Am I the only weirdo that treats companies the way they treat me...
No. The major companies attitude extends from the tiny, "insignificant" difference between the words customer and consumer. A customer is someone who you have an extended business relationship with because your product is used multiple times. In constrast a consumer is someone who buys your product and uses it once; they may buy other, likewise disposable, products from you, but they do not require maintenance.
This explains the attitudes of many "vicious" corporations or organizations such as the RIAA, MPAA, and BSA-- they view you as a consumer, with a one-time disposable product (market forces to the contrary). OTOH, the "good" businesses like RedHat, IBM, and so forth understand that when they get your money they have started, not ended, the relationship.
I can understand GT's reluctance to allow "student-student assistance" when I consider the reputation that they have as an engineering school (and not just computer / electical engineering, either). I seem to recall hearing that the Textiles lab at GT came up with about half of the specialty cloths used in NASA's spacesuits. I'm sure that with that sort of history they thought that clamping down tight on the CS students was a good PR move-- not only do we have brilliance, but we pull it out of one student at a time.
Maybe this was good PR. But it was a stupid educational move. And I don't care how good a business they do with NASA or anyone else, or what sort of press they put out; above all else, isn't college supposed to be about learning?
I totally agree, but let me phrase the dilemma in a different light:
All UHT's-- such as the so-called DRM software or internet censorware-- make a simple assumption: the end user is "infantile" (as opposed to a rational, mature adult) who is unable or unwilling to do "the right thing" and must be coerced.
This, then is my viewpoint dilemma with information technology: the power of the personal computer and the internet gives me more power over myself and my surroundings that was available say, 50 or 100 years ago. Contrawise, it is also possible for those in power, with UHS, to increase their power (again, over me and my surroundings); the example I have in mind is "invasive" advertisements (say, the Yahoo! "we-opt-you-in" emails versus ad blocking software), or P2P music distrobution versus ClearChannel radio stations.
I am a rational, mature adult, who sees the insults heaped upon me by the media corporations attempting to control me via DRM and other User Hostile Software. Those people unwilling to admit the subtle insult to their maturity implicit in UHS are the target audience; they are the ones who will accept they are "pirates" when the only robbery involved is the theft of my choices and the only murder is the killing of my freedoms. The issue here is not, as you imply, making programmers or computer hardware designers more ethical, but getting ethics back into the MPAA and RIAA, where currently none exist.
Hmm... I read this story and thought... Is this the first time that a piece of software was defended when it did its' job-- but not what they told people-- by claiming "That's a bug, not a feature"?
Then I noticed my tinfoil hat was maladjusted. So I guess they really did goof, Carnivore is just a powerful (if maladjusted) tool for law enforcement, and my fears to the contrary are just their attempts to discredit my typical insights into their foul ways with an insidiously sublte use of their orbital mind control rays.
[I apologize for adressing you comments out of order. I hope to, in doing so, make my train of thought more clear. I also apologize for not knowing the correct legal jargon to make my arguments totally airtight.]
To address your conclusion, there is no quid-pro-quo in copyright.
I hate to say this, but apparently from your arguments in this thread you haven't read the briefs linked to in the article. The council for Eldred apparently uses as their argument that the extension fails to live up to the Constitutional terms-- an obvious quid pro quo of monopoly on distribution "to promote the useful arts". They have nice footnote references to materials I can't get copies of, but apparently from the location of the footnotes and source titles these are constitutional scolars claiming a quid pro quo trade in copyright.
Their argument goes something like this: the author wants a way to get reimbursed for his writings, and the easiest way to do that is to allow them to limit copy production. In return, when the term of copyright expires, they (or anyone else) may lay a claim of ownership. Now, since I changed the words around and paraphrased their argument, I know that little diddly errors crept in. Read the original.
To address your comments, I think we have to make a distinction between copyrights and patents. I don't think they can be mixed together in this discussion.
On the other hand, I think copyright and patent go hand in hand. Copyright protects the expression of an idea, and patents protect the implementation of an idea; while completely different in appearance, they are more or less the same concept under analysis.
In reguard to patents you state: The quid-pro-quo is that in exchange for disclosing his invention (or making it "patent" or obvious in old English, hence the name), the inventor gets a monopoly which is limited in time.... An inventor has a choice, get a patent by which you disclose your invention to the world and in exchange you get an absolute monopoly.... Which choice is made by the inventor will depend on how fasible it is to maintain the invention a secret.
I follow you all through that train of thought. You lost me with the switch to copyright though: Copyrights, are a completely different beast. They arise from the simple fact that the founding fathers believed that an individual should be entitled to control his/her own expressions for a limited time. No bargain is really implied.
Okay, that would make sense-- IF the founding fathers in question were Communist hippy nuts. [Note to the trolls: yes, I already know the rumors about Washington's hemp crop. Go away.] Instead, these men were rational, levelheaded people who were embarking on the grand work of attempting to build a country based on the ideals of the age and avoid the corruption rampant in Europe at the time. Your statement makes no sense based on the fact that until this century, copyright did not apply to every creation but only to those that were registered-- and in that light, yes a bargain is very clearly implied- that the author, in return for their work, will gain goverment subsidy for a limited period of time. (In case you want to argue on this point, keep in mind that I am quite sure of my history and have read such documents as the Federalist papers and other correspondeces of the founding fathers-- and they felt that, while casual utterances did not deserve the protection of copyright, for commercial speech to prosper a (very!) limited amount of protection was required. I will require a direct reference to believe any statement that contradicts my forgoing argument.) Since I view copyright and patents as being two side of one coin, it makes sense to me that a person who decides that self-maintained restriction of dissemination (trade secret / SSSCA-style copy controls) rather than the government subsidy (patent / copyright) is in their best interest has, de facto, rejected all aspects of the subsidy; thus just as trade secrets and patents are mutually exclusive, I see copy controls and copywright as mutually exclusive.
So you conclude: All the expiration [of copyright] means is that the author has lost his/her right to sue if the work is copied.
Ah; now I see the root of our disagreement. You see it as a right that is lost, whereas I agree with Eldred that expiration of copyright means that the public "regains" a right they partially lost (free speech / press).
Hmm. You wouldn't happen to be European, would you? From the brief, it appears your arguments are more in line with European common law than American....
Great! A lawyer. Perhaps then I can get some "unofficial" clarification on this-- because, as a programmer, things like copyright and patent law are becoming (all too) important areas of knowledge. Therefore, I ask that you (in private or public response) point me to case law which will clarify your statement, in light of the following exposition of my understanding. I want to make this clear: I am not asking for opinion, but fact and history (if only brief and passing) that would let me see where you are coming from. As if it weren't obvious, I feel required to inform you that I am unafraid to form my own opinions; however in this area I have few facts to work from and as such, would welcome any assistance in gaining a greater insight into the issues.
