It could very well be a chilling glimpse into the future when animals conquer the Earth, and then one another. That's pretty scary. And the sequel, "Vegetable Farm" is even worse, because vegetables outnumber us by a huge margin.
Oh, I'd use Google. But that's merely because I prefer to use Google. If liked Alta Vista more (and once upon a time it was the champ), then I would've used that in response to your request, provided that it offered a service that could fulfill it.
While they can't stop people from saying 'I'm going to google for my keys', they can stop other internet search sites from saying 'Perform your googles here!' There is a difference between a trademark losing its affect in common speech, and a trademark losing its legal standing.
Not really, no. If the trademark is a generic term, it loses its legal standing. In order to combat this, trademark holders must not _just_ vigorously protect their trademark by preventing infringing uses in commerce, but ALSO must advertise in ways that combat the generification effect.
Remember: a trademark is intended to distinguish the source of goods and services in commerce. If it does not, because people use the mark generically, then the purpose of the mark is frustrated and the term can no longer be protected in its generic sense.
Wouldn't Nike be be happy as a clam if 'Nikes' came to mean 'shoes'?
Actually they'd be livid. Because then anyone could use it. Such as Reebok-made Nikes. Trademark holders really hate it when people use the word that they popularized to refer to other people, particularly if they don't get paid for it.
Correct, 'googol' is the mathematical term. However, it doesn't really matter. Mispellings, acronyms, etc. are irrelevant for trademarks. For example, 'EZ Chair' is considered to _actually_ be 'Easy Chair.'
So the 'google' spelling won't help them especially.
At any rate, 'google' is a suggestive trademark, because it references the mathematical meaning in implying the scope of its search capabilities.
The fact is, that the public has immense power to influence trademarks. If PEOPLE generically use Xerox to mean 'to copy documents,' 'photocopiers,' and/or 'copied documents,' then the trademark will die. This is known as genericide, since a generic word cannot be trademarked. (Which is why you can't trademark Apple with reference to the fruit; that's the generic name! Has nothing to do with the computer company.)
Asprin, heroin, cellophane... these all _used_ to be trademarks. Xerox and kleenex have been on the verge for ages. Sanka just barely managed to save their mark.
Personally, I think it's fun, and I often use marks as generic words (for example, being from the South, I call all soft drinks coke unless I'm trying to specifically discuss one in particular).
Thus, if people DO use google to mean to search for something online, this will destroy the Google trademark over time. I say, let's do it!
While it kills me to explain a joke, this seems to have been an earnest reply, so I'll go ahead. Personally I have no interest in cars, as long as I can get where I'm going, it's inexpensive to obtain and operate, and is about as good for the environment as can be. I don't care about flash. Nor am I likely to have an affair with anyone as this tends to be synonymous with cheating on a spouse that I haven't got.
Really I was just referring to stereotypical facets of a male mid-life crisis.
As for flying, no thanks. I _hate_ flying. I _hate_ heights. Which is too bad since I really enjoy the idea of flying, and am pretty good in simulators, which I enjoy a lot. I just loathe getting up in a plane, or even a tall building. Scares the crap out of me.
I also enjoy sharing my work. Indeed, I'm putting together an adventure loosely based on Shakespeare's plays, and a setting in an over-the-top 1930's pulp world. Once I get things in a good way, I expect to drop it into the public domain.
Fortunately SJG isn't as litigious as TSR et al, though Steve can be annoying to be sure.
At any rate, I'd hope that at some point soon the gaming community will rally together to keep the publishers in their place, as it were.
Marvel could make a claim on the part with the Superman interaction
Actually, I'd imagine that AOL-Time-Warner, which owns DC would be making that claim.;)
I haven't used any setting material from them (only setting book I actually own is the manual of the planes) nor any specific, developed characters. Save reference to concepts like THAC0, my work is generic enough that it can be used for any other game system.
Then you're likely pretty good to go.
However, until WOTC specifically disclaims any ownership over works like mine (I don't need to have them disclaim mine specifically), my work will remain private because I can't afford a lawsuit.
Have you considered either getting together a legal fund for a test case (in which case the litigant needs to be absolutely impeccable), or talking with an IP attorney to see if it could be handled pro bono? The issue is an important one to a lot of people -- to let them chill an entire industry for lack of an absolutely clear precedent is a big PITA. I'm sure there's got to be at least one sympathetic, role-playing lawyer out there. IANAL... yet. Got about a year and a half until I take the bar though, so there will be at least one lawyer out there soon, knock on wood.
