Artifacts and Natural Kinds: Children’s Judgments About Whether Objects Are Owned “People’s behavior in relation to objects depends on whether they are owned. But how do people judge whether objects are owned? We propose that people expect human-made objects (artifacts) to be more likely to be owned than naturally occurring objects (natural kinds), and we examine the development of these expectations in young children. Experiment 1 found that when shown pictures of familiar kinds of objects, 3-year-olds expected artifacts to be owned and inanimate natural kinds to be non-owned. In Experiments 2A and 2B, 3– 6-year-olds likewise had different expectations about the ownership of unfamiliar artifacts and natural kinds. Children at all ages viewed unfamiliar natural kinds as non-owned, but children younger than 6 years of age only endorsed artifacts as owned at chance rates. In Experiment 3, children saw the same pictures but were also told whether objects were human-made. With this information provided, even 3-year-olds viewed unfamiliar artifacts as owned. Finally, in Experiment 4, 4- and 5-year-olds chose unfamiliar artifacts over natural kinds when judging which object in a pair belongs to a person, but not when judging which the person prefers. These experiments provide first evidence about how children judge whether objects are owned. In contrast to claims that children think about natural kinds as being similar to artifacts, the current findings reveal that children have differing expectations about whether they are owned.” http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/dev-ofp-neary.pdf doi: 10.1037/a0025661
Tagged: Property RSS Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts
-
mazsa
-
mazsa
So What If Corporations Aren’t People? “Corporate participation in public discourse has long been a controversial issue, one that was reignited by the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S. Ct. 876 (2010). Much of the criticism of Citizens United stems from the claim that the Constitution does not protect corporations because they are not “real” people. While it’s true that corporations aren’t human beings, that truism is constitutionally irrelevant because corporations are formed by individuals as a means of exercising their constitutionally protected rights. When individuals pool their resources and speak under the legal fiction of a corporation, they do not lose their rights. It cannot be any other way; in a world where corporations are not entitled to constitutional protections, the police would be free to storm office buildings and seize computers or documents. The mayor of New York City could exercise eminent domain over Rockefeller Center by fiat and without compensation if he decides he’d like to move his office there. Moreover, the government would be able to censor all corporate speech, including that of so-called media corporations. In short, rights-bearing individuals do not forfeit those rights when they associate in groups. This essay will demonstrate why the common argument that corporations lack rights because they aren’t people demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of both the nature of corporations and the First Amendment.” http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1873158
-
mazsa
Counterfeiting and piracy is a global crime, and it requires a global solution.
Victoria Espinel, the U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator -
mazsa
SCOTUS Affirms High Standard of Proving Patents Invalid “Today the Supreme Court upheld the Federal Circuit’s rule that, in litigation, a patent may only be proved invalid by clear and convincing evidence. EFF filed an amicus brief in the case – Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Limited Partnership – supporting Microsoft’s request that the standard for proving invalidity merely be by a preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not) rather than clear and convincing evidence (a high probability). [...]” https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/06/supreme-court-affirms-high-standard-proving
-
mazsa
We must reject ebooks until they respect our freedom.
Richard Stallman -
mazsa
Microsoft joins pre-emptive patent protection program http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2011/06/microsoft-joins-pre-emptive-patent-protection-program.ars
-
mazsa
Netflix Is Killing BitTorrent in the United States http://torrentfreak.com/netflix-is-killing-bittorrent-in-the-us-110427/
Competing with free: anime site treats piracy as a market failure http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/04/competing-with-free-anime-site-treats-piracy-as-a-market-failure.ars
Cf. http://theunitedpersons.org/blog/the-only-way-to-stop-piracy-is-to-cut-prices
-
mazsa
“[...] how about if Google *did* buy the music industry? That would solve its licensing problems at a stroke. Of course, the anti-trust authorities around the world would definitely have something to say about this, so it might be necessary to tweak the idea a little.
How about if a consortium of leading Internet companies – Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, Baidu, Amazon etc. – jointly bought the entire music industry, and promised to license its content to anyone on a non-discriminatory basis? [...]” http://opendotdotdot.blogspot.com/2011/04/why-google-should-buy-music-industry.html
Cf. http://news.slashdot.org/story/11/04/15/2118220/Why-Google-Should-Buy-the-Music-Industry
-
mazsa
The Continuing Saga of the Gene Patenting Case
-
mazsa
“Why the US needs to blacklist, censor pirate websites”: “Piracy runs rampant on the Internet, but Daniel Castro says it doesn’t have to be this way. He wants the US government to start creating a blacklist of Internet sites; once approved by a judge, each site would be cut off from American Internet users at the Domain Name System (DNS) level, where readable locations like “arstechnica.com” are turned into numerical IP addresses. US-based credit card companies would be forbidden from doing any business with the site, and US-based advertising networks couldn’t serve ads to the site. [...]