My understanding of the patent/trade secret distinction is that of enforcement-- both forms of protection would, in theory, permit a monopoly; however patents and copyright contain a Constitutionally required quid pro quo trade: the inventor legal gains "assistance" (grounds for argument) when prosecuting cases of "intellectual theft" (when others who use their methods), while in return they agree to give up this enforcability after a number of years (the "limited duration" clause).
Hard case example: I could, assuming I didn't break any NDAs along the way, replicate the recipe for Coca-Cola and resell it without fear of lawsuit (as recipies can't be patented). I of course can't call it by the same (trademarked) name, but the formula itself is replicatable at a whim.
On the other hand, if I went into a park and decided to swing sideways, it doesn't matter how I gain knowledge of the process, I am in violation of the patent. (Nevermind questions about lisencing, maintainence or patent viability. I am simplifying here, and took some simple examples.)
Could it not, in court of law, be argued that since the copyright clause requires that terms be limited, any method of distrobution that forbids copying for an unlimited period of time is a paralegal copyright, one that paralells the patent / trade secret distinction and (because it lacks the same quid pro quo trade of patents and copyright), prevents the data so protected from gaining the protection of copyright? Again, we'll ignore the issue of strong versus weak protections-- obviously there is a distiction and it would have to be made-- but one that may not be instantly recognizable, given the latest fiasco in that area.
IIRC, the whole Miranda case was built on the premise that there are some rights that cannot be waived "by default"-- the case establishes (in essence) that my rights against self incrimination are so strong, I must be warned if I am at risk of waiving them. Likewise, I see the right of the public to have copywrit works enter the public domain as a "legally inalienable" right, one that cannot be waived or taken from me. Hence, any work that would use a protection other than that provided by law has, by nature, waived the standard copyright.
In conclusion: I see the right of the public for a quid pro quo trade in monopoly of distrobution versus public domain as a constitional right, and one that cannot be taken from me by any means (or under any circumstance). This is taken from many aspects of law, and an opinion that may not be held up in court, but it is the way I-- as a producer of copyrightable materials-- have come to percieve the issue.
If the information is designed by the distributors to never enter the public domain, does it still deserve copyright protection? It seems like this is analogous to patents vs. trade secrets...
Mein gott! If I'm not mistaken, you may have just found the perfect argument for the anti-protection crowd. Because Celene Dion's latest CD has a "technology-enforced" indefinite copyright, it loses all traditional copyright protection. Hmm, sounds like a feasable argument to me (but I too am NAL).
Hmm, even stranger yet-- this may be the grounds upon which you can overturn the entirety of the DMCA. Must talk to lawer! << grabs at yellow pages >>
They aren't creating the controversy (just trying to bring it to national attention). IIRC, the school segregation case (Brown vs. Ed of Kansas) was taken to court... and deliberatly lost... up until the Spreme Court appeal. Sometimes, the lines are so clear anyone would rule against the law, but a deliberate loss is the only way to have the Highest Court rule on an issue.
Secondly, they aren't really aiming to lose. They plan on winning- and to thus force Congress to do something about it. Otherwise, they will get a good, crisp, legal line drawn for reference by the patent office.
Now, if there were only some way to do this with software... hmm... (starts thinking about how to patent addition)
This is black helicopter stuff and Not likely...
Anyhow, if all it took was some geek with a peecee...
I'm sorry but Slashdot's system isn't really condusive to proper debate. To fit my arguments into the 3,000-odd character default cutoff I have to abbreviate my arguments, yet also grab people's attention rapidly. [I will admit it is a very insidious habit; I find myself doing it even here. Kharma is addictive.] Which, of course, means that I (over)simplify and have to argue a slightly over-the-top perspective (or use humor, which for me never seems to work). I know nobody in their right minds would expect Hollywood to die immediatly after independent Internet-based movie making geared up, (or ever dissapear) but you do have to realize that the MPAA is a trust [legal or illegal, depending on how far they push this;-) ], and as such they would have an interest in the "black helicopter" conspiracy deals.
Is that their real goal? I don't know (I don't work for them). But if I had to put money down on which way I thought they would pursue the issue, I would place every dollar on their putting independent movie makers "out of business" (actually just raising the barrier to market entry past a realistic point). That guarantees them a revenue stream far better than "killing" piracy does-- and, if they do both at once (which the latest DRM bill would have-- why else would you DRM a camcorder?), that would be best of all (and it also provides a smoke screen for the artificial market manipulations).
PS- Don't worry for my sanity. I'm not really paranoid. I argue that perspective because it helps garner grass-roots support in opposition to things like the CBDPTA. Although I will admit I have a hard time not immediatly thinking very paranoid thoughts when I see any situation where I am told (in general, and paraphrasing) that taking it up the a** for someone else's profit is to my benefit.
While reading this article, I stopped at one point and thought:
If I go and buy a washing machine- pay all of the cost up front and it is 100% mine, once I've left the store (assuming the vendor isn't going to install it for me) they don't care what I do with it. I could never use it to wash clothes, just as a big drinking fountain, and nobody (except maybe those who saw me do so) would care.
If I walk into a car dealership and buy a brand new Porche (or whatever)- again pay all of the cost upfront- the dealer doesn't care what I do with it. If I drive it home and disassemble it for parts, there's no issue someone else will take up with me (except the police when I try to drive said car on the roads after its' no longer street legal, ofcourse).
So what does Hollywood really want? They can do the "we care" controls: as the article stated, streamed content alone could handle that. As of today, the technology exists to prevent consumers from working their will on Big Media's content even after it has arrived in the home. So why did the have the CBDPTA introduced? What has them so scared of even their own shadow they want DRM in every device, including handhelds too small for media and camcorders? What is the real point of the restrictive legislation?
The only answer I can think of is very, very frightening. They realize that their billion-dolar studio lots could very easily be turned into housing subdivisions right now, because computer technology has advanced so far that anyone with a decent new machine and some rather easily obtained software & hardware can make movies to the same quality as they do, but at a far lesser cost. And no doubt, this keeps Eisner (& co) awake at night: I'm sure he knows the difference between Disney's Peter Pan and his Peter Pan 2 leave poor Walt doing 1 million RPMs in his cryogenic chamber.
What the big Hollywood studios fear the most from technology isn't piracy (or at least, that isn't their main concern right now); I am rather certain they wake up each morning, wondering what they're going to do to keep their trust alive when everyone with a camera and a PC can be a movie studio. I think they believe they've gone this far by buying up all of the big talent in both producers and actors, and I don't see why they're so worried that some amatuers might up stage them (after all, Blair Witch didn't do all that well, did it? Only grossed a few millions, not the hundred millions of the blockbusters.)