That depends on what 'it' is. The GURPS system isn't protected AFAIK; just the way that it is described in SJG's books. Use the system without the existing writeups and you'd be ok. Personally, I've considered doing some stuff along those lines myself, as I prefer GURPS to D&D.
Game names are trademarkable. Claiming that your game has anything to do with D&D/D20 will get you sued for trademark infringment.
And WotC will lose that suit, if you're merely claiming that your rules are compatable with D20. You _can_ use other people's trademarks for comparison purposes you know. Just as a store that carries such materials can put up a sign that indicates that they sell them, since it's a mere nominative use of the mark.
class names are probably included here, as are any parts of the world, basically the whole Monster Manual, because while orcs and so forth are pretty much public domain, the WotC/TSR implementations are copyrighted, and most of the stuff in the MM is copyrighted in its own right
Class names aren't copyrightable. And a trademark on 'Thief' or 'Ranger' would be pretty ridiculous. And at any rate, a quick check of the trademark database at the USPTO indicates that they have not been trademarking class names.
The game world -- sure, that's copyrighted. But if you're creating your own world -- or even just a small bit of territory that a GM can insert into an 'official' world, you'd be fine. I never said that a developer could copy everything; just that the d20 license doesn't seem to amount to much.
Monsters are an interesting issue. Again, if you're making up a world, I'm not terribly worried about it. There's nothing wrong with there being a different species of monster, and of course, the MM would still be perfectly compatable. But yeah, monster _stats_ and _descriptions_ are probably protectable insofar as they are original. (a troll that lurks under bridges would not be -- trolls did that before D&D came along) Monster names aren't protectable, save as trademarks, and there appears not to have been any attempt to do anything along those lines.
it'll save you tiptoeing through a legal minefield and maybe getting sued (even if you do a real good job of avoiding infringment, you could get sued anyway, and you might even lose, since you ripped of something they made, and judges, unlike RMS, do believe in intellectual property...)
Yeah, but judges also know the law better than most game developers I've encountered. You have to remember, that even today, there are still limits to this 'IP' thing.
As for why to act outside of licensure, well, to the daring go the spoils.
more FUD, unless it was a wholesale ripoff, copyright would end up being shared with the new work being owned by the author and the derivative work being owned by WOTC
No, we don't have blocking copyrights in the US. Certainly I don't like how we handle derivatives though, so some reform is needed here. But if you have a work that is derivative, the derivative parts aren't yours -- and since they're likely inseperable from what you did do, you lose the entire thing.
OTOH, yeah, they were making a frivolous claim. To such an extent really that if they actually did sue, you'd have a chance at getting it thrown out of court immediately. (of course, very rarely a frivolous claim can work out -- recalling my prof arguing 'copyright misappropriation,' not infringement, and not an actual cause of action; she was representing the good guy, however)
imagine if they are going to be distributing stuff that is in the 3rd edition rules they had to make some sort of deal with WotC to do so.
Uh, that's a big no, actually. Game rules are not copyrightable. They can be patented, but as far as D&D goes, the time for that passed long ago. Any copyright that exists is only on the specific way the rules were written. Rewrite the book yourself, using different wording but preserving the same meaning, and you'd be ok. Certain terms may be trademarked, but they're easy enough to discover and work around.
This is why the d20 license thing has been absolutely mystifying me. The only thing in it that is in the least bit worthwhile is the ability to _say_ that it's a d20 system and use that mark... but so what? You can do that for free, as fair use (n.b. trademark fair use is NOT the same thing at all as copyright fair use) permits comparisons between actual branded products, as opposed to with a thinly disguised 'Brand X.'
So what precisely is the hold up?
(I will agree that anyone is less litigious than TSR was, but litigiousness doesn't equal being right; check out the frontispiece in the first "Phil and Dixie" book for a good joke along these lines.)
I believe the idea is you only reward them (i.e. give them money) if you use thier invention.
Plainly, that isn't so. The idea is that you MUST comply with whatever terms the inventor has if you want to use their invention; you are not allowed to use it on your own. Thus, I am typically denied the use of things that other people have invented. Even if I were to independently invent them later! (thus not benefiting from their labor at all, since I didn't even know about it)
Inventors should be rewarded because it is thier product (IP) which turns raw materials (wood and metal) into products (work benches) people want.
