http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/12/20/1811246&tid=473

http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/07/10/1218231

Apparently, now US patents either have to be about how to build something 
("transforming one thing into another") or about a specific machine 
(excluding that which you can build on a general purpose computer).

Yay!

Sounds like Finnish law even excludes the first one, from what I've 
understood talking here, but at least there's no more "patents on hanging up 
a sign to advertise your business" stupidity.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 15:30:28 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Sounds like Finnish law even excludes the first one, from what I've
> understood talking here, but at least there's no more "patents on
> hanging up a sign to advertise your business" stupidity.

This is good news - and about time, too....

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/12/20/1811246&tid=473
> 
> http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/07/10/1218231
> 
> Apparently, now US patents either have to be about how to build 
> something ("transforming one thing into another") or about a specific 
> machine (excluding that which you can build on a general purpose computer).
> 
> Yay!
> 
> Sounds like Finnish law even excludes the first one, from what I've 
> understood talking here, but at least there's no more "patents on 
> hanging up a sign to advertise your business" stupidity.

Just think of the clear-cutting that would take place if only the 
inventor of a thing could hold the patent on that thing, and if only the 
author of a work could hold the patent on that work.

A.K.A. what the Constitution says...

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

John VanSickle wrote:
> Just think of the clear-cutting that would take place if only the 
> inventor of a thing could hold the patent on that thing,

That's already true.

> and if only the 
> author of a work could hold the patent on that work.

Assuming you mean copyright, this is something that can be left up to the 
artist - why would you not want to give the artist a choice of selling their 
copyright? "Work for hire" would go out the door, so either it would come 
back as de facto contractual clauses (like happens with patents or "moral 
rights"), or you would have a whole lot of professional artists out of work. 
You'd also have artists unable to leave an inheritance of art to their children.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

On 07/12/09 11:13, Darren New wrote:
> professional artists out of work. You'd also have artists unable to
> leave an inheritance of art to their children.

	Not quite the topic at hand, but if the artists make money on their 
work, the children will get that inheritance.

	The more I think about it, the more I feel that excessive copyright is 
worse for society. What's excessive? Say over 20 years. I don't think 
the government should protect an entity that allows someone to produce a 
major piece of work once and live his whole life off of it because the 
copyright extends beyond his life. I think it invalidates the whole 
benefit to society that copyright is supposed to bring. 20 years should 
be sufficient, really.+++

	Having the children continue to profit off of it for a long time sounds 
even worse.


+++ Of course, you do have borderline cases where some piece of work may 
only begin to show a profit around the time the copyright expires. Small 
changes to my scheme will fix that...

-- 
This shepherd asks his dog to please go and round up the sheep and see 
how many there are...
The dog obediently rounds up the sheep and tells the boss, "there are 40 
sheep out there."
The shepherd says, "Are you sure?  I thought there were only 37"
The dog sheepishly says, "But I rounded them up."

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 07/12/09 11:13, Darren New wrote:
>> professional artists out of work. You'd also have artists unable to
>> leave an inheritance of art to their children.
> 
>     Not quite the topic at hand, but if the artists make money on their 
> work, the children will get that inheritance.

And if the artist doesn't sell it before he dies, the kids get nothing. Not 
that that is necessarily *bad*, but saying "only the artist can have the 
copyright" has consequences you might not have thought about.

>     The more I think about it, the more I feel that excessive copyright 
> is worse for society. What's excessive? Say over 20 years. 

I think that's about what it was to start with. I agree it's far too long 
these days.

> +++ Of course, you do have borderline cases where some piece of work may 
> only begin to show a profit around the time the copyright expires. Small 
> changes to my scheme will fix that...

I thought something a bit more complex might work. Ten years after the 
original author stops offering it for sale for a "reasonable" price, or 25 
years after being authored in the first place, or 15 years after copyright 
is assigned to a commercial entity, or ....

Something like that. Let individual authors profit as long as they like as 
long as it's offered for a reasonable price, perhaps.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

"Neeum Zawan" <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote in message
news:4a5a1070$1@news.povray.org...

> The more I think about it, the more I feel that excessive copyright is
> worse for society. What's excessive? Say over 20 years. I don't think
> the government should protect an entity that allows someone to produce a
> major piece of work once and live his whole life off of it because the
> copyright extends beyond his life. I think it invalidates the whole
> benefit to society that copyright is supposed to bring. 20 years should
> be sufficient, really.+++
>
> Having the children continue to profit off of it for a long time sounds
> even worse.

