, go to Somalia.

Impossible- the somali system relies on a system of tribes and traditional laws to enable their semi-anarchy. In any case, it's irrelevant- immoral is immoral, even if there are moral places in the world.

If there was no copyright law, there would be no GPL. But, to what degree do for profit software companies rip off GPL code anyway?

This seems irrelevant- if this does occur, it can be (and has been) dealt with in civil courts.

How? Open source software writers cannot audit the code of software companies, although software companies can go after open source for alleged copyright violation, which is done, even when there is no basis for it(sco).

It has happened before- I can recall at least half-a-dozen slashdot posts about it within the last year. Your second point is irrelevant.

Without copyright law, companies would probably just switch to selling software purely by trying to make you unable to copy it, and carry on not too differently. But if the source code got leaked out, acquirced through hacking, or even obtained by sneaking into software companies' buildings, then it could be open sourced. I heard some russian hackers already got the code for windows once.

So, in other words, if one gets away with a theft, they should be rewarded? Microsoft put thousands of man-hours and millions of dollars into Windows- what gives you the right to take it from them and sell it?

Revenge! Microsoft has abused their monopoly to keep Linux down, crush Apple and kill BeOS and OS/2, they have been convicted of said monopoly abuse in spite of having the US gov't in their pocket, they've even hired sco as a hatchetman against Linux(they've invested in them). They've also used "piracy" as a mechanism for dumping in order to capture markets.

Revenge does not make immoral acts moral. In addition, MS outcompeted all those companies, yes. Crushed them through immoral or illegal means? I'd need to see proof. Also, it isn't only MS that would be targeted with the abolishment of copyright- so would Apple, and IBM and, hell, SPCR, and everyone else. The abolishment of copyright punishes creators and innovators, and rewards thieves and plagarists.

If I have an idea, no matter if it deals with a process for creating a back hoe, or a more efficient network stack, or a great American novel, the theft
of my idea is immoral and unjust.

Especially if it's done accidentally? You should keep that idea to yourself, unless you actually plan to make use of it.

I don't understand the point you're making here.

In the same manner, one can argue (as I heard once, quite convincingly, from a source whose URL I forget, though I think it ended up on Slashdot) that software patents are necessary for the same reason. If someone invents a method to (for example) use eye movements to control a mouse cursor, why should one be able to steal the idea simply by changing the GUI and the structure of the code?

Oh shit, someone's going to sue me for that foot-trackball scroll wheel/mutilated keyboard thread. Or maybe not, maybe I should be rushing to the patent office.

If you think it's a good enough idea, go ahead. Hell, go ahead and produce some without copywriting it, and see what happens. You will get lots of sales (assuming you make good product), then someone else will steal your plans and your market by making goods identical to yours without spending any of the time or money you did to create the idea.

The USPTO is comically ill-equipped to deal with software patents- they wouldn't know "non-obvious" if it bit them when it comes to code- but the idea behind software patents is valid.

"The important thing is that the gov't tries"? So if it's unfeasible to have a system in place at a moderate cost and not let it get abused, then we should have a horribly broken version of that system anyway, because it would just be so great if we somehow did have one that worked properly?

I have never, ever called for the continuation of the USPTO- it's doing a horrible job at huge expense to those it claims to serve. I called for the continuation of the concept of private property rights over ideas, algorithms and processes. It is hardly unfeasable to bring in an efficient, rational system, and I never claimed it was.