I spoke to him recently about Web blocking, censorship, and why he believes that deep packet inspection (DPI) of Internet traffic by ISPs is more like Gmail than wiretapping. As for due process, Castro says COICA is fair—but he’s open to some tweaks”: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/04/why-the-us-needs-to-censor-pirate-websites.ars
-
mazsa
6Reasons Google Books Failed + Judge Chin’s original opinion:
http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2011/mar/28/six-reasons-google-books-failed/
http://thepublicindex.org/docs/amended_settlement/opinion.pdf
-
mazsa
7 kinds of objections to the Google Books settlement: http://laboratorium.net/archive/2011/03/22/inside_judge_chins_opinion
-
admin
-
admin
-
-
mazsa
Bye, Bye, Miss American Pie? The Supply of New Recorded Music
Since Napster: “In the decade since Napster, file-sharing has undermined the
protection that copyright affords recorded music, reducing recorded
music sales. What matters for consumers, however, is not sellers’
revenue but the surplus they derive from new music. The legal
monopoly created by copyright is justified by its encouragement of
the creation of new works, but there is little evidence on this
relationship. The file-sharing era can be viewed as a large-scale
experiment allowing us to check whether events since Napster have
stemmed the flow of new works. We assemble a novel dataset on the
number of high quality works released annually, since 1960, derived
from retrospective critical assessments of music such
best-of-the-decade lists. This allows a comparison of the quantity
of new albums since Napster to 1) its pre-Napster level, 2)
pre-Napster trends, and 3) a possible control, the volume of new
songs since the iTunes Music Store’s revitalization of the single.
We find no evidence that changes since Napster have affected the
quantity of new recorded music or artists coming to market. We
reconcile stable quantities in the face of decreased demand with
reduced costs of bringing works to market and a growing role of
independent labels.” http://papers.nber.org/papers/W16882 -
mazsa
“The only way to stop piracy is to cut prices. That’s the verdict of a major new academic study that reckons copyright theft won’t be halted by ‘three strikes’ broadband disconnections, increasing censorship or draconian new laws brought in under the anti-counterfeiting treaty ACTA.
The Media Piracy Project, published last week by the Social Science Research Council, reports that illegal copying of movies, music, video games and software is “better described as a global pricing problem” – and the only way to tackle it is for copyright holders to charge consumers less money for their wares.
The three-year study into media piracy in emerging economies concentrated on countries such as Russia, Mexico and India, where piracy is endemic.
The academics concluded that societies where piracy is rife are no more immoral, or less willing to pay for content – the problem is that in those parts of the world, legitimate CDs, DVDs and software are five to ten times higher relative to local incomes than they are in the US and Europe.
No amount of anti-piracy enforcement will change the economics that drive copyright theft, say the report’s authors. They claim to have seen, “little evidence – and indeed few claims – that enforcement efforts to date have had any effect whatsoever on the overall supply of pirated goods. Our work suggests, rather, that piracy has grown dramatically by most measures in the past decade. [...]
The report condemns what it calls the “strong moralization of the debate” about an issue that the authors claim is really a matter of price and consumer demand.
Interestingly, the report itself is distributed under a ‘Consumer’s Dilemma’ licence that charges $8 to residents of ‘high-income’ countries – but offers it free for non-commercial use everywhere else.” http://www.thinq.co.uk/2011/3/15/cutting-prices-only-way-stop-piracy/”
-
admin
Piracy isn’t just about price http://radar.oreilly.com/2011/03/piracy-price-manifesto.html
-
mazsa
“[...] get rid of the power. Political power is, in fact, the source of the wealth concentrations that fund the industry lobbyists and the campaign contributions. The wealth of big business and the plutocracy is funneled to them by subsidies, protections, oligopoly markups on state-cartelized markets, scarcity rents from artificial property rights, etc., none of which would exist without the state.
Getting rid of the power seemingly involves a Catch-22: How can you dismantle the state policies underlying the political means to wealth, when you’re outspent and outgunned in the policy-making process by those who profit from it? How do you change the system to prevent their making money off it, in a system rigged in favor of the big money?
The answer: Get rid of the money. At first glance this seems to be a circular argument, since — to repeat — we can’t challenge their control of the political means to wealth.
