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

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] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                    anl

Post a reply to this message

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

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] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                    anl

Post a reply to this message

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] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                    anl

Post a reply to this message

"Neeum Zawan" <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> 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

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:4a5a1fab@news.povray.org...
> 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.
>
> [...]
>
>   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

Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> 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

Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> 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

somebody <x### [at] ycom> 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

On 07/12/09 16:43, Warp wrote:
> Neeum Zawan<m.n### [at] ieeeorg>  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

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

	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.

> 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.

> 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?

> 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.


-- 
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

On 07/12/09 16:22, somebody wrote:
> 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.
	
	Always a possibility, but let me put it this way: If that's not the 
reason, then I don't see a single good reason for having copyright.

>> 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.

	As you say, it all boils down to whether we consider copyright a 
natural right. As I said, the only reason I see for it is to promote the 
production of artwork, not to allow people to profit financially from 
it. The latter is merely an incentive.

	Your analogy is not good. The person physically owns the factory. He 
does not, however, prevent others from building factories to produce 
similar products, unless there is a patent violation. And patents 
expire. After patent expiry, I could build a factory that produces the 
exact same product, in exactly the same manner, as long as I don't 
pretend to be the same brand (copyright kicks in here).

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

	Copyright is thus granting even more powers to the author than the 
factory owner gets.

	Furthermore, if the factory owner shuts down his factory, and didn't 
have a patent (or it expired), he's not preventing others from making 
the product. Copyright, though, does just that.

	Your analogy fails in another subtle manner. If they take away the 
factory, he loses a source of funding. If an author loses copyright, he 
can _still_ continue to make a profit off of his own product. He can 
continue to sell his book. Granted, it's not likely people will buy it 
(especially with today's digital media) after copyright expiry, but if 
his books were still in stores at this period, he will continue to make 
money due to their sales. Taking away the factory is immediately cutting 
the owner off.

	There are many reasons physical ownership is considered a human right - 
I'll merely point out that this is almost never disagreed upon. The 
reason is not primarily related to making money, BTW.

	For the creator of a piece of art, copyright serves *only* for profit 
motives (from _his_ perspective). That's why few people really care that 
much about intellectual property as opposed to physical, and that's also 
probably why copyright is a recent phenomenon.

> 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

	That doesn't make sense. We're already getting mediocre works and 
sequels *with* copyright, and partially because of copyright.

	It's funny how in other contexts, you keep insisting on free markets. 
Do likewise here: Let copyright expire, and let the market make the best 
product derived from the previous product. Why get in the way? The 
entity that previously owned the copyright is not prevented from making 
money.


-- 
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 wrote:
> In other words, all the data they offered was their own original creation.

I think that would count as a derivative work, just like writing a Star Trek 
novel wouldn't be "100% your own work."  But yeah, I'd be happy if you lost 
your copyright on anything you're not selling.

-- 
   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 wrote:
>     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 think you might be ignoring the part where copyright pays for the work you 
already did.

Consider a computer program like Windows, or a mainstream movie, that 
requires hundreds of people working for years to write. One of the uses of 
copyright is to recover that money, because nobody would pay the full cost 
for the first copy.

>     Take Star Trek. It almost disappeared. The series were all dead, and 
> no movie had been made for what, 8 years?

I don't think 8 years is a long time.

>     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.

Now, once your cost is recovered, along with a reasonable profit (including 
a reasonable "interest-like" profit for risking the development in the first 
place), it would make sense to terminate that specific copyright. But it's 
hard to codify how much money you can make from an idea, so a limited period 
in which to regain your profits seems to be an OK alternative. Altho a "as 
long as you can make money on it" seems OK to me too, as long as you *do* 
make money on it.  Having it available continuously for sale would seem like 
it would satisfy the enrichment of culture to me.

-- 
   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 wrote:
>     Always a possibility, but let me put it this way: If that's not the 
> reason, then I don't see a single good reason for having copyright.

To let people develop information products at all?  If copying is trivial, 
you either have to charge your entire development cost for the first copy, 
or you have to only produce works where the buyers are willing to fund you 
before you finish it (i.e., pre-production sales).

