"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

Neeum Zawan wrote:
> 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".

Sure. But the movie would go on without anyone paying the author. I imagine 
there are many screen plays that took a long time to turn into movies, too.

I'd be happy with a copyright timer that starts when you sell the first copy 
or the rights thereto, tho. :-) That would take care of free software as well.

>> 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.

I'm just objecting to the term "reward". In my connotations, "reward" comes 
after you do something good, not as a prerequisite.  I don't get "rewarded" 
by interest payments on a loan I gave you - I wouldn't loan you the money in 
the first place if you weren't going to pay me interest. Similarly, I 
wouldn't start a software project that would cost me $1,000,000 to develop 
if copyright didn't assure I'd be able to charge more than one person.

You might be using "reward" in a looser sense, simply meaning "pay" or 
"reimburse" or "benefit" or something.

I understand what you're saying, and I agree. Copyright is there to 
encourage artists to produce. But it's not a "reward", but simply a 
guarantee of having enough money to buy the supplies to create the artwork 
in the first place. No bank will loan a producer money to create a movie if 
there's no copyright to protect the revenue needed to pay the bank back. 
It's not "good, here's some money to encourage you to do it again" reward.

Maybe we're in agreement already, tho.

>> 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...

I'm not sure that free software within the discussion of modified copyrights 
makes sense. If it's already free, why prevent copying?

See - same thing I'm saying above. Some people wouldn't write free software 
if they couldn't assure it was free. The ability to ensure it's free isn't a 
"reward" for writing it, but a prerequisite.

-- 
   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 Sun, 12 Jul 2009 20:23:56 -0700, Darren New wrote:

>  No bank will loan a producer money to create a movie
> if there's no copyright to protect the revenue needed to pay the bank
> back.

Side discussion, something that this statement made me wonder - how many 
movies are really funded by banks (as opposed to investors)?

Jim

Post a reply to this message