![](/i/fill.gif) |
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
From: Neeum Zawan
Subject: Re: US Patent System, now with 20% less stupidity
Date: 12 Jul 2009 16:13:05
Message: <4a5a43d1@news.povray.org>
|
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
On 07/12/09 11:48, Darren New wrote:
>> 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.
20 years. If he/she dies within that period, he can be allowed to pass
it on to someone. But not more than 20 years overall.
I don't think I said only the artist should have it (which is perhaps
why I started with "not quite the topic at hand"). I'm fine with a
copyright holder giving away or selling his copyright. But I'd like to
keep it 20 years overall.
>> 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.
Yes, my point. From what I can guess what it was about, the current
system tends to limit the artistic output. It may still be better than
_no_ copyright, but it's far, far from optimal, and gets worse as time
goes on.
--
Bozone (n.): The substance surrounding stupid people that stops bright
ideas from penetrating. The bozone layer, unfortunately, shows little
sign of breaking down in the near future.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawaz org<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
From: Neeum Zawan
Subject: Re: US Patent System, now with 20% less stupidity
Date: 12 Jul 2009 16:34:57
Message: <4a5a48f1$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
On 07/12/09 12:07, somebody wrote:
> Why?
It's a fundamental difference I have. I don't believe in equating
intangibles with property. I do believe in copyright, as an entity
recognized and enforced by the government which gives the owner certain
rights.
And I believe in it for only one reason: Providing certain protections
will promote the production of art and enrich (in a non-materialistic
manner) the society and culture. I have no other reason to believe in
it. Were it not for this, I'd move to abolish it.
In particular, I do *not* believe that it is an individual right to
have copyright (in the sense of universal human rights). The main idea
is to benefit society, and not the individual. Copyright merely gives
the individuals some privileges to further that goal. In the bigger
picture, the individuals don't factor in.
Taken straight from the US Constitution (or so some web site claims):
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for
limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their
respective Writings and Discoveries".
The stated goal is to progress science and the arts. Not to provide
some arbitrary rights to people.
To get to my point, when the copyright period is too long, then the
incentive to promote the arts is greatly reduced. If you have lifetime
copyright, then the person who produced a piece of art has a lot less
incentive to produce more pieces of art.
Take Star Trek. It almost disappeared. The series were all dead, and no
movie had been made for what, 8 years? If they hadn't resurrected it, it
would have vanished, despite there being a continual demand for Star
Trek related material.
On the flip side, a product (like Star Trek and James Bond) will be
milked to ridiculous extremes, resulting in little incentives for proper
innovation.
Copyright hurts by protecting both possibilities.
> 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
The difference is that ownership of physical property is considered
more or less a human right. Few disagree - not even communists really
disagree with that. Intellectual property is not generally agreed upon
to be a human right.
In other words, the burden is on you to explain why they should be
allowed to benefit from it. Specifically, why do you even think there
should be copyright?
Note that I'm not saying that individual works of art can't be owned
and passed on after 20 years. Whoever owns the Mona Lisa still owns it,
and it is still valuable. Copyright, though, is about copying and not
ownership.
> 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.
You say "naturally". There's nothing natural about copyright. It's a
contrived and relatively recent concept.
--
Bozone (n.): The substance surrounding stupid people that stops bright
ideas from penetrating. The bozone layer, unfortunately, shows little
sign of breaking down in the near future.
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
From: Neeum Zawan
Subject: Re: US Patent System, now with 20% less stupidity
Date: 12 Jul 2009 16:57:10
Message: <4a5a4e26$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
On 07/12/09 12:38, Warp wrote:
> 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).
Oh yes. Think vaporware. Lots and lots of games out there that people
cherish and love, but that are protected by copyright and the
people/companies who own that copyright aren't bothered to let people
play those games legally.
I could understand it if those companies were planning on marketing
those games, or making remakes, etc. Then those older games would hurt
sales. But in almost all cases that's just not how it is. The owners are
often megacorps who, as a rule, just maintain the copyright.
Anyone play the Sierra Quest games? King's Quest? Space Quest? Sierra
stopped making such games in the 90's. I think the last one was in 1997
or 1998. They then got bought. It was becoming clear they had no
interest in those franchises (they didn't even before it got bought).
Then it got bought again, ending up being owned by Vivendi. No plans
whatsoever to continue the franchise. For a while, they contracted a
company to make a new Space Quest, but that project collapsed (the last
Space Quest game was released in 1995).
Then some guys made a VGA remake of King's Quest 1 in about 2001.
http://www.agdinteractive.com/
They then made a remake of King's Quest 2. Released in late 2002.
Then they started making a remake of Quest For Glory 2.
Then Vivendi's lawyers descended upon them. I don't know what
transpired, but I think they made an agreement that Vivendi would own
the copyright and the games were not allowed to be sold - only given
away (which was the original plan any way).