I mentioned both RedHat and Mandrake only because those seem to be the big two distros today. This was not indended as an indicator of quality, just of popularity. I'm sure there are hundereds out there that may be more stable than these, it's just that I would prefer to use the names the audience is probably familiar with.
BTW, if you're only using Linux every time you sit down at any computer, kudos to you. Me, I work for the government and they don't yet see the utility of a Linux workstation. So across half the day I'm stuck in a Win2K environment. No matter how bad Linux is, the errors there don't seem to reach the same critical severity as the ones in Windows. Lately I've felt like every time I blinked someone came up with a new way to remote-root Windows machines. Even with all the other bugs that may appear in Open Source software, I am glad that exploitable errors tend to be rather rare (and very quickly fixed).
1. Mozilla is Open Source. That means, for better or worse, anyone can develop for it-- which means that it has to be downloadable even if it were still in "proof of concept" phase. Which it still (sortof) is, having only reached 1.0RC1 (relase candidate 1 for 1.0). Anything less than 1.0 indicates "not ready for full deployent yet", yet a lot of people seem to ignore that. (And the fact that a lot of OS software seems to hover around 0.99) Now, on the other hand, were we to ask the development team how many issues they plan to leave unresolved in version 1.0, that would be different.
2. Monopoly does not mean you own all of the market (unless we're talking the board game). Monopoly means simply that you own such an overwhelming portion of the market that you are able to ignore the traditional, "Invisible Hand" market forces of economics. The only company I know of that has a 100% monopoly is Ticketmaster (even if you buy a concert/sporting event ticket at the gate, you go through Ticketmaster. Hmmm....)
Every other monopoly is either a trust (monopolistic trade group like the RIAA / MPAA) or simply owns an overwhelming portion of the market (which I'd estimate at 90+%). Given that at last count Microsoft had their OS on about 95% of the desktop computers, I'd say they have a monopoly, and the DoJ agrees (after all, they successfully tried Microsoft for illegal abuse of monopoly status!).
And 3: Microsoft is still in court over the legality of their Monopoly. (Well, they were convicted, but the punishment is in dispute). Meaning, especially right now they need to put on a pretty face for the public (or at least the Attorney Generals of the 9 states still in contention). That may mean giving up a little ground now, but a) they could gain it back if they win with no problem (I'm sure the contract has a renegotiation clause), or b) if they lose it'll be much better than what they could get afterward when they aren't allowed to strongarm people anymore.
Not to mention, I have my doubts about what sort of negotiations these were. The mental image I have comes from Fifth Element, and suggests "why didn't they just buy Dell / Gateway / eMachines with an OS preinstalled"? Comparing the option of pre-built machines with an OS installed versus having every student pay for software they probably already own or won't use, even $14 seems unreasonable. (Me, I object when I'm asked to pay $1 for something worthless.)
Its always so goddamn virulent around against MS - but those prices (and the ones for the schools and Mexico) sound like just an amazing deal - really a fine bargin. I guess I dont get it.
Personally, when I look at Microsoft's corporate practices, I only wonder whether they think they sell a product or a service. If its' "product", why does it go out the door in such crappy shape (remember the thousands of known bugs at Win2K release?); on the other hand, can you really call an OS a "service"? It's much clearer for RedHat, Mandrake & Co. where they give away the code and sell their support services.
On top of that, they play very fast & loose with differences between what they say and what they do. Remember Tuesday's story about the IE Back button exploit? Even if that were a non-issue as far as bugs go (and it's not because any script kiddie worth his cable modem could do anything they want with that), the fact that it went unpatched across their month of code review and security focus-- when they had notification as early as last November-- makes their newfound focus on security seem more like spin control than code control.
I'm not even going to start talking about their business practices. If you've read any details about some of their recentactions during the waning days of the antitrust suit, you would understand why I personally think they are a lower form of life than pond scum. That's ignoring, of course, all of the issues surrounding things like Passport,.NET, or Product Activation, all of which are questioned for different reasons (privacy and security top the list, though).
Given the whole picture of Microsoft's behavior, I'm all for the corporate death penalty. But since it seems that the US government won't do that, I'll just try to generate as large a boycott of their products as possible.
It's based on the concept that since you pay a sales tax on everything* (*:Void where prohibited by law. Some restrictions may... *ahem*) the fact you "pay" for Windows with every prebuilt computer from the big name retailers (Dell, Gateqay, Compaq, eMachines, etc) makes it a tax as well. Of course, using such a loaded term is meant to suggests that the minimal OS choice I ought to have is ordering a "nude" PC with a $50 - $100 discount (price of license).
Of course, you can always flip the loaded term around (especially given the recent actions of Microsoft), and say it's a commentary on their "we laugh in the general direction of your government" attitude. I used to think there was a limit to arrogance, but they sure cured me of that over the past year.
As a counter-point, I'd bring up Stephen King's experiment, where he allowed free download of his book and asked for a tiny donation in return. Very few of the people who downloaded the book paid for it and the project was scrapped.
Alright, let's look at the comparison:
Baen: Here, have these books for free. They're lesser known authors but we think that you'll enjoy them. Or if you want new titles, we have a pretty cheap subscription deal.
King: I'm going to try this e-book thing. Since my time is too valuable to just give the work away for free, I'm asking that you (after downloading the book) send me a tiny donation. You know, just a way of saying, "Thanks".
Sure, huge similarities there. One offers hassle-free books (or a $15/month subscription deal for "front list", new books) where what you get is either outright free or the traditional pay upfront, versus "oh if you like this inconvenience yourself to send me a buck". I'm sure that's similar enough that consumer preferences, such as wanting simplicity in the sale process won't distort your figures.
Think about it-- wasn't shareware a flash in the pan marketing method? As long as people could only easily trade files on SneakerNet, shareware piracy didn't get too bad. Nowadays though, the modern Internet makes it easy to distribute warez (what with P2P and easy to setup hhtp/ftp servers). And that's a fact every media format faces. Right now, most of them are arguing for stronger control. On the other hand, I'm quite glad to see Baen (literally) take the wind from the sails of those who argue that "piracy causes lost sales".
music is a matter of taste. As in, I've got mine and you've got yours.
I am very eclectic in what I listen to. I have a huge collection of CDs (yes, ripped to MP3s, of course) that span every genre of music- classical, oldies, pop, techno, new age, heavy metal, country-- you name it I've got at least one song in my collection that I like and is definable as that genre. Some are rarer than others (heavy metal for example), but everything is represented.