No, we get rid of the money in politics by undermining — at the economic level — the means by which the plutocracy makes its money. For example, we destroy the proprietary content industries’ ability to make money — not by contesting their power in the political arenas where legislation like the DMCA is passed — but by combating their ability to enforce the copyright laws they make money from. We’ll probably never secure the repeal of DMCA in Congress. But we can destroy the record and movie industries’ profit economically, with weapons like torrent download, strong encryption, and proxies — and laugh ourselves silly at the blustering of clowns like Lieberman and Biden. [...]
We solve the problem of money in politics, not by contesting money’s control of the political process — but by economically destroying the political profiteers’ power to make money, and rendering their political power useless.” http://c4ss.org/content/6416
mazsa
Son of ACTA: the next secret copyright treaty: “[...] TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership) has been in the drafting stage for some time, but the US intellectual property chapter (PDF) only leaked yesterday. Canadian law professor Michael Geist calls it “everything [the US] wanted in ACTA but didn’t get. [...]”
mazsa
“The effects of piracy on movie distributor revenues are hypothesized to be the balance of a negative effect due to substitution for theater demand and a positive effect due to network externalities and the diffusion of information (advertising effects). In this paper, I estimate the overall effect of piracy on movie industry revenues using a fixed-effects, two-stage least squares analysis of data on movie sales, admission prices, cable penetrations, and piracy rates of motion pictures, music, and business software in 20 countries over a 6 year period from 1999 to 2004. The results show that movie piracy has a positive effect on the increase of theater admissions. [...]” http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/7/2/9/6/pages172966/p172966-1.php
mazsa
“In the very near future you may be forced to go through a “professional” to get access to your genetic information. [...]” http://www.gnxp.com/wp/2011/03/09/your-genes-your-rights-fdas-jeffrey-shuren-not-a-fan/
mazsa
Ten Reasons Not to Abolish Slavery http://mises.org/daily/5076/Ten-Reasons-Not-to-Abolish-Slavery
mazsa
ISCB Public Policy Statement on Open Access to Scientific and Technical Research Literature http://www.ploscompbiol.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002014
mazsa
“Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) [...] has now arrested someone and charged him with criminal copyright infringement, such that he’s now facing five years in jail (as well as fines). This is interesting, because when that domain was seized, we had noted that channelsurfing did not appear to host any content itself, but merely embedded content from other sites (Cf. http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110202/01203012918/homeland-security-domain-seizures-raise-more-questions-is-embedding-video-criminal-infringement.shtml?cid=195 ). That raises an awful lot of serious questions: specifically, what part of copyright law is infringed here. The site does not host any of the content. It does not make any copies. It does not distribute the content. All it does is put in a snippet of code that a user’s web browser then uses to request content from another site.” http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110303/16584013356/ice-arrests-operator-seized-domain-charges-him-with-criminal-copyright-infringement.shtml
mazsa
“Over 40 organizations endorse *The Declaration and “How-to” guide to new models of sustainability in the digital era* that are released today by the Free/Libre Culture Forum after4 months work.”
Sustainable Models for Creativity in the Digital Age: http://fcforum.net/sustainable-models-for-creativity
admin
Chilling Effects aims to help you understand the protections that the First Amendment and intellectual property laws give to your online activities. https://www.chillingeffects.org
mazsa
Don’t Make Me Steal: “I PROMISE never to illegally download a movie if there was a legal alternative following the criteria on this page”: http://www.dontmakemesteal.com/
mazsa
Top 5 Cyberlaw Developments of 2010, Plus a 2010 Year-in-Review http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2011/01/top_cyberlaw_de_5.htm
mazsa
“PirateBox is a self-contained mobile collaboration and P2P file sharing device. Simply turn it on to transform any space into a free and open P2P file sharing network. [...] No logins are required and no user data is logged. Users remain completely anonymous – the system is purposely not connected to the Internet in order to subvert tracking and preserve user privacy.” http://wiki.daviddarts.com/PirateBox
mazsa
Identity and The Independent Web: “[...] Here’s one major architectural pattern I’ve noticed: the emergence of two distinct territories across the web landscape. One I’ll call the “Dependent Web,” the other is its converse: The “Independent Web.”
The Dependent Web is dominated by companies that deliver services, content and advertising based on who that service believes you to be: What you see on these sites “depends” on their proprietary model of your identity, including what you’ve done in the past, what you’re doing right now, what “cohorts” you might fall into based on third- or first-party data and algorithms, and any number of other robust signals.