Another group was working on "King's Quest 9" - and unlike the above 3,
they were working on a "high quality" (i.e. good graphics) game.
http://www.tsl-game.com/
In 2006 or so, Vivendi descended upon them. The project came really
close to being shut down. They fought hard and finally got permission. I
forget the terms - wouldn't surprise me if Vivendi secured the rights to
those as well.
Finally, the bad news: Another group was working on Space Quest 7 (SQ7)
- also meant to be of high quality. They'd been working on it since at
least 2002. In 2007 or 2008, Vivendi went after them.
Now I must point out that all of these groups were not doing anything
in secret, and I believe had even informed (at times repeatedly) Vivendi
of their project. Vivendi rarely acknowledged, and their responses were
always noncommittal - not giving permission, but not forbidding the work
either. The projects all knew the risks.
They succeeded in getting SQ7 shut down. They wanted to own the
copyright, but unfortunately some of the people who had contributed to
the project had done so on the condition that the copyright will not be
transferred to Vivendi.
The SQ7 folks tried everything. They were willing to sell it and give
Vivendi all the profits. They were willing to make many other
compromises. But Vivendi just insisted on the copyright.
Vivendi has no plans to make a Quest game. They don't even make
anything remotely similar. There doesn't seem to be any hint of a plan
that they'll ever get into this market. They also have nothing against
those games - it's not like they have a reason to prevent people from
playing. From the lawyer's perspective, Vivendi owns the copyright, and
there's always a nonzero probability that *one day* Vivendi may want to
make such a game, and SQ7's existence *may* dig into their profits.
Now the SQ7 developers don't really have any complaints. They knew the
risks, and they felt it was worth it to try. They're taking it well.
But of course, all the fans of the franchise aren't. This is a clear
case of "copyright abuse" - in the sense that it works against the
stated purpose of copyright. It's using copyright to stifle art, not
promote it.
And of course, because of these cases, no doubt other groups will be
less likely to produce works of art.
--
Bozone (n.): The substance surrounding stupid people that stops bright
ideas from penetrating. The bozone layer, unfortunately, shows little
sign of breaking down in the near future.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawaz org<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
From: Neeum Zawan
Subject: Re: US Patent System, now with 20% less stupidity
Date: 12 Jul 2009 17:01:31
Message: <4a5a4f2b$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
On 07/12/09 13:36, andrel wrote:
> 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?
Stuff like this can get ridiculous:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sita_Sings_The_Blues#Copyright_problems
The movie is an animated musical. The director used songs from the
1920's that were in the public domain. However, it was deemed that
syncing the songs with elements in the movie was a copyright violation.
Apparently, it's OK for me to play the songs on the radio, but if I sing
the songs, I'm violating copyright.
--
Bozone (n.): The substance surrounding stupid people that stops bright
ideas from penetrating. The bozone layer, unfortunately, shows little
sign of breaking down in the near future.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawaz org<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
"Neeum Zawan" <m.n### [at] ieee org> wrote in message
news:4a5a48f1$1@news.povray.org...
>[...]
>
> The stated goal is to progress science and the arts. Not to provide
> some arbitrary rights to people.
That, may be, but there's always the very real possibility that a handful of
people who lived and died centuries ago may not have laid down the best and
only feasible set of thoughts and laws, however godlike we may think of
them.
> To get to my point, when the copyright period is too long, then the
> incentive to promote the arts is greatly reduced. If you have lifetime
> copyright, then the person who produced a piece of art has a lot less
> incentive to produce more pieces of art.
I don't buy that. It's like saying that if the government does not take away
factories of a wealthy businessman after so many years and force him to
start from scratch, he will have no more incentive to work or innovate. Yes,
some people will stop working when they reach a certain financial security,
and some won't, but that's something you have to let individuals decide. I
don't see "witholding" (yes, the term is loaded if you don't believe
copyright should be a natural right) such security from the creative sector
is a good means to encourage continued output.
The flipside of your argument is that time limited copyright encourages a
series of mediocre works or sequels (now that you mention Star Trek and the
like) instead of magnum opuses. For if the "milking" period regularly
expires, it makes more economic sense for the artist to do the former. I
don't have a problem with someone being set for life and beyond if they can
produce such an excellent work that people keep wanting it for years on end.
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
"Warp" <war### [at] tag povray org> wrote in message
news:4a5a1fab@news.povray.org...
> somebody <x### [at] y com> 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.
>
> [...]
>
> 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.
I don't disregard your concerns, but similar objections could be raised for
inheritance of private property. That one can inherit property or land or
goods means we end up in a situation where *everything* is owned, but that
doesn't stiffle economic growth. We can certainly flourish as a society
where Smoke on Water is copyrighted. Why would it then be any more
disasterous if Marriage of Figaro were currently copyrighted as well? I
would think that the cost to society would be minimal, if any, on the whole.