And yet, I think that the pop "pulp" stinks. I detest Brittney Beers, N*Stink, M sure, I can see how someone might like that music but its' not too likely. To make an analogy, if music were food the superstar music makers would be making oatmeal w/o any flavor added-- whereas the musicians I select to patronize bake crab filet, sushi, t-bone steaks, and Waldorf salads: each different in style, texture and flavor, incomparable to the others, but certainly better than the gruel offered by "the Machine".
Here in the UK, we had the horrific case of 3 year old Jamie Bulger a few years ago who was snatched from a shopping centre by a couple of bored fourteen year olds and tied to a railway track "for fun".
This is what angers me most about sensational media coverage of the news. Okay, so one kid was kidnapped, tortured, and killed by "bored 14 year olds" (more like demented 10-year olds; hate to correct you but the story is so old I don't remember seeing it in the American press, so I did some Google research). That fact does not mean that the millions of other Brittish children are in danger of being kidnapped and tied to railway tracks by their "bored" peers-- compare the number of such incidents to the number of children in the UK, and you can see that this is a statisically insignificant event.
This device could well have prevented that.
Don't make me laugh. From what I found, the kidnappers "brutally tortured" their victim and killed him to cover up that crime. Those actions suggest that they aren't stupid but immorral / amoral. So a GPS wristwatch on Jamie might have saved his life, but presumably at the expense of another; likewise, I fail to see how GPS watches on the perpetrators would have stopped this crime. The only way this could be prevented would be if every child (i.e. not a legal adult) wore a GPS watch.
All talk of emotional stunting from such an act aside, children and criminals have human rights too (though perhaps fewer and weaker than proper adults; that's a different debate). I feel that this device is a denial of some of the most important of those rights (like privacy, but that's going into the emotional stunting again). The question comes down to: does the rights of one million children (just a big number) outweigh the life of one? I would answer yes (for it is only through the exercise of those rights that the life can be valued by the one who counts the most-- the "owner").
...scares the sheep in Redmond, that with all their money and power, they can't control Open Source Software. Yet.
Give me a moment to adjust my tinfoil hat, but I seem to read in your final "yet" that there's a way to control open sourced software. Well, tell me, aside from brainwashing every person capable of programming, how do you expect for that to be done?
No, what scares Microsoft (and everyone else in the BSA, if I read their actions right) is that the Internet and Open Source gives anyone with enough gumption to earn a high school diploma the ability to write quality software. So I'll agree with you- sans that final 'yet'. Managing one Open Source project's development is like herding cats-- so I don't see any way to control the whole beast at once.
There's a difference between copying (for example) Windows XP and DOS 1.0: XP is brand new, and Microsoft's planned revenue stream. Piracy does harm to this revenue stream (though we can argue how much harm it does) whereas if I "pirate" DOS 1.0, which is certainly not being sold anymore, I've not altered Microsoft's sales figures. (One could argue that it was a non-sale of XP, but since the same would be true if I chose to use a Mac or Linux, the fallacy reveals itself.)
I stand against 0-day warez; if you want the stupid program, go buy it and support the developer. OTOH, when the copyright of (another example) Infocom's old text adventure games can gain no benefit for the holder- since the market for such games is exhausted- I fail to understand their reticence in releasing copyright. (Sure, "legal reasons". That's as much an answer as "because I said so"- it may be true, but it doesn't reveal core motives.)
Okay, I can understand their desire to cut down on traffic, or reduce pollution, or what not, but that doesn't leave out the privacy implications. Tracking people is desirous to many people (government, suspicious spouse, etc) and this would make it so easy as to be ludicrous. If this goes through, I'll laugh the first time this is cracked- and we all know it will be. (Anyway, see sig.)
If this happened in the US, bicycles would have to be declared "illegal circumvention devices".
Let's look at this through a paralell: movies. Both are a copywritten media that undergoes complete turnover (care to guess what percent of the movies filmed in the '70s are available for purchase today?). Both have (IMHO) a far-too-long copyright. With movies, the result of too-much copyright is clear. Despite what is said in the article, there are tales of rotting reels of film left by studios (who know that they don't appeal to today's audience).
I enjoy watching B&W moives- in the same way I enjoy reading the classic novels available from Project Gutenburg. These allow me to envision the past in a way no history book ever has. (Not to mention which, sometimes they're just flat-out better that what comes out today. "Heavens, you mean this comedy has a plot?!?!?")
My attitude on this whole issue is: if the producers know these films won't turn a profit anymore, and they don't have the time / money to keep them, release copyright on them! Firstly, if they don't appeal today, what odds they are appealing tomorrow? Secondly, this turns the expense of preserving the movie over to the pubic- and you cn be sure that the'll be DivX'd faster than you can say "digital".
Back to the topic on hand! As you might guess, I'm all for abandonware- both games and applications. (We're preserving computing history here, after all.) The turnover rate for software is, at a wild guess, 50% every year. As for these silly claims about losing copyright on a character: isn't that better covered by tradmarking? Then you could redistribute (as an example) the original Monkey Island games and LucasArts still holds exclusive rights to the future of the series.
They need to guage the public's knowledge NOT by what they THINK the public knows... but by what the public has shown it knows through prior art references.
I feel really bad smashing your beautiful argument to little bits, but you made a critical error. The "common sense" in question isn't of Joe Public, but of specialists. I don't have to be a nuclear physicist, but I expect that if one came up with a brilliant new idea- say, cold fusion- and it worked, that they could go to the patent office and get a patent. OTOH, I don't want folks going and getting a patent on (for example) putting your socks on before your shoes.
The problem here is that the PTO has delegated the lion's share of research into prior art to the applicant. How many people do you think, under that system, would do research? Either the PTO has to do independent research, or would also have to say "We will invalidate any patent granted if we are notified of prior art, no matter how minor, relevant to your patent that was not mentioned in the application."
We carry little metal disks and (mostly) green pieces of paper around. They don't have a whole lot of intrinsic value, but because they embody the concept "legal tender" we assign them a greater value depending on how they look. They are not the only way one can spend or transfer "money" as shown by EFTs and other such digital flows where nothing physical moves around, except bits in a computer get changed. These transfers are much harder for a criminal to intercept and modify than the practice of train transfer of gold or currencies was.
Likewise, the "original" medium for movies and music (video film reels and wax records, respectively) also had a physical/intellectual link where the value was the information and not the medium. If the RIAA and MPAA choose to keep themselves chained to the thought that the product they sell is physical (a CD, cassette, VHS tape or DVD) and not the information within, they will find themselves drowned in the swelling tide of digital transfers. And no legislation or fancy technology will be able to save them-- except to embrace the new model of business.
Slashdot Mirror
Am I the only weirdo that treats companies the way they treat me...