Why shouldn't you compensate them, when you benefit from thier work?
Because benefiting from someone else's work isn't a good enough reason to pay them. For example, if you own a plot of land in Anaheim, California, it might only be good as an orange orchard. When Disneyland is built next door in the mid-50's, your property values are going to skyrocket like never before. You won't have to raise a finger to benefit enormously. Disney did all the hard work, but why should you actually have to pay him for it?
The fact that the mere labor of the inventor isn't sufficient justification doesn't mean, however, that it isn't still worthwhile to pay them. If it is in your own self-interest to pay them, not because they should be rewarded, but because you wish to spur invention ever onwards so that you can reap the benefits of it, then THAT is a good reason. It reduces the noble inventor's status to that of a sort of dairy cow that is tolerated solely for the milk that it yields, so it's hardly romantic. But it makes the most sense, and it's the best system.
I've discussed the utilitarian system countless times around here -- I'm sure that you can find out more on it if you like. But it's the only good way to handle this stuff. Anything else risks harming you in the short term and the long term. At least a utilitarian model outweighs any short term imposition to the public with a greater ultimate benefit.
The problem here isn't with rights, as it is ridiculous to claim that your rights are being violated
I disagree. My interests chiefly lie with copyrights, so let's stay there. Do I not have a right of free speech? One which is commonly felt to be a natural right, and which is considered to be of immense importance? Do I not have similarly important rights to practice a religion of my choosing?
Copyrights can impair these. My rights are being infringed. I can handle that if it's worth it to me -- for example, I accept that I'll get in trouble if I slander someone, but in exchange I expect them to have the same trouble if they slander me. If I could not expect equal treatment, I'd have no particular reason to tolerate such rules.
The issue is that you are profiting by the inventor's labor, while you are giving him nothing in return. Why shouldn't he be able to require that you must pay him something in order to profit by his labor?
Because he has a hopelessly deluded sense of how the world actually works.
An example: you are my next-door neighbor. You spend an enormous sum improving your house and the land it sits on. You raise the value of your property. In fact, all of my neighbors do this. I do nothing. YET, merely by the virtue of my being in the neighborhood, the value of my property increases. I'm profiting off of your labor. But why should I owe you anything for that? (a nice real world example is the land around Disney Land -- it's only as valuable as it is because of Disney's work)
Ultimately, the fact that someone invests labor into something is not a good enough reason for them to be able to be rewarded for it, even if I profit from it. Consider the Feist case: the phone company compiled a white pages. Another company came along, copied the white pages, and printed their own phone book. They won. Mere 'sweat of the brow' just isn't enough.
On the other hand, if you can CONVINCE me that it is in my best interests to pay you, then you might have something. As we'll shortly see.
Let $foo be a consumer good (eg books). Suppose it were legal to take a $foo right out of the store without paying for it. Of course, you still could pay for it, but most people wouldn't. There wouldn't be any rights violated, but nobody would make $foos anymore, because they wouldn't get anything for it.
And now you're on my side. If books were free, no one would pay for them. If this caused books to no longer be produced, then people might, out of SELF-INTEREST, decide to pay authors. Not because the authors deserved anything inherently. But ONLY, ONLY because that was the best apparent method of ensuring that more books were produced, which is what I'd be concerned with.
In fact, whatever the best method of getting more books was, would be the best choice. It needn't actually involve paying the authors. Maybe it would mean paying importers who get books from somewhere else, or explorers who delve into Borges' 'Library of Babel.' Whatever got me the most for my money would be what I'd do, because I really don't care about authors. Just their output. (Disclosure: I am an artist, and until I decided to go back to school, I supported myself as an artist -- that doesn't mean I expect the world to care about me)
You don't need it to survive
Actually, as a bibliophile and lover of the arts, I would say that I do in fact need creative works to survive. Drop me in a place without art and I'd have to quickly make some just to keep going. Art is important stuff; there's a reason why virtually every culture around the world creates art, why cavemen devoted time to it, etc. No art is too creepy to contemplate.
Nonetheless, it is clear that not everyone can be allowed to copy the goods for free, as the lack of rewards for the inventor would stifle innovation even more than patents do today.