The Independent Web, for the most part, does not shift its content or services based on who you are. However, in the past few years, a large group of these sites have begun to use Dependent Web algorithms and services to deliver advertising based on who you are. [...]
The dominant platforms of the US web – Facebook, Google, and increasingly Twitter- all have several things in common, but the one that comes first to my mind is their sophisticated ability to track your declarations of intent and interpret them in ways that execute, in the main, two things.
First, they add value to your experience of that service. [...]
Secondly, these services match their model of your identity to an extraordinary machinery of marketing dollars, serving up marketing in much the same way as the service itself. [...]
What happens when the Independent Web starts leveraging the services of the Dependent Web? [...]
If I alight on a post about a cool new mountain bike, for example, I might chose to reveal that I’m a fan of the Blur XC, a bike made by the Santa Cruz company. But I don’t necessarily want that information to presumptively pass to the owner of that site until I read the post and consider the consequences of revealing that data. [...]
Let’s take that last bike scenario and play it out in the “real world.” Instead of alighting on a post on some random web site I’ve stumbled across, let’s say I’m having a coffee at a local bakery, and I overhear a group of guys talking about a bike one of them recently purchased. I don’t know these guys, but I find their conversation (the equivalent of a “post”) engaging, and I lean in. The guys notice me listening, and given they’re talking in a public place, they don’t mind. They check me out, reading me, correctly, as a potential member of their tribe – I look like a biker (tribes can recognize potential members by sight pretty easily). At some point in the conversation – based on whether I feel the group would welcome the interjection, for example – I might decide to reveal that I’ve got a Blur XC. That might get a shrug from the leader of the conversation, or it might lead to a spirited debate about the merits of Santa Cruz bikes versus, say, Marin. That in turn may lead to an invitation to join them on a ride, and a true connection could well be made.
But until I engage, and offer new information, I’m just the dude at the next table who’s interested in what the folks next to me are talking about. In web parlance, I’m a lurker. As I lurk, I might realize the guys at the next table are sort of wankers, and I’m not interested in riding with them. I have the sense that this model of information sharing is, at its core, the way identity in what I’m calling “The Independent Web” should probably work. [...]
I think it’s worth defining a portion of the web as a place where one can visit and be part of a conversation without the data created by that conversation being presumptively sucked into a sophisticated response platform – whether that platform is Google, Blue Kai, Doubleclick, Twitter, or any other scaled web service. Now, I’m all for engaging with that platform, to be sure, but I’m also interested in the parts of society where one can wander about free of identity presumption, a place where one can chose to engage knowing that you are in control of how your identity is presented, and when it is revealed. [...]
I think how we manage these questions will define who we are at a very core level in the coming years. As Lessig has written, code becomes law. It took tens of thousands of years for homo sapiens to develop the elaborate social code which defines how we interact with each other in the real world. I’m fascinated with the question of how we translate that code online.” http://battellemedia.com/archives/2010/10/identity_and_the_independent_web_.php
mazsa
US Ambassador: Over-Focus On Development “Will Kill” WIPO: “The World Intellectual Property Organization is headed in a controversial direction, and a focus on development at the expense of protection of intellectual property rights will mean the end of the agency, the United States Ambassador Betty King said yesterday. [...]” http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2010/12/17/us-ambassador-over-focus-on-development-will-kill-wipo/
admin
Far too many patents are granted, they’re granted for inventions that are far too trivial and far too narrow, the patent office is far too poorly staffed to deal with them properly, and patent trolls like Myhrvold are allowed to sit back and do nothing for years and then suddenly start harassing corporations long after they’ve built up major businesses around supposedly infringing patents. It’s a disgrace, and it’s bad for innovation and bad for business.
Kevin Drum
mazsa
PROPERTY RIGHTS IN SOCIAL DEMOCRACY “This month at Cato Unbound, Daniel Klein touches on a topic I’ve long found fascinating — Where do property rights come from? Although he doesn’t answer directly, he does challenge one popular modern idea, namely that property rights are merely grants of permission by the state, which retains a residual ownership. This idea, which Klein terms “overlordship,” I find disturbingly popular among my left-of-center friends. [...]” http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/cato-unbound-property-rights-in-social-democracy/
Against Overlordship http://www.cato-unbound.org/2010/12/06/daniel-b-klein/against-overlordship/
http://www.cato-unbound.org/issues/december-2010-property-rights-in-social-democracy/


























https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/03/good-and-bad-google-book-search-settlement