Note too that the whole "free software" movement goes belly-up if there 
aren't copyrights that let the authors control what happens with their works.

>     Your analogy is not good. The person physically owns the factory. He 
> does not, however, prevent others from building factories to produce 
> similar products,

Neither does copyright. Your Pheonix BIOS proves the point. Copyright only 
prevents copying, not independent invention.

> pretend to be the same brand (copyright kicks in here).

That would actually be trademarks in the USA.  And trademarks expire if you 
don't continuously trade under them, so that satisfies me. :-)

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

There's definitely a gray area there.

>     For the creator of a piece of art, copyright serves *only* for 
> profit motives (from _his_ perspective). That's why few people really 
> care that much about intellectual property as opposed to physical, and 
> that's also probably why copyright is a recent phenomenon.

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.

-- 
   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 18:08, Darren New wrote:
> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>> 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 think you might be ignoring the part where copyright pays for the work
> you already did.
>
> Consider a computer program like Windows, or a mainstream movie, that
> requires hundreds of people working for years to write. One of the uses
> of copyright is to recover that money, because nobody would pay the full
> cost for the first copy.

	Well, which is why I'm not advocating eradicating copyright, but merely 
limiting it. How many movies or pieces of software do you know of that 
took over 20 years to produce a profit?

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

>> Take Star Trek. It almost disappeared. The series were all dead, and
>> no movie had been made for what, 8 years?
>
> 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.

	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.

>> 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.

	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. However, society does like them and provides a 
means (copyright) for making such movies in a practical manner.

	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.

> Now, once your cost is recovered, along with a reasonable profit
> (including a reasonable "interest-like" profit for risking the
> development in the first place), it would make sense to terminate that
 > specific copyright.

	No arguments there.

> specific copyright. But it's hard to codify how much money you can make
> from an idea, so a limited period in which to regain your profits seems
> to be an OK alternative. Altho a "as long as you can make money on it"
> seems OK to me too, as long as you *do* make money on it. Having it
> available continuously for sale would seem like it would satisfy the
> enrichment of culture to me.

	I could probably settle for "as long as you make money on it".

	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.

	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.

-- 
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

On 07/12/09 18:15, Darren New wrote:
> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>> Always a possibility, but let me put it this way: If that's not the
>> reason, then I don't see a single good reason for having copyright.
>
> To let people develop information products at all? If copying is

	But that does serve the reason provided, which somebody was suggesting 
need not be the main reason.

>> Your analogy is not good. The person physically owns the factory. He
>> does not, however, prevent others from building factories to produce
>> similar products,
>
> 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. There's no equivalent in the world of factories, 
barring patents.

>> pretend to be the same brand (copyright kicks in here).
>
> That would actually be trademarks in the USA. And trademarks expire if
> you don't continuously trade under them, so that satisfies me. :-)

	OK - Didn't know that.

>> For the creator of a piece of art, copyright serves *only* for profit
>> motives (from _his_ perspective). That's why few people really care
>> that much about intellectual property as opposed to physical, and
>> that's also probably why copyright is a recent phenomenon.
>
> 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).

-- 
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

On 07/12/09 18:35, Neeum Zawan wrote:
> I could probably settle for "as long as you make money on it".
>
> 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

	Oh, I'll add that changing the criterion from money to "society 
benefiting" would protect software under free licenses. Making money the 
criterion would cause problems for 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.

Post a reply to this message

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

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

On 07/13/09 07:09, Warp wrote:
> 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.

	Yes, but what I'm asking is did they give explicit permission before 
those mods were released, or did they simply accept them after the fact?

-- 
AAHH!!! I've deleted all my RAM!

Post a reply to this message

On 07/13/09 07:14, Warp wrote:
> 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).

	Yes, and AP isn't going after people for doing the former (writing in 
own words). They were saying others shouldn't link to their content or 
post extracts (your second point), claiming that fair use doesn't apply.

-- 
AAHH!!! I've deleted all my RAM!

Post a reply to this message