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

On 07/12/09 22:14, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Even the Associated Press is asserting their copyright over *news*
> materials.  It's ridiculous.

	That's different, and perhaps misleading. While I agree the AP is being 
unreasonable in what they're saying, they're complaining about the 
copyright of the content, not of the events. Someone took the trouble to 
draft that article, etc.

-- 
Do Not Attempt to Traverse a Chasm in Two Leaps...


                     /\  /\               /\  /
                    /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                        >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                    anl

Post a reply to this message

On 07/12/09 20:59, Darren New wrote:
> 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. :-)

	It's an old song. Who cares about stuff more than 20 years old :D

	Just listened to the beginning music on Youtube. Definitely heard it 
before, just didn't know the name.

-- 
Do Not Attempt to Traverse a Chasm in Two Leaps...


                     /\  /\               /\  /
                    /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                        >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                    anl

Post a reply to this message

On 07/12/09 22:15, Jim Henderson wrote:
> 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.

	But is that a copyright of the printed form, or of the actual music 
represented by the score? Perhaps they're just saying that you can't 
simply photocopy and reproduce, but it's OK for you to rewrite it yourself.

-- 
Do Not Attempt to Traverse a Chasm in Two Leaps...


                     /\  /\               /\  /
                    /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                        >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                    anl

Post a reply to this message

On 07/12/09 22:23, Darren New wrote:
> You might be using "reward" in a looser sense, simply meaning "pay" or
> "reimburse" or "benefit" or something.

	I meant it as in benefit. Kind of forgot that reward was not that 
flexible a word.

>> 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?

	Stuff like the GPL. To put conditions on its usage.


-- 
Do Not Attempt to Traverse a Chasm in Two Leaps...


                     /\  /\               /\  /
                    /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                        >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                    anl

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> 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.

Unless the artist takes out an insurance policy.

In any event, work-for-hire agreements would be replaced by agreements 
under which the payee got the first option for licensing.  And they 
could take out an insurance policy on the artist, too.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>         Were those mods technically illegal? Valve hadn't given permission in 
> general to make mods?

  I think that if Valve had wanted, they could have prohibited all mods of
their game. It's not unprecedent.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
> On 07/12/09 22:14, Jim Henderson wrote:
> > Even the Associated Press is asserting their copyright over *news*
> > materials.  It's ridiculous.

>         That's different, and perhaps misleading. While I agree the AP is being 
> unreasonable in what they're saying, they're complaining about the 
> copyright of the content, not of the events. Someone took the trouble to 
> draft that article, etc.

  You can't copy a news article written by someone else verbatim. However,
you can certainly write your own article in your own words describing the
same event. You can even use short verbatim citations from the original
article if you want (as long as you clearly mark them as such).

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> 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. :-)

  Except that Deep Purple is a British band...

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message