No. The major companies attitude extends from the tiny, "insignificant" difference between the words customer and consumer. A customer is someone who you have an extended business relationship with because your product is used multiple times. In constrast a consumer is someone who buys your product and uses it once; they may buy other, likewise disposable, products from you, but they do not require maintenance.
This explains the attitudes of many "vicious" corporations or organizations such as the RIAA, MPAA, and BSA-- they view you as a consumer, with a one-time disposable product (market forces to the contrary). OTOH, the "good" businesses like RedHat, IBM, and so forth understand that when they get your money they have started, not ended, the relationship.
I can understand GT's reluctance to allow "student-student assistance" when I consider the reputation that they have as an engineering school (and not just computer / electical engineering, either). I seem to recall hearing that the Textiles lab at GT came up with about half of the specialty cloths used in NASA's spacesuits. I'm sure that with that sort of history they thought that clamping down tight on the CS students was a good PR move-- not only do we have brilliance, but we pull it out of one student at a time.
Maybe this was good PR. But it was a stupid educational move. And I don't care how good a business they do with NASA or anyone else, or what sort of press they put out; above all else, isn't college supposed to be about learning?
I totally agree, but let me phrase the dilemma in a different light:
All UHT's-- such as the so-called DRM software or internet censorware-- make a simple assumption: the end user is "infantile" (as opposed to a rational, mature adult) who is unable or unwilling to do "the right thing" and must be coerced.
This, then is my viewpoint dilemma with information technology: the power of the personal computer and the internet gives me more power over myself and my surroundings that was available say, 50 or 100 years ago. Contrawise, it is also possible for those in power, with UHS, to increase their power (again, over me and my surroundings); the example I have in mind is "invasive" advertisements (say, the Yahoo! "we-opt-you-in" emails versus ad blocking software), or P2P music distrobution versus ClearChannel radio stations.
I am a rational, mature adult, who sees the insults heaped upon me by the media corporations attempting to control me via DRM and other User Hostile Software. Those people unwilling to admit the subtle insult to their maturity implicit in UHS are the target audience; they are the ones who will accept they are "pirates" when the only robbery involved is the theft of my choices and the only murder is the killing of my freedoms. The issue here is not, as you imply, making programmers or computer hardware designers more ethical, but getting ethics back into the MPAA and RIAA, where currently none exist.
Hmm... I read this story and thought...
Is this the first time that a piece of software was defended when it did its' job-- but not what they told people-- by claiming "That's a bug, not a feature"?
Then I noticed my tinfoil hat was maladjusted. So I guess they really did goof, Carnivore is just a powerful (if maladjusted) tool for law enforcement, and my fears to the contrary are just their attempts to discredit my typical insights into their foul ways with an insidiously sublte use of their orbital mind control rays.
[I apologize for adressing you comments out of order. I hope to, in doing so, make my train of thought more clear. I also apologize for not knowing the correct legal jargon to make my arguments totally airtight.]
... An inventor has a choice, get a patent by which you disclose your invention to the world and in exchange you get an absolute monopoly. ... Which choice is made by the inventor will depend on how fasible it is to maintain the invention a secret.
To address your conclusion, there is no quid-pro-quo in copyright.
I hate to say this, but apparently from your arguments in this thread you haven't read the briefs linked to in the article. The council for Eldred apparently uses as their argument that the extension fails to live up to the Constitutional terms-- an obvious quid pro quo of monopoly on distribution "to promote the useful arts". They have nice footnote references to materials I can't get copies of, but apparently from the location of the footnotes and source titles these are constitutional scolars claiming a quid pro quo trade in copyright.
Their argument goes something like this: the author wants a way to get reimbursed for his writings, and the easiest way to do that is to allow them to limit copy production. In return, when the term of copyright expires, they (or anyone else) may lay a claim of ownership. Now, since I changed the words around and paraphrased their argument, I know that little diddly errors crept in. Read the original.
To address your comments, I think we have to make a distinction between copyrights and patents. I don't think they can be mixed together in this discussion.
On the other hand, I think copyright and patent go hand in hand. Copyright protects the expression of an idea, and patents protect the implementation of an idea; while completely different in appearance, they are more or less the same concept under analysis.
In reguard to patents you state:
The quid-pro-quo is that in exchange for disclosing his invention (or making it "patent" or obvious in old English, hence the name), the inventor gets a monopoly which is limited in time.
I follow you all through that train of thought. You lost me with the switch to copyright though:
Copyrights, are a completely different beast. They arise from the simple fact that the founding fathers believed that an individual should be entitled to control his/her own expressions for a limited time. No bargain is really implied.
Okay, that would make sense-- IF the founding fathers in question were Communist hippy nuts. [Note to the trolls: yes, I already know the rumors about Washington's hemp crop. Go away.] Instead, these men were rational, levelheaded people who were embarking on the grand work of attempting to build a country based on the ideals of the age and avoid the corruption rampant in Europe at the time. Your statement makes no sense based on the fact that until this century, copyright did not apply to every creation but only to those that were registered-- and in that light, yes a bargain is very clearly implied- that the author, in return for their work, will gain goverment subsidy for a limited period of time. (In case you want to argue on this point, keep in mind that I am quite sure of my history and have read such documents as the Federalist papers and other correspondeces of the founding fathers-- and they felt that, while casual utterances did not deserve the protection of copyright, for commercial speech to prosper a (very!) limited amount of protection was required. I will require a direct reference to believe any statement that contradicts my forgoing argument.) Since I view copyright and patents as being two side of one coin, it makes sense to me that a person who decides that self-maintained restriction of dissemination (trade secret / SSSCA-style copy controls) rather than the government subsidy (patent / copyright) is in their best interest has, de facto, rejected all aspects of the subsidy; thus just as trade secrets and patents are mutually exclusive, I see copy controls and copywright as mutually exclusive.
So you conclude:
All the expiration [of copyright] means is that the author has lost his/her right to sue if the work is copied.
Ah; now I see the root of our disagreement. You see it as a right that is lost, whereas I agree with Eldred that expiration of copyright means that the public "regains" a right they partially lost (free speech / press).
Hmm. You wouldn't happen to be European, would you? From the brief, it appears your arguments are more in line with European common law than American....
Great! A lawyer. Perhaps then I can get some "unofficial" clarification on this-- because, as a programmer, things like copyright and patent law are becoming (all too) important areas of knowledge. Therefore, I ask that you (in private or public response) point me to case law which will clarify your statement, in light of the following exposition of my understanding. I want to make this clear: I am not asking for opinion, but fact and history (if only brief and passing) that would let me see where you are coming from. As if it weren't obvious, I feel required to inform you that I am unafraid to form my own opinions; however in this area I have few facts to work from and as such, would welcome any assistance in gaining a greater insight into the issues.