Why? What's the difference between someone toiling for decades to build a
house and leaving it for their kids to benefit by renting it, and someone
toiling for decades to build art and leaving it for their kids to benefit by
licensing it? I would suggest that copyright should be perpetual, rather
than an arbitrary number of years. Worth diminishes naturally anyway, be it
of material or immaterial things, but that should come naturally, not
through decree that the commercial worth of an artist's life work becomes
zero at his deathbed, or after an arbitrary number of years since creation.

Post a reply to this message

somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
> licensing it? I would suggest that copyright should be perpetual, rather
> than an arbitrary number of years.

  That would not benefit the society as a whole.

  Historical pieces of art would be lost because it would be illegal for
anyone to copy them in order to preserve them. There are *tons* of art
out there who nodoby knows who owns currently the copyright (because the
author has died and it's unclear who is currently the owner; even the
legal owner himself may be completely unaware of the fact).

  Of course people who are dedicated to preserve historically important
pieces of art could copy them anyways, but they would then be breaking the
law. This might be something that respectable entities just can't afford
to do, even if there were no consequences.

  I have no way of knowing for sure, but I estimate that way less than 1%
of all existing art actually makes money for someone. Perpetual copyright
of *all* art just for the sake of that less-than-1% makes no sense. It's
detrimental.

  Also in the long run you end up in a situation where *everything* is
copyrighted, and nothing new can be done anymore before breaking the law.
Like technology (which is protected by time-limited patents), also art
cannot move forward if every single piece of it is protected forever.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 12-7-2009 19:38, Warp wrote:
> somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
>> licensing it? I would suggest that copyright should be perpetual, rather
>> than an arbitrary number of years.
> 
>   That would not benefit the society as a whole.
> 
>   Historical pieces of art would be lost because it would be illegal for
> anyone to copy them in order to preserve them. There are *tons* of art
> out there who nodoby knows who owns currently the copyright (because the
> author has died and it's unclear who is currently the owner; even the
> legal owner himself may be completely unaware of the fact).
> 
>   Of course people who are dedicated to preserve historically important
> pieces of art could copy them anyways, but they would then be breaking the
> law. This might be something that respectable entities just can't afford
> to do, even if there were no consequences.
> 
>   I have no way of knowing for sure, but I estimate that way less than 1%
> of all existing art actually makes money for someone. Perpetual copyright
> of *all* art just for the sake of that less-than-1% makes no sense. It's
> detrimental.
> 
>   Also in the long run you end up in a situation where *everything* is
> copyrighted, and nothing new can be done anymore before breaking the law.
> Like technology (which is protected by time-limited patents), also art
> cannot move forward if every single piece of it is protected forever.

I think you also need to define more precise what is copyrightable and 
what not. E.g. is Mickey Mouse copyrightable as such or only the 
individual images that were made of him? For MM and DD it may be 
possible to define the individual, but can we ever again make an image 
of a clown fish after 'finding nemo' without breaking copyright?

What about painting my house. Painting it in a single color is not 
copyrightable, but when I use a recognizable set of colors (e.g. white 
and green, like our local tradition)? what if I add an even more 
elaborate scheme? At what point does it become impossible for future 
owners to repaint it differently without violating my copyright?

Your fear of everything becoming copyrighted seems a bit over the top, 
but when somebody does something for the first time it may be hard to 
see what is a copyright infringement and what is something in the same 
sort of style. I can imagine that if someone had build a stone house 
with windows and doors for the first time the second one might have been 
prosecutable as a copyright infringement under current law. Now that we 
have seen the multitude of variations we know better, but what if we 
never got that far?
What about the second one to use pointillism or cubism in a painting?
Or would that have to be covered with patent laws?

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> I think you also need to define more precise what is copyrightable and 
> what not. 

That is definitely part of the problem also. (Same with patents.)

The other part is that some things are cultural. Can the design of the 
Eiffel Tower or Washington Monument be copyrighted? If so, can you refuse to 
let tourists take pictures?  Etc.

I saw an interesting article about de facto "copyright" on public domain 
artwork. The example was the Sistine chapel, long out of copyright, but 
there's only one, and the Vatican doesn't let you take pictures. Hence, 
altho it's public domain, there are no copies available to the public.

> elaborate scheme? At what point does it become impossible for future 
> owners to repaint it differently without violating my copyright?

I don't think copyright gives you the right to prevent others from 
*destroying* your work. :-)

> What about the second one to use pointillism or cubism in a painting?
> Or would that have to be covered with patent laws?

These are all questions that would come up under current copyrights, 
regardless of the timeframe granted, really.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message