This may be true for patents, though I would say that it depends on the subject matter of the patents -- software and method patents probably inhibit innovation more than they stimulate it. So beware of blanket statements.
As for copyrights, we've gone _way_ beyond the optimal point. I suspect that we have gone so far that we are now in the realm of where it would promote the arts more to shut the entire system down than to stay where we are or continue current trends. A massive reform is called for, reducing the subject matter, term lengths, rights of, etc. copyrights.
Remember, the lack of any protections is our baseline. We can always return to it. Thus, any protection scheme must result in a net benefit to society that is greater than that. It need not be the optimal benefit to society, but should not pass beyond the optimal benefit. And we must be mindful of the fact that changing circumstances may result in the optimal point dropping below the baseline, necessitating shutting down the system, though I don't expect that to happen anytime soon.
All you open source zealots out there, remember that the cost of programming is relatively small compared to other R&D. It may be one thing to copyleft some program that you wrote in your spare time (and I have done this myself), but it is quite another to copyleft pharmaceutical research which took years to develop in a multi-billion-dollar facility, plus several more years of expensive tests to get FDA approval. And these costs don't even take into account the failure rate of such research, ie the number of promising leads which turn out to be dead ends.
Well, I'm no open source zealot, though I do approve of it, and I feel that we should mandate source disclosure for copyrighted software in order to ensure that software is deserving of copyrights.
However, I have no qualms at all about short patent terms and the placement of inventions into the public domain. Nor in patent conflicts. And I have to say that a) special needs of the pharmaceutical industry need not burden unrelated industries, and b) the world's smallest accordian plays for them. If it took a fifty year patent term to stimulate the investment necessary for an otherwise-unheard of wonder drug, that still does not mean that it was worth it. The OVERALL public benefit may yet be greater with lesser protection. It's the big picture that we must deal with, not piddling pharmaceutical companies.
No, I recognize that there's an up-front cost for the development. That doesn't change the fundemental DIFFERENCE between real and personal property as opposed to writings and inventions, which is what the quote was illustrating.
You say that "[i]deas need to be paid for." In part, I must disagree. I would say that only ideas worth paying for must be paid for.
That is to say, any author or inventor who puts a lot of effort into his creation has no right to expect that he will even have the opportunity to make a profit. A movie that cost a trillion dollars to make doesn't deserve to be copyrighted for however long it might take to recover the sunk costs.
Rather, society needs to decide how much it is willing to suffer in temporarily setting aside some of its interest in using a work freely in order to encourage the creation of works.
This will limit the number of works created. Massively expensive-to-develop inventions or writings will tend not to be created, because there is little hope of net profit.
BUT the value to society of eventually being free to do as it pleases with the works that are created will be maximized. And that's the only yardstick for a successful system.
I don't have serious problems with the current system in general, just in how it happens to presently be implemented. I feel that a better implementation is well within our grasp, if we simply focus on societal needs, and reduce protections to a degree that produces the most societal benefit. Right now we're far too skewed towards the benefit of the author or inventor, as well as so short-sighted that we don't see that it is going to harm the next generation of creators as well.
There would still likely be some protection, however. Copyrights and patents can, when properly wielded, spawn greater benefits than we'd know without them.
Re:Yeah. Until they make it illegal.
on
HDTV via GNU Radio
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I'd be happy to do so.
Basically, I think that self-help is unacceptable in conjunction with the legal protections conferred by copyright.
That is, a copy protected piece of software will never stop being copy protected. Even when the copyright holder loses their rights in the work. I'm fully prepared for copyrights to be granted, and for copyright holders to be able to pursue me for infringing on the rights.
BUT only where I stand to benefit from this as an ordinary person or author. Which means that I expect that after a reasonable period of time, I should be able to use, copy, alter, and base derivative works upon it. Upon any copy, with no particular difficulty beyond something inherent in the medium and not used as a deterrant. (e.g. a CD needs a CD player, but there's little special about that; adding encryption to it is not ok)
If someone wants to release copy protected works, then I think that they should do so without benefit of a single legal remedy. If they want the help of government and society in protecting themselves, they must acknowledge that it is a quid pro quo, and honor their end of the agreement. Copy protected works will never truly enter the public domain; they are an effort to cheat the public. Such publishers are much more reprehensible than the pirates that prey upon them, IMO.
Similar arguments exist as to why software developers should be required, as a prerequisite to getting copyrights, to deposit a full, complete, and well-documented copy of the source code with the Library of Congress. (n.b. that this is NOT open source, merely 'disclosed' source.)
Perhaps HDTV pixels aren't square? I really don't know much about the format, but IIRC this was an issue with NTSC. (and some computers have had non-square pixels, including the Apple Lisa, I believe)
Slashdot Mirror
You're basically talking about a utility patent, which is indeed the dominant kind. This is a design patent, there's a difference.
It could very well be a chilling glimpse into the future when animals conquer the Earth, and then one another. That's pretty scary. And the sequel, "Vegetable Farm" is even worse, because vegetables outnumber us by a huge margin.
We'll just say that sometimes people out in the desert get lonely, and leave it at that.
Because wasps evolved wings, while ant's evolved apostrophes. It's a miracle of nature.
Oh, I'd use Google. But that's merely because I prefer to use Google. If liked Alta Vista more (and once upon a time it was the champ), then I would've used that in response to your request, provided that it offered a service that could fulfill it.
Not really, no. If the trademark is a generic term, it loses its legal standing. In order to combat this, trademark holders must not _just_ vigorously protect their trademark by preventing infringing uses in commerce, but ALSO must advertise in ways that combat the generification effect.
Remember: a trademark is intended to distinguish the source of goods and services in commerce. If it does not, because people use the mark generically, then the purpose of the mark is frustrated and the term can no longer be protected in its generic sense.
Actually they'd be livid. Because then anyone could use it. Such as Reebok-made Nikes. Trademark holders really hate it when people use the word that they popularized to refer to other people, particularly if they don't get paid for it.
To google doesn't have to mean to use google.com any more than to xerox means to use a xerox-brand photocopier.
I have no problems with it applying to any given search engine, and I'd bet that people are in fact using it that way.
Correct, 'googol' is the mathematical term. However, it doesn't really matter. Mispellings, acronyms, etc. are irrelevant for trademarks. For example, 'EZ Chair' is considered to _actually_ be 'Easy Chair.'
So the 'google' spelling won't help them especially.
At any rate, 'google' is a suggestive trademark, because it references the mathematical meaning in implying the scope of its search capabilities.
There are actually three generic meanings of 'xerox.' Example: I xeroxed the xeroxes on the xerox.
And you're what, an armchair trademark attorney?
The fact is, that the public has immense power to influence trademarks. If PEOPLE generically use Xerox to mean 'to copy documents,' 'photocopiers,' and/or 'copied documents,' then the trademark will die. This is known as genericide, since a generic word cannot be trademarked. (Which is why you can't trademark Apple with reference to the fruit; that's the generic name! Has nothing to do with the computer company.)
Asprin, heroin, cellophane... these all _used_ to be trademarks. Xerox and kleenex have been on the verge for ages. Sanka just barely managed to save their mark.
Personally, I think it's fun, and I often use marks as generic words (for example, being from the South, I call all soft drinks coke unless I'm trying to specifically discuss one in particular).
Thus, if people DO use google to mean to search for something online, this will destroy the Google trademark over time. I say, let's do it!
While it kills me to explain a joke, this seems to have been an earnest reply, so I'll go ahead. Personally I have no interest in cars, as long as I can get where I'm going, it's inexpensive to obtain and operate, and is about as good for the environment as can be. I don't care about flash. Nor am I likely to have an affair with anyone as this tends to be synonymous with cheating on a spouse that I haven't got.
Really I was just referring to stereotypical facets of a male mid-life crisis.
As for flying, no thanks. I _hate_ flying. I _hate_ heights. Which is too bad since I really enjoy the idea of flying, and am pretty good in simulators, which I enjoy a lot. I just loathe getting up in a plane, or even a tall building. Scares the crap out of me.
If 27 is middle age, then I guess it's about time for me to buy a flashy new car and have an affair.
I also enjoy sharing my work. Indeed, I'm putting together an adventure loosely based on Shakespeare's plays, and a setting in an over-the-top 1930's pulp world. Once I get things in a good way, I expect to drop it into the public domain.
Fortunately SJG isn't as litigious as TSR et al, though Steve can be annoying to be sure.
At any rate, I'd hope that at some point soon the gaming community will rally together to keep the publishers in their place, as it were.
Actually, I'd imagine that AOL-Time-Warner, which owns DC would be making that claim.
I haven't used any setting material from them (only setting book I actually own is the manual of the planes) nor any specific, developed characters. Save reference to concepts like THAC0, my work is generic enough that it can be used for any other game system.
Then you're likely pretty good to go.
However, until WOTC specifically disclaims any ownership over works like mine (I don't need to have them disclaim mine specifically), my work will remain private because I can't afford a lawsuit.
Have you considered either getting together a legal fund for a test case (in which case the litigant needs to be absolutely impeccable), or talking with an IP attorney to see if it could be handled pro bono? The issue is an important one to a lot of people -- to let them chill an entire industry for lack of an absolutely clear precedent is a big PITA. I'm sure there's got to be at least one sympathetic, role-playing lawyer out there. IANAL... yet. Got about a year and a half until I take the bar though, so there will be at least one lawyer out there soon, knock on wood.
That depends on what 'it' is. The GURPS system isn't protected AFAIK; just the way that it is described in SJG's books. Use the system without the existing writeups and you'd be ok. Personally, I've considered doing some stuff along those lines myself, as I prefer GURPS to D&D.
And WotC will lose that suit, if you're merely claiming that your rules are compatable with D20. You _can_ use other people's trademarks for comparison purposes you know. Just as a store that carries such materials can put up a sign that indicates that they sell them, since it's a mere nominative use of the mark.
class names are probably included here, as are any parts of the world, basically the whole Monster Manual, because while orcs and so forth are pretty much public domain, the WotC/TSR implementations are copyrighted, and most of the stuff in the MM is copyrighted in its own right
Class names aren't copyrightable. And a trademark on 'Thief' or 'Ranger' would be pretty ridiculous. And at any rate, a quick check of the trademark database at the USPTO indicates that they have not been trademarking class names.
The game world -- sure, that's copyrighted. But if you're creating your own world -- or even just a small bit of territory that a GM can insert into an 'official' world, you'd be fine. I never said that a developer could copy everything; just that the d20 license doesn't seem to amount to much.
Monsters are an interesting issue. Again, if you're making up a world, I'm not terribly worried about it. There's nothing wrong with there being a different species of monster, and of course, the MM would still be perfectly compatable. But yeah, monster _stats_ and _descriptions_ are probably protectable insofar as they are original. (a troll that lurks under bridges would not be -- trolls did that before D&D came along) Monster names aren't protectable, save as trademarks, and there appears not to have been any attempt to do anything along those lines.
it'll save you tiptoeing through a legal minefield and maybe getting sued (even if you do a real good job of avoiding infringment, you could get sued anyway, and you might even lose, since you ripped of something they made, and judges, unlike RMS, do believe in intellectual property...)
Yeah, but judges also know the law better than most game developers I've encountered. You have to remember, that even today, there are still limits to this 'IP' thing.
As for why to act outside of licensure, well, to the daring go the spoils.
No, we don't have blocking copyrights in the US. Certainly I don't like how we handle derivatives though, so some reform is needed here. But if you have a work that is derivative, the derivative parts aren't yours -- and since they're likely inseperable from what you did do, you lose the entire thing.
OTOH, yeah, they were making a frivolous claim. To such an extent really that if they actually did sue, you'd have a chance at getting it thrown out of court immediately. (of course, very rarely a frivolous claim can work out -- recalling my prof arguing 'copyright misappropriation,' not infringement, and not an actual cause of action; she was representing the good guy, however)
Uh, that's a big no, actually. Game rules are not copyrightable. They can be patented, but as far as D&D goes, the time for that passed long ago. Any copyright that exists is only on the specific way the rules were written. Rewrite the book yourself, using different wording but preserving the same meaning, and you'd be ok. Certain terms may be trademarked, but they're easy enough to discover and work around.
This is why the d20 license thing has been absolutely mystifying me. The only thing in it that is in the least bit worthwhile is the ability to _say_ that it's a d20 system and use that mark... but so what? You can do that for free, as fair use (n.b. trademark fair use is NOT the same thing at all as copyright fair use) permits comparisons between actual branded products, as opposed to with a thinly disguised 'Brand X.'
So what precisely is the hold up?
(I will agree that anyone is less litigious than TSR was, but litigiousness doesn't equal being right; check out the frontispiece in the first "Phil and Dixie" book for a good joke along these lines.)