My understanding of the patent/trade secret distinction is that of enforcement-- both forms of protection would, in theory, permit a monopoly; however patents and copyright contain a Constitutionally required quid pro quo trade: the inventor legal gains "assistance" (grounds for argument) when prosecuting cases of "intellectual theft" (when others who use their methods), while in return they agree to give up this enforcability after a number of years (the "limited duration" clause).
Hard case example: I could, assuming I didn't break any NDAs along the way, replicate the recipe for Coca-Cola and resell it without fear of lawsuit (as recipies can't be patented). I of course can't call it by the same (trademarked) name, but the formula itself is replicatable at a whim. On the other hand, if I went into a park and decided to swing sideways, it doesn't matter how I gain knowledge of the process, I am in violation of the patent. (Nevermind questions about lisencing, maintainence or patent viability. I am simplifying here, and took some simple examples.)
Could it not, in court of law, be argued that since the copyright clause requires that terms be limited, any method of distrobution that forbids copying for an unlimited period of time is a paralegal copyright, one that paralells the patent / trade secret distinction and (because it lacks the same quid pro quo trade of patents and copyright), prevents the data so protected from gaining the protection of copyright? Again, we'll ignore the issue of strong versus weak protections-- obviously there is a distiction and it would have to be made-- but one that may not be instantly recognizable, given the latest fiasco in that area.
IIRC, the whole Miranda case was built on the premise that there are some rights that cannot be waived "by default"-- the case establishes (in essence) that my rights against self incrimination are so strong, I must be warned if I am at risk of waiving them. Likewise, I see the right of the public to have copywrit works enter the public domain as a "legally inalienable" right, one that cannot be waived or taken from me. Hence, any work that would use a protection other than that provided by law has, by nature, waived the standard copyright.
In conclusion: I see the right of the public for a quid pro quo trade in monopoly of distrobution versus public domain as a constitional right, and one that cannot be taken from me by any means (or under any circumstance). This is taken from many aspects of law, and an opinion that may not be held up in court, but it is the way I-- as a producer of copyrightable materials-- have come to percieve the issue.
If the information is designed by the distributors to never enter the public domain, does it still deserve copyright protection? It seems like this is analogous to patents vs. trade secrets...
Mein gott! If I'm not mistaken, you may have just found the perfect argument for the anti-protection crowd. Because Celene Dion's latest CD has a "technology-enforced" indefinite copyright, it loses all traditional copyright protection. Hmm, sounds like a feasable argument to me (but I too am NAL).
Hmm, even stranger yet-- this may be the grounds upon which you can overturn the entirety of the DMCA. Must talk to lawer! << grabs at yellow pages >>
Two problems with that argument:
They aren't creating the controversy (just trying to bring it to national attention). IIRC, the school segregation case (Brown vs. Ed of Kansas) was taken to court... and deliberatly lost... up until the Spreme Court appeal. Sometimes, the lines are so clear anyone would rule against the law, but a deliberate loss is the only way to have the Highest Court rule on an issue.
Secondly, they aren't really aiming to lose. They plan on winning- and to thus force Congress to do something about it. Otherwise, they will get a good, crisp, legal line drawn for reference by the patent office.
Now, if there were only some way to do this with software... hmm... (starts thinking about how to patent addition)
This is black helicopter stuff and Not likely...
;-) ], and as such they would have an interest in the "black helicopter" conspiracy deals.
Anyhow, if all it took was some geek with a peecee...
I'm sorry but Slashdot's system isn't really condusive to proper debate. To fit my arguments into the 3,000-odd character default cutoff I have to abbreviate my arguments, yet also grab people's attention rapidly. [I will admit it is a very insidious habit; I find myself doing it even here. Kharma is addictive.] Which, of course, means that I (over)simplify and have to argue a slightly over-the-top perspective (or use humor, which for me never seems to work). I know nobody in their right minds would expect Hollywood to die immediatly after independent Internet-based movie making geared up, (or ever dissapear) but you do have to realize that the MPAA is a trust [legal or illegal, depending on how far they push this
Is that their real goal? I don't know (I don't work for them). But if I had to put money down on which way I thought they would pursue the issue, I would place every dollar on their putting independent movie makers "out of business" (actually just raising the barrier to market entry past a realistic point). That guarantees them a revenue stream far better than "killing" piracy does-- and, if they do both at once (which the latest DRM bill would have-- why else would you DRM a camcorder?), that would be best of all (and it also provides a smoke screen for the artificial market manipulations).
PS- Don't worry for my sanity. I'm not really paranoid. I argue that perspective because it helps garner grass-roots support in opposition to things like the CBDPTA. Although I will admit I have a hard time not immediatly thinking very paranoid thoughts when I see any situation where I am told (in general, and paraphrasing) that taking it up the a** for someone else's profit is to my benefit.
Well, from my point of view, it isn't about a subsidy at all. Hell, it isn't even about IP protection.
Screw 'em all. I can do without.
As can we all, when everyone has the power to "roll their own".
While reading this article, I stopped at one point and thought:
If I go and buy a washing machine- pay all of the cost up front and it is 100% mine, once I've left the store (assuming the vendor isn't going to install it for me) they don't care what I do with it. I could never use it to wash clothes, just as a big drinking fountain, and nobody (except maybe those who saw me do so) would care.
If I walk into a car dealership and buy a brand new Porche (or whatever)- again pay all of the cost upfront- the dealer doesn't care what I do with it. If I drive it home and disassemble it for parts, there's no issue someone else will take up with me (except the police when I try to drive said car on the roads after its' no longer street legal, ofcourse).
So what does Hollywood really want? They can do the "we care" controls: as the article stated, streamed content alone could handle that. As of today, the technology exists to prevent consumers from working their will on Big Media's content even after it has arrived in the home. So why did the have the CBDPTA introduced? What has them so scared of even their own shadow they want DRM in every device, including handhelds too small for media and camcorders? What is the real point of the restrictive legislation?
The only answer I can think of is very, very frightening. They realize that their billion-dolar studio lots could very easily be turned into housing subdivisions right now, because computer technology has advanced so far that anyone with a decent new machine and some rather easily obtained software & hardware can make movies to the same quality as they do, but at a far lesser cost. And no doubt, this keeps Eisner (& co) awake at night: I'm sure he knows the difference between Disney's Peter Pan and his Peter Pan 2 leave poor Walt doing 1 million RPMs in his cryogenic chamber.
What the big Hollywood studios fear the most from technology isn't piracy (or at least, that isn't their main concern right now); I am rather certain they wake up each morning, wondering what they're going to do to keep their trust alive when everyone with a camera and a PC can be a movie studio. I think they believe they've gone this far by buying up all of the big talent in both producers and actors, and I don't see why they're so worried that some amatuers might up stage them (after all, Blair Witch didn't do all that well, did it? Only grossed a few millions, not the hundred millions of the blockbusters.)
I mentioned both RedHat and Mandrake only because those seem to be the big two distros today. This was not indended as an indicator of quality, just of popularity. I'm sure there are hundereds out there that may be more stable than these, it's just that I would prefer to use the names the audience is probably familiar with.
BTW, if you're only using Linux every time you sit down at any computer, kudos to you. Me, I work for the government and they don't yet see the utility of a Linux workstation. So across half the day I'm stuck in a Win2K environment. No matter how bad Linux is, the errors there don't seem to reach the same critical severity as the ones in Windows. Lately I've felt like every time I blinked someone came up with a new way to remote-root Windows machines. Even with all the other bugs that may appear in Open Source software, I am glad that exploitable errors tend to be rather rare (and very quickly fixed).
1. Mozilla is Open Source. That means, for better or worse, anyone can develop for it-- which means that it has to be downloadable even if it were still in "proof of concept" phase. Which it still (sortof) is, having only reached 1.0RC1 (relase candidate 1 for 1.0). Anything less than 1.0 indicates "not ready for full deployent yet", yet a lot of people seem to ignore that. (And the fact that a lot of OS software seems to hover around 0.99) Now, on the other hand, were we to ask the development team how many issues they plan to leave unresolved in version 1.0, that would be different.
2. Monopoly does not mean you own all of the market (unless we're talking the board game). Monopoly means simply that you own such an overwhelming portion of the market that you are able to ignore the traditional, "Invisible Hand" market forces of economics. The only company I know of that has a 100% monopoly is Ticketmaster (even if you buy a concert/sporting event ticket at the gate, you go through Ticketmaster. Hmmm....) Every other monopoly is either a trust (monopolistic trade group like the RIAA / MPAA) or simply owns an overwhelming portion of the market (which I'd estimate at 90+%). Given that at last count Microsoft had their OS on about 95% of the desktop computers, I'd say they have a monopoly, and the DoJ agrees (after all, they successfully tried Microsoft for illegal abuse of monopoly status!).
And 3: Microsoft is still in court over the legality of their Monopoly. (Well, they were convicted, but the punishment is in dispute). Meaning, especially right now they need to put on a pretty face for the public (or at least the Attorney Generals of the 9 states still in contention). That may mean giving up a little ground now, but a) they could gain it back if they win with no problem (I'm sure the contract has a renegotiation clause), or b) if they lose it'll be much better than what they could get afterward when they aren't allowed to strongarm people anymore.
Not to mention, I have my doubts about what sort of negotiations these were. The mental image I have comes from Fifth Element, and suggests "why didn't they just buy Dell / Gateway / eMachines with an OS preinstalled"? Comparing the option of pre-built machines with an OS installed versus having every student pay for software they probably already own or won't use, even $14 seems unreasonable. (Me, I object when I'm asked to pay $1 for something worthless.)
Its always so goddamn virulent around against MS - but those prices (and the ones for the schools and Mexico) sound like just an amazing deal - really a fine bargin. I guess I dont get it.
.NET, or Product Activation, all of which are questioned for different reasons (privacy and security top the list, though).
Personally, when I look at Microsoft's corporate practices, I only wonder whether they think they sell a product or a service. If its' "product", why does it go out the door in such crappy shape (remember the thousands of known bugs at Win2K release?); on the other hand, can you really call an OS a "service"? It's much clearer for RedHat, Mandrake & Co. where they give away the code and sell their support services.
On top of that, they play very fast & loose with differences between what they say and what they do. Remember Tuesday's story about the IE Back button exploit? Even if that were a non-issue as far as bugs go (and it's not because any script kiddie worth his cable modem could do anything they want with that), the fact that it went unpatched across their month of code review and security focus-- when they had notification as early as last November-- makes their newfound focus on security seem more like spin control than code control.
I'm not even going to start talking about their business practices. If you've read any details about some of their recent actions during the waning days of the antitrust suit, you would understand why I personally think they are a lower form of life than pond scum. That's ignoring, of course, all of the issues surrounding things like Passport,
Given the whole picture of Microsoft's behavior, I'm all for the corporate death penalty. But since it seems that the US government won't do that, I'll just try to generate as large a boycott of their products as possible.
It's based on the concept that since you pay a sales tax on everything* (*:Void where prohibited by law. Some restrictions may... *ahem*) the fact you "pay" for Windows with every prebuilt computer from the big name retailers (Dell, Gateqay, Compaq, eMachines, etc) makes it a tax as well. Of course, using such a loaded term is meant to suggests that the minimal OS choice I ought to have is ordering a "nude" PC with a $50 - $100 discount (price of license).
Of course, you can always flip the loaded term around (especially given the recent actions of Microsoft), and say it's a commentary on their "we laugh in the general direction of your government" attitude. I used to think there was a limit to arrogance, but they sure cured me of that over the past year.
The growth in "business method" patents over the past 20 years--which provide protections for software and other intangible inventions...
Could someone clue me in? Since when did swinging on a swing have anything to do with business?
As a counter-point, I'd bring up Stephen King's experiment, where he allowed free download of his book and asked for a tiny donation in return. Very few of the people who downloaded the book paid for it and the project was scrapped.
Alright, let's look at the comparison:
Baen: Here, have these books for free. They're lesser known authors but we think that you'll enjoy them. Or if you want new titles, we have a pretty cheap subscription deal.
King: I'm going to try this e-book thing. Since my time is too valuable to just give the work away for free, I'm asking that you (after downloading the book) send me a tiny donation. You know, just a way of saying, "Thanks".
Sure, huge similarities there. One offers hassle-free books (or a $15/month subscription deal for "front list", new books) where what you get is either outright free or the traditional pay upfront, versus "oh if you like this inconvenience yourself to send me a buck". I'm sure that's similar enough that consumer preferences, such as wanting simplicity in the sale process won't distort your figures.
Think about it-- wasn't shareware a flash in the pan marketing method? As long as people could only easily trade files on SneakerNet, shareware piracy didn't get too bad. Nowadays though, the modern Internet makes it easy to distribute warez (what with P2P and easy to setup hhtp/ftp servers). And that's a fact every media format faces. Right now, most of them are arguing for stronger control. On the other hand, I'm quite glad to see Baen (literally) take the wind from the sails of those who argue that "piracy causes lost sales".
music is a matter of taste. As in, I've got mine and you've got yours.
I am very eclectic in what I listen to. I have a huge collection of CDs (yes, ripped to MP3s, of course) that span every genre of music- classical, oldies, pop, techno, new age, heavy metal, country-- you name it I've got at least one song in my collection that I like and is definable as that genre. Some are rarer than others (heavy metal for example), but everything is represented.