It would, if anything, encourage more original or contemporary works. On a
practical matter, licence fees for older works would naturally decline in
time anyway, and many would voluntarily be donated to public domain. As for
art whose creator passes away without proper will, it can be handled the
same way as his material propeties, depending on the local legislature,
including rights being released to public domain or to museums... etc.
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
From: Warp
Subject: Re: US Patent System, now with 20% less stupidity
Date: 12 Jul 2009 17:32:02
Message: <4a5a5651@news.povray.org>
|
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieee org> wrote:
> Stuff like this can get ridiculous:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sita_Sings_The_Blues#Copyright_problems
It's sad that copyright is sometimes used properly to deter unscrupulous
criminals from stealing other people's hard work, but it's sometimes also
used in completely ridiculous situations.
As an example of a *good* use of copyright (and trademarking), in many
countries knock-off pirate products are a real problem (and I'm not only
talking about music or movies, but actual objects). The main problem is
that they are made to look like the genuine thing, so people are fooled
and are actually buying pirate products unknowingly. Not only does the
money go to the wrong people, but the buyer usually gets an inferior
product (which in some cases could even be dangerous). In this case
copyright and trademark infringement truely hurts the original company,
and often hurts the customers as well (because they are deceived into
buying a product which has not the quality guarantees than they think).
I think this is a good presentation on the subject:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQi-zQR03z8
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
From: Warp
Subject: Re: US Patent System, now with 20% less stupidity
Date: 12 Jul 2009 17:43:53
Message: <4a5a5919@news.povray.org>
|
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieee org> wrote:
> Oh yes. Think vaporware. Lots and lots of games out there that people
> cherish and love, but that are protected by copyright and the
> people/companies who own that copyright aren't bothered to let people
> play those games legally.
I think you mean abandonware.
> I could understand it if those companies were planning on marketing
> those games, or making remakes, etc. Then those older games would hurt
> sales. But in almost all cases that's just not how it is. The owners are
> often megacorps who, as a rule, just maintain the copyright.
Some companies are indeed real dicks about their copyrights, while other
companies don't care that much, and in fact embrace people's creativity on
top of their product.
A good example of the latter would be Valve: Rather than being dicks about
people making mods for Half-Life, they actually embraced the best ones.
Counter Strike is the quintessential example: It was one of the most popular
Half-Life mods, and Valve basically bought it, and it became one of their
best-selling products.
A good example of the former is Square Enix: A group of people had spent
years in a project to create a "sequel" to the game Chrono Trigger by
modding the original. Technically speaking the group didn't even break any
copyright: The only thing they shared in their website was the diff data
necessary to mod the original Chrono Trigger ROM data in order to get the
modified game. In other words, all the data they offered was their own
original creation. However, Square Enix issued a cease&desist order when
the project was something like 98% done. Even though the group knew they
were not breaking any laws, they were too afraid to not to comply. Square
Enix doesn't want to listen to the fans crying for a sequel, and they want
everything the group created removed from the internet.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
From: Warp
Subject: Re: US Patent System, now with 20% less stupidity
Date: 12 Jul 2009 18:07:31
Message: <4a5a5ea2@news.povray.org>
|
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
somebody <x### [at] y com> wrote:
> I don't disregard your concerns, but similar objections could be raised for
> inheritance of private property. That one can inherit property or land or
> goods means we end up in a situation where *everything* is owned, but that
> doesn't stiffle economic growth. We can certainly flourish as a society
> where Smoke on Water is copyrighted. Why would it then be any more
> disasterous if Marriage of Figaro were currently copyrighted as well? I
> would think that the cost to society would be minimal, if any, on the whole.
> It would, if anything, encourage more original or contemporary works.
You seem to think that copyright holds only for music and other
"unimportant" pieces of art.
Copyright also holds for eg. descriptions and documentaries of historically
significant events. If these are shut down by copyright restrictions, it
would be akin to historical censorship, and the only reason for this
censorship would be someone's greed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0r0pM1hJGU8
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
From: Neeum Zawan
Subject: Re: US Patent System, now with 20% less stupidity
Date: 12 Jul 2009 18:17:11
Message: <4a5a60e7$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
On 07/12/09 16:43, Warp wrote:
> Neeum Zawan<m.n### [at] ieee org> wrote:
>> Oh yes. Think vaporware. Lots and lots of games out there that people
>> cherish and love, but that are protected by copyright and the
>> people/companies who own that copyright aren't bothered to let people
>> play those games legally.
>
> I think you mean abandonware.
Oops. Yeah.
> A good example of the latter would be Valve: Rather than being dicks about
> people making mods for Half-Life, they actually embraced the best ones.
> Counter Strike is the quintessential example: It was one of the most popular
> Half-Life mods, and Valve basically bought it, and it became one of their
> best-selling products.
Were those mods technically illegal? Valve hadn't given permission in
general to make mods?
--
Bozone (n.): The substance surrounding stupid people that stops bright
ideas from penetrating. The bozone layer, unfortunately, shows little
sign of breaking down in the near future.
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |