Neeum Zawan wrote:
>     But that does serve the reason provided, which somebody was suggesting need not
be the main reason.

Sure. I was just pointing out that it's not necessarily encouraging the
*next* piece of art. It could very well be encouraging the piece of art you
just paid for, that would not have been started without copyright.

>> Neither does copyright. Your Pheonix BIOS proves the point. Copyright
>> only prevents copying, not independent invention.
> 
>     In terms of stories, copyright prevents me from producing stories 
> that are too similar. 

No, it doesn't. That's the point of the Phoenx BIOS example. It doesn't
prevent you from making similar stories. It prevents you from copying
someone else's stories too closely.

If you wrote a superman story never having heard of superman, you wouldn't
be violating copyright.

> barring patents.

Patents are worse. You can be prevented from practicing your invention (in
the US at least) even if you never heard of the other guy's invention.

>>> For the creator of a piece of art, copyright serves *only* for profit
>>> motives (from _his_ perspective).

Actually, I think the whole "moral copyright" shows this to be wrong. If I 
don't want my religious work modified to show support for abortion, I can 
use copyright to do that, for example.

>> Copyright is a recent phenomenon because copying is a recent phenomenon.
>> When it takes almost as much work to make a copy as it does to create it
>> fresh, there's not a whole lot of need for copyright.
> 
>     Granted, the ease of copying was a big factor, but what about song 
> lyrics? A thousand years ago, I create a song, which is easily copied 
> (lyrics and tune). I don't know if there was a notion of copyright for 
> those things back then (haven't looked).

I don't know. I imagine that since you needed performers (like a symphony or 
something) for anything more than a small gathering, perhaps it was more 
that performers would refuse to play an opera that the author didn't attend. 
  I must admit, however, that I know bupkiss about this.

-- 
   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:4a5a6311$1@news.povray.org...
> On 07/12/09 16:26, somebody 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

> The analogy isn't valid (with respect to what Warp was saying). It's
> not a problem with land because there's still a lot of land out there.

My guess would be that there are many, many more ideas out there than there
is acres of land. Do you think we have exhausted the human creativity and
more than we have exhausted land? That's a very depressing view.

> Ditto for physical products: The raw resources needed to make them are
> available in plentiful supply.

See above. I don't like at all the implication you make, that we have less
original art to invent than raw materials to mine.

> Warp was talking about an extreme scenario where it would be very hard
> to come up with something new, because it'll almost certainly be similar
> to *something* from the past 2 thousand years, and all of it would be
> copyrighted.

Whether it's music, visual arts, literature or other copyrightable material,
exceedingly few people nowadays copy or create art that's from 200 years
ago, let alone 2000 years ago, even if there's no copyright barrier. Hence
what you present is a nonexistent problem. It's not hard to come up with new
things. Every self respecting artist strives to separate themselves from the
pack anyway. And for the blatant copycats, all I can say is that it wouldn't
be a big loss for humanity if there were fewer copies of Michelangelo's
David ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:David_in_Buffalo.jpg ). BTW,
perpetual copyright doesn't mean that there should never be copies, but if
State of New York wished to erect a David statue, in all likelihood, all
they would need would be to get permission and maybe pay royalties, that's
it.

> > 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

> You're saying it'll work out if it'll become illegal for me to combine
> H2 and O2 to get water without paying a licensing fee? Where burning
> wood for heat would be illegal unless I pay a licensing fee for the
> smoke that is produced?
>
> I think you're confusing ownership with copyright.

I think you are confusing patents with copyright. Or else you missed the
reference.

> > disasterous if Marriage of Figaro were currently copyrighted as well? I

> What if the Marriage of Figaro were made not available for the next 500
> years?

What if Smoke on Water had not been available for the last 25 or so years?
It has always been Deep Purple's call to write the song and to release it?
What if they never wrote it? What if they wrote it and then threw it in the
trash bin?

What if the opera Marriage of Martinelli was never written (hint, it never
was, AFAIK). Are we as humanity poorer for it? Well, maybe, but it's absurd
to mourn that was not. I am sure there are countless excellent art that was
never created, as are many artworks that have been created but not released,
or lost at some point. That goes on with or without copyright. And if a
copyright holder choses to not avail his art at all, that's his call. But,
like above, that's a nonexistent problem in practice. People like income and
royalties. And if not, they like fame and recognition. And if not, they like
to share art for the sake of it. There are exceedingly few examples in
history where owners or creators of art completely refuse to share it. What
would the point of burying art for 500 years be?

> > 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

> By individuals, possibly. We're seeing copyright owned by corporations.
> Unlike humans, they have no incentive to donate to the public domain,
> and are quite happy on holding on to the copyright indefinitely. I
> already gave examples in another post.

Which is fine. For corporations, art that doesn't bring income is dead, so
they will not hoard and not release it. Do you see a music label buying
songs from artists and not releasing any of it for 500 years? If it doesn't
make business sense, it's not a realistic scenario to worry about.

Post a reply to this message

"Neeum Zawan" <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote in message
news:4a5a67b8@news.povray.org...

> When it comes to something like a book, having copyright over the
> characters and story indefinitely is preventing others from producing
> anything similar.

I have yet to be convinced that encouraging the production of "similar" art
is more beneficial for humanity than discouraging it. What would the benefit
to humanity be if there were dozens of Star Wars clones?

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:
> How many movies or pieces of software do you know of 
> that took over 20 years to produce a profit?

I think there are lots of books that took more than 20 years to turn into 
movies. :-)

>     I guess I'm missing the point you were making.

I think you're missing that I'm agreeing with you. I'm just offering 
additional bits of information to consider.

>> I don't think 8 years is a long time.
> 
>     In an absolute sense, no. But given the usual cycle for Star Trek 
> movies, and given the end of all the series, it was worrisome.

I don't think 8 years is particularly long to *make* a movie, start to 
finish, if you count getting the idea, writing the script, shopping it 
around, finding actors, etc. I just thing "OMG, 8 years between Star Trek 
movies!" isn't very compelling. There are probably a lot better examples.

>     Not saying copyright should be that short - just pointing out the 
> real concern that Star Trek would die, and copyright would prevent it 
> from being resurrected.

Sure.  And that's why I advocate a liveness criterion for copyright 
equivalent to the one for trademark.

>>> 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?
>>
>> So that one piece of information that costs a great deal to be developed
>> can have the cost of developing it recovered by spreading that cost
>> amongst many buyers.
> 
>     Yes, but that's a short term reason. The bigger and main reason is 
> to benefit society and further the discipline.

No, that's the point you're missing.  Assuming the movie, book, or computer 
program is of value at all, it would be impossible to produce in the first 
place without copyright. It's not "rewarding" the author any more than the 
commodities markets "reward" the farmers and miners.

>     Put another way, what you say makes sense for products like software 
> that has lots of utility. But movies? There's no obvious reason that 
> society needs movies.

I'll respectfully disagree. I think without large-scale shared cultural 
artifacts like movies and books, you have a hard time keeping together a 
society too large for everyone to personally know each other.

<bulls__t> That's why in societies without writing stayed tribal until 
civilizations with writing conquered them. </bulls__t>

>     I'm all cool with that. I just can't go from there to 80+ years of 
> copyright. If ever someone wanted to create something that society would 
> benefit from that *would* take that long to recover the costs, then I 
> wouldn't oppose it.

Fully agreed. I'm not even sure a time limit as such is appropriate. Since 
the copyright is a financial incentive, it should be tied to financial 
goals, not clocks.

>     Actually, I take that back. I could settle for "as long as the 
> product remains available and people benefit from it". The money thing 
> will follow. I could also settle for "whichever comes last". If they 
> haven't made enough out of it in 20 years, but are still selling it, 
> then extend it until they stop. If they make heaps of it in the first 5 
> years, then they stop selling, I'd still give them the extra 15 years, 
> but no more.

Yes, that was my thought. Especially since some of that 15 years might be 
necessary to produce or market the next version of the thing. As in, I write 
a book, now I want to make a movie...  Or I write a wonderful screenplay 
that takes me 30 years to sell.

>     However, if we'll have that, we need to codify a sane criterion for 
> what constitutes the amount of money or "product remaining available for 
> society". It'd be different for a piece of software compared to a movie. 
> That may be quite challenging.

It's definitely challenging. I'd guess about as challenging as talking about 
"non-obvious" patents and such.

-- 
   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 19:24, somebody wrote:
>>> 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
>
>> You're saying it'll work out if it'll become illegal for me to combine
>> H2 and O2 to get water without paying a licensing fee? Where burning
>> wood for heat would be illegal unless I pay a licensing fee for the
>> smoke that is produced?
>>
>> I think you're confusing ownership with copyright.
>
> I think you are confusing patents with copyright. Or else you missed the
> reference.

	I missed it. I thought you wrote "smoke or water". Never heard of Smoke 
on the Water or Deep Purple.

-- 
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] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                    anl

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:
>     I missed it. I thought you wrote "smoke or water". Never heard of 
> Smoke on the Water or Deep Purple.

It's one of the more famous and enduring songs from that time period, 
particularly the opening notes.  Now you have some american culture in you, 
assuming you listened to the song. :-)

-- 
   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 19:34, Darren New wrote:
> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>> How many movies or pieces of software do you know of that took over 20
>> years to produce a profit?
>
> I think there are lots of books that took more than 20 years to turn
> into movies. :-)

	That's different from "making a profit".

>> Yes, but that's a short term reason. The bigger and main reason is to
>> benefit society and further the discipline.
>
> No, that's the point you're missing. Assuming the movie, book, or
> computer program is of value at all, it would be impossible to produce
> in the first place without copyright. It's not "rewarding" the author
> any more than the commodities markets "reward" the farmers and miners.

	I think we're saying the same thing. The intent of having copyright in 
the legal system was so that society can benefit from those pieces of 
art. That the authors can be rewarded was a means, not a goal. If 
society had not deemed a form of art as useful, they wouldn't have had 
copyright, regardless of how many people want to make money out of it.

	I guess what I'm saying is that copyright wasn't intended as a way to 
affect/support the economy. Although one could make an argument that 
that aspect can be incorporated.

> Fully agreed. I'm not even sure a time limit as such is appropriate.
> Since the copyright is a financial incentive, it should be tied to
> financial goals, not clocks.

	Unless you're talking about free software...


-- 
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] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                    anl

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:4a5a5919@news.povray.org...

>   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.

Yes, some companies make business decisions that are at best dubious. But
the solution is not to legislate "nice behaviour" but for consumers to speak
with their wallets. Throwing out copyright because those companies don't
give the customers the sequels they desire, or cooperate with 3rd parties is
a bad call. After all, nobody is holding a gun to someone's head to use
their software. Just pretend that that company or game never existed in the
first place. Or, if you bought the game, just play the game as is and be
happy - after all, when someone bought the game, all they paid for was the
game, not a promise from the company to add future levels or mods, or make
it available for third parties to do so. So, while Valve can be commended
for providing something of added value, everyone else should not legally be
forced to adopt their model.

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 18:07:31 -0400, Warp wrote:

>   Copyright also holds for eg. descriptions and documentaries of
>   historically
> significant events.

Even the Associated Press is asserting their copyright over *news* 
materials.  It's ridiculous.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 15:26:22 -0600, somebody wrote:

> Why would it then be any more
> disasterous if Marriage of Figaro were currently copyrighted as well?

Actually, there are editions that are under copyright at the moment.  
Just go to your local music store and buy a score - you'll see that there 
is in fact a copyright notice.

Jim

Post a reply to this message