And yet, I think that the pop "pulp" stinks. I detest Brittney Beers, N*Stink, M sure, I can see how someone might like that music but its' not too likely. To make an analogy, if music were food the superstar music makers would be making oatmeal w/o any flavor added-- whereas the musicians I select to patronize bake crab filet, sushi, t-bone steaks, and Waldorf salads: each different in style, texture and flavor, incomparable to the others, but certainly better than the gruel offered by "the Machine".
Here in the UK, we had the horrific case of 3 year old Jamie Bulger a few years ago who was snatched from a shopping centre by a couple of bored fourteen year olds and tied to a railway track "for fun".
This is what angers me most about sensational media coverage of the news. Okay, so one kid was kidnapped, tortured, and killed by "bored 14 year olds" (more like demented 10-year olds; hate to correct you but the story is so old I don't remember seeing it in the American press, so I did some Google research). That fact does not mean that the millions of other Brittish children are in danger of being kidnapped and tied to railway tracks by their "bored" peers-- compare the number of such incidents to the number of children in the UK, and you can see that this is a statisically insignificant event.
This device could well have prevented that.
Don't make me laugh. From what I found, the kidnappers "brutally tortured" their victim and killed him to cover up that crime. Those actions suggest that they aren't stupid but immorral / amoral. So a GPS wristwatch on Jamie might have saved his life, but presumably at the expense of another; likewise, I fail to see how GPS watches on the perpetrators would have stopped this crime. The only way this could be prevented would be if every child (i.e. not a legal adult) wore a GPS watch.
All talk of emotional stunting from such an act aside, children and criminals have human rights too (though perhaps fewer and weaker than proper adults; that's a different debate). I feel that this device is a denial of some of the most important of those rights (like privacy, but that's going into the emotional stunting again). The question comes down to: does the rights of one million children (just a big number) outweigh the life of one? I would answer yes (for it is only through the exercise of those rights that the life can be valued by the one who counts the most-- the "owner").
...scares the sheep in Redmond, that with all their money and power, they can't control Open Source Software. Yet.
Give me a moment to adjust my tinfoil hat, but I seem to read in your final "yet" that there's a way to control open sourced software. Well, tell me, aside from brainwashing every person capable of programming, how do you expect for that to be done?
No, what scares Microsoft (and everyone else in the BSA, if I read their actions right) is that the Internet and Open Source gives anyone with enough gumption to earn a high school diploma the ability to write quality software. So I'll agree with you- sans that final 'yet'. Managing one Open Source project's development is like herding cats-- so I don't see any way to control the whole beast at once.
There's a difference between copying (for example) Windows XP and DOS 1.0: XP is brand new, and Microsoft's planned revenue stream. Piracy does harm to this revenue stream (though we can argue how much harm it does) whereas if I "pirate" DOS 1.0, which is certainly not being sold anymore, I've not altered Microsoft's sales figures. (One could argue that it was a non-sale of XP, but since the same would be true if I chose to use a Mac or Linux, the fallacy reveals itself.)
I stand against 0-day warez; if you want the stupid program, go buy it and support the developer. OTOH, when the copyright of (another example) Infocom's old text adventure games can gain no benefit for the holder- since the market for such games is exhausted- I fail to understand their reticence in releasing copyright. (Sure, "legal reasons". That's as much an answer as "because I said so"- it may be true, but it doesn't reveal core motives.)
Okay, I can understand their desire to cut down on traffic, or reduce pollution, or what not, but that doesn't leave out the privacy implications. Tracking people is desirous to many people (government, suspicious spouse, etc) and this would make it so easy as to be ludicrous. If this goes through, I'll laugh the first time this is cracked- and we all know it will be. (Anyway, see sig.)
If this happened in the US, bicycles would have to be declared "illegal circumvention devices".
Let's look at this through a paralell: movies. Both are a copywritten media that undergoes complete turnover (care to guess what percent of the movies filmed in the '70s are available for purchase today?). Both have (IMHO) a far-too-long copyright. With movies, the result of too-much copyright is clear. Despite what is said in the article, there are tales of rotting reels of film left by studios (who know that they don't appeal to today's audience).
I enjoy watching B&W moives- in the same way I enjoy reading the classic novels available from Project Gutenburg. These allow me to envision the past in a way no history book ever has. (Not to mention which, sometimes they're just flat-out better that what comes out today. "Heavens, you mean this comedy has a plot?!?!?")
My attitude on this whole issue is: if the producers know these films won't turn a profit anymore, and they don't have the time / money to keep them, release copyright on them! Firstly, if they don't appeal today, what odds they are appealing tomorrow? Secondly, this turns the expense of preserving the movie over to the pubic- and you cn be sure that the'll be DivX'd faster than you can say "digital".
Back to the topic on hand! As you might guess, I'm all for abandonware- both games and applications. (We're preserving computing history here, after all.) The turnover rate for software is, at a wild guess, 50% every year. As for these silly claims about losing copyright on a character: isn't that better covered by tradmarking? Then you could redistribute (as an example) the original Monkey Island games and LucasArts still holds exclusive rights to the future of the series.
They need to guage the public's knowledge NOT by what they THINK the public knows ... but by what the public has shown it knows through prior art references.
I feel really bad smashing your beautiful argument to little bits, but you made a critical error. The "common sense" in question isn't of Joe Public, but of specialists. I don't have to be a nuclear physicist, but I expect that if one came up with a brilliant new idea- say, cold fusion- and it worked, that they could go to the patent office and get a patent. OTOH, I don't want folks going and getting a patent on (for example) putting your socks on before your shoes.
The problem here is that the PTO has delegated the lion's share of research into prior art to the applicant. How many people do you think, under that system, would do research? Either the PTO has to do independent research, or would also have to say "We will invalidate any patent granted if we are notified of prior art, no matter how minor, relevant to your patent that was not mentioned in the application."
We carry little metal disks and (mostly) green pieces of paper around. They don't have a whole lot of intrinsic value, but because they embody the concept "legal tender" we assign them a greater value depending on how they look. They are not the only way one can spend or transfer "money" as shown by EFTs and other such digital flows where nothing physical moves around, except bits in a computer get changed. These transfers are much harder for a criminal to intercept and modify than the practice of train transfer of gold or currencies was.
Likewise, the "original" medium for movies and music (video film reels and wax records, respectively) also had a physical/intellectual link where the value was the information and not the medium. If the RIAA and MPAA choose to keep themselves chained to the thought that the product they sell is physical (a CD, cassette, VHS tape or DVD) and not the information within, they will find themselves drowned in the swelling tide of digital transfers. And no legislation or fancy technology will be able to save them-- except to embrace the new model of business.