Your response to the second quote was entirely off topic and you probably didn't read the whole thing, but I'll reply anyways.
I'm not arguing that copyright shouldn't expire, they should. But the author should not have to put forth time and energy to revive a product that is X years old just because somebody wants to use it. That's just stupid.
Now, if I've published some software many years ago and under law it's copyright has expired, then anybody that has a copy of that should be able to give it to whoever they want, that is all. That's what copyright law is about, limitting copying. It doesn't give them the right to harrass me to obtain my original source code. It just applies to the copy they own. That's how old books can be published. Nobody went back to the author and said "you have to give me your original manuscript now, or at least make me a copy". It just means the author can no longer sue somebody for giving away copies of it.
And I can walk into Wal-Mart or K-Mart and buy cheap knock-offs cartoons of any of those stories you listed. So Disney's obviously not fighting over those now are they.
So why should the be required to create a new department to handle the release of their old works? That's going to cost them money. Money that companies don't figure into their budget when they create these works. It's not like any company is going to keep an unpaid cost on the books for 30 years in anticipation of somebody wanting it after all that time.
If enough people wnt it release, then let the government step in, buy the work outright, and release it. But somebody has to pay for hosting cost if it's digital, or manufacturing costs if it's DVD or VHS. This is something that rich people should do.
I know Disney is rich, but that's not my argument. If I do something now, and I'm expected to release it 30 years from now when I'm retired and on a fixed income, then I have a problem with that, especially if there's a law that says I must. Do you put in a stipulation that if the owner of the work is a company and they are still in existence in 30 years, and they're making a profit, then they must release everything they've done into public domain?
That's fine. Something that hasn't been used in decades should be released under reasonable circumstances, although I wouldn't expect the company holding the work to expend a large amount of resources in releasing it.
I don't want to get e-mails 30 years from now from people hounding me to release some old application I made that wouldn't even run on modern computers. I shouldn't be legally responsible to waste my time digging out the old code. After all, unless the government paid for it, I wouldn't expect their to be any obligation that I give my work away.
I'm not restating the same point for the third time. Read my responses to the other people that responded to my original post if you want to know what I think.
What if the author is a company? If I create something at work, then the company owns it, not me. So a company can really never die.
Now lets jump 70 years into the future when MS Windows 3.1 has been around for 80 years. Does that mean that MS should be forced to give up ALL versions of their OS that are labeled as "Windows", or just the 3.1 version. After all, they are creating new versions that are essentially new products even though they all have some common functionality.
Now why can't the same be said for Mickey? It's not like Mickey was a one time use character. They still make new cartoons with the character. It's still evolving and people still want to go to Disney World and get their picture taken with the character. Do you think it will have the same charm if Joe's Amusement Park and Tire Dump has a Mickey Mouse character too? Emotion is still a human factor ya know.
So releasing Mickey into the public domain would be a great benefit to society? I fail to understand your reasoning.
I think this issue is a little more involved than the Kleenex product anyways. They're still using the Mickey character and periodically create new works based on it.
And I don't believe they're holding Mickey under copyright, I'm pretty sure it's trademark law.
The Simpsons have been around now for over a decade. How long until they should be put in the public domain? What if they're still making new episodes 50 years from now, would it be fair to make them put their work in the public domain and anybody can make new episodes?
Um, Disney created Mickey Mouse. The image is the cornerstone of practically everything Disney with the exception of the castle logo they use. You didn't create it. You want to use it, make your own character. Please check the "No Score +1 Bonus" next time you post a message like this.
You're joking, but I have an uncle that's got plenty of money, but he's still using the same betamax player he bought a couple decades ago for watching home movies he's made on his beta camcorder.
I bought a shrink wrapped Mandrake distro a year or two ago and it was 4 CDs. You really think they burned the master and then said, "ok, let's check every single file that we're sending out".
When you say "something", you must mean "everything". Of course I guess you could blame MS for making the system that got infected when the third-party was using it to translate MS's software.
Post the name of your company, and then ask anybody that's worked for that company, and worked under your boss to post personal experiences. That's the only way you're going to get useful information.
They don't want to invest more money in signing new bands and creating new music. So naturally they'll try to appease the masses and get the semi-legit folks that have downloaded illegally, to pay for their music at the rate most people have been saying they'd pay for music.
If that doesn't catch enough fish in the net, then they'll lower the price further, or have discounts, or anything that will get a majority of people to actually pay something for the music they probably already have gotten for free.
Then they'll switch to the standard tactics of screwing over everybody once they've gotten us back in the mindset that we need to pay for this stuff.
My company primarily creates construction industry software. We're just finishing up our first product for field trailers and I was looking to see if I saw our competitors name in your list. Sorry:(
Me too. Maybe it's just me, but if you have a problem with public domain because you can't figure out what it means, then maybe you're too stupid to use it, and people really shouldn't care if you do or don't.
Is there anything wrong with accepting that sometimes people are too stupid to do/understand something? Should anybody really waste time trying to educate them?
Slashdot Mirror
Your response to the second quote was entirely off topic and you probably didn't read the whole thing, but I'll reply anyways.
I'm not arguing that copyright shouldn't expire, they should. But the author should not have to put forth time and energy to revive a product that is X years old just because somebody wants to use it. That's just stupid.
Now, if I've published some software many years ago and under law it's copyright has expired, then anybody that has a copy of that should be able to give it to whoever they want, that is all. That's what copyright law is about, limitting copying. It doesn't give them the right to harrass me to obtain my original source code. It just applies to the copy they own. That's how old books can be published. Nobody went back to the author and said "you have to give me your original manuscript now, or at least make me a copy". It just means the author can no longer sue somebody for giving away copies of it.
And I can walk into Wal-Mart or K-Mart and buy cheap knock-offs cartoons of any of those stories you listed. So Disney's obviously not fighting over those now are they.
And I do believe they have a trademark on Mickey.
So why should the be required to create a new department to handle the release of their old works? That's going to cost them money. Money that companies don't figure into their budget when they create these works. It's not like any company is going to keep an unpaid cost on the books for 30 years in anticipation of somebody wanting it after all that time.
If enough people wnt it release, then let the government step in, buy the work outright, and release it. But somebody has to pay for hosting cost if it's digital, or manufacturing costs if it's DVD or VHS. This is something that rich people should do.
I know Disney is rich, but that's not my argument. If I do something now, and I'm expected to release it 30 years from now when I'm retired and on a fixed income, then I have a problem with that, especially if there's a law that says I must. Do you put in a stipulation that if the owner of the work is a company and they are still in existence in 30 years, and they're making a profit, then they must release everything they've done into public domain?
That's fine. Something that hasn't been used in decades should be released under reasonable circumstances, although I wouldn't expect the company holding the work to expend a large amount of resources in releasing it.
I don't want to get e-mails 30 years from now from people hounding me to release some old application I made that wouldn't even run on modern computers. I shouldn't be legally responsible to waste my time digging out the old code. After all, unless the government paid for it, I wouldn't expect their to be any obligation that I give my work away.
I'm not restating the same point for the third time. Read my responses to the other people that responded to my original post if you want to know what I think.
What if the author is a company? If I create something at work, then the company owns it, not me. So a company can really never die.
Now lets jump 70 years into the future when MS Windows 3.1 has been around for 80 years. Does that mean that MS should be forced to give up ALL versions of their OS that are labeled as "Windows", or just the 3.1 version. After all, they are creating new versions that are essentially new products even though they all have some common functionality.
Now why can't the same be said for Mickey? It's not like Mickey was a one time use character. They still make new cartoons with the character. It's still evolving and people still want to go to Disney World and get their picture taken with the character. Do you think it will have the same charm if Joe's Amusement Park and Tire Dump has a Mickey Mouse character too? Emotion is still a human factor ya know.
So releasing Mickey into the public domain would be a great benefit to society? I fail to understand your reasoning.
I think this issue is a little more involved than the Kleenex product anyways. They're still using the Mickey character and periodically create new works based on it.
And I don't believe they're holding Mickey under copyright, I'm pretty sure it's trademark law.
The Simpsons have been around now for over a decade. How long until they should be put in the public domain? What if they're still making new episodes 50 years from now, would it be fair to make them put their work in the public domain and anybody can make new episodes?
Um, Disney created Mickey Mouse. The image is the cornerstone of practically everything Disney with the exception of the castle logo they use. You didn't create it. You want to use it, make your own character. Please check the "No Score +1 Bonus" next time you post a message like this.
You could have saved that $12 and built a Win 3.1 box with the PC Speaker Wave Driver.
Damn, how'd you get ThinkGeek's useless laser product schedule for next month?
You're joking, but I have an uncle that's got plenty of money, but he's still using the same betamax player he bought a couple decades ago for watching home movies he's made on his beta camcorder.
More importantly, AllTheWeb indexes Slashdot better. 283 results for my username. Only 45 on Google after including omitted results.
I bought a shrink wrapped Mandrake distro a year or two ago and it was 4 CDs. You really think they burned the master and then said, "ok, let's check every single file that we're sending out".
No, it's "where do you want to go today". MS doesn't want to take that ride with you.
When you say "something", you must mean "everything". Of course I guess you could blame MS for making the system that got infected when the third-party was using it to translate MS's software.
They already gave them .NET, how far do you expect MS to go?
Post the name of your company, and then ask anybody that's worked for that company, and worked under your boss to post personal experiences. That's the only way you're going to get useful information.
They need to stop their decreasing sales.
They don't want to invest more money in signing new bands and creating new music. So naturally they'll try to appease the masses and get the semi-legit folks that have downloaded illegally, to pay for their music at the rate most people have been saying they'd pay for music.
If that doesn't catch enough fish in the net, then they'll lower the price further, or have discounts, or anything that will get a majority of people to actually pay something for the music they probably already have gotten for free.
Then they'll switch to the standard tactics of screwing over everybody once they've gotten us back in the mindset that we need to pay for this stuff.
Thanks, I was just trolling anyways :)
:(
My company primarily creates construction industry software. We're just finishing up our first product for field trailers and I was looking to see if I saw our competitors name in your list. Sorry
Software on a construction jobsite? Just curious, what software do you use out there besides Office?
For a cheap digital camera for kids, you might as well use the Barbie or WWF el-cheapo models. 320x240 I think, and only $50 I think.
Me too. Maybe it's just me, but if you have a problem with public domain because you can't figure out what it means, then maybe you're too stupid to use it, and people really shouldn't care if you do or don't.
Is there anything wrong with accepting that sometimes people are too stupid to do/understand something? Should anybody really waste time trying to educate them?
Hey, that would actually be a cool idea. Use a force feeedback device to simulate weightlifting. Much better than trying to bring dumbells to work.
I don't think MS will like this. Remember they lose money on every box sold, so if you're not buying games, you're an evil pirate.
You must have read my previous posts where I usually am wrong ;)