Plainly, that isn't so. The idea is that you MUST comply with whatever terms the inventor has if you want to use their invention; you are not allowed to use it on your own. Thus, I am typically denied the use of things that other people have invented. Even if I were to independently invent them later! (thus not benefiting from their labor at all, since I didn't even know about it)
Inventors should be rewarded because it is thier product (IP) which turns raw materials (wood and metal) into products (work benches) people want.
Why shouldn't you compensate them, when you benefit from thier work?
Because benefiting from someone else's work isn't a good enough reason to pay them. For example, if you own a plot of land in Anaheim, California, it might only be good as an orange orchard. When Disneyland is built next door in the mid-50's, your property values are going to skyrocket like never before. You won't have to raise a finger to benefit enormously. Disney did all the hard work, but why should you actually have to pay him for it?
The fact that the mere labor of the inventor isn't sufficient justification doesn't mean, however, that it isn't still worthwhile to pay them. If it is in your own self-interest to pay them, not because they should be rewarded, but because you wish to spur invention ever onwards so that you can reap the benefits of it, then THAT is a good reason. It reduces the noble inventor's status to that of a sort of dairy cow that is tolerated solely for the milk that it yields, so it's hardly romantic. But it makes the most sense, and it's the best system.
I've discussed the utilitarian system countless times around here -- I'm sure that you can find out more on it if you like. But it's the only good way to handle this stuff. Anything else risks harming you in the short term and the long term. At least a utilitarian model outweighs any short term imposition to the public with a greater ultimate benefit.
I disagree. My interests chiefly lie with copyrights, so let's stay there. Do I not have a right of free speech? One which is commonly felt to be a natural right, and which is considered to be of immense importance? Do I not have similarly important rights to practice a religion of my choosing?
Copyrights can impair these. My rights are being infringed. I can handle that if it's worth it to me -- for example, I accept that I'll get in trouble if I slander someone, but in exchange I expect them to have the same trouble if they slander me. If I could not expect equal treatment, I'd have no particular reason to tolerate such rules.
The issue is that you are profiting by the inventor's labor, while you are giving him nothing in return. Why shouldn't he be able to require that you must pay him something in order to profit by his labor?
Because he has a hopelessly deluded sense of how the world actually works.
An example: you are my next-door neighbor. You spend an enormous sum improving your house and the land it sits on. You raise the value of your property. In fact, all of my neighbors do this. I do nothing. YET, merely by the virtue of my being in the neighborhood, the value of my property increases. I'm profiting off of your labor. But why should I owe you anything for that? (a nice real world example is the land around Disney Land -- it's only as valuable as it is because of Disney's work)
Ultimately, the fact that someone invests labor into something is not a good enough reason for them to be able to be rewarded for it, even if I profit from it. Consider the Feist case: the phone company compiled a white pages. Another company came along, copied the white pages, and printed their own phone book. They won. Mere 'sweat of the brow' just isn't enough.
On the other hand, if you can CONVINCE me that it is in my best interests to pay you, then you might have something. As we'll shortly see.
Let $foo be a consumer good (eg books). Suppose it were legal to take a $foo right out of the store without paying for it. Of course, you still could pay for it, but most people wouldn't. There wouldn't be any rights violated, but nobody would make $foos anymore, because they wouldn't get anything for it.
And now you're on my side. If books were free, no one would pay for them. If this caused books to no longer be produced, then people might, out of SELF-INTEREST, decide to pay authors. Not because the authors deserved anything inherently. But ONLY, ONLY because that was the best apparent method of ensuring that more books were produced, which is what I'd be concerned with.
In fact, whatever the best method of getting more books was, would be the best choice. It needn't actually involve paying the authors. Maybe it would mean paying importers who get books from somewhere else, or explorers who delve into Borges' 'Library of Babel.' Whatever got me the most for my money would be what I'd do, because I really don't care about authors. Just their output. (Disclosure: I am an artist, and until I decided to go back to school, I supported myself as an artist -- that doesn't mean I expect the world to care about me)
You don't need it to survive
Actually, as a bibliophile and lover of the arts, I would say that I do in fact need creative works to survive. Drop me in a place without art and I'd have to quickly make some just to keep going. Art is important stuff; there's a reason why virtually every culture around the world creates art, why cavemen devoted time to it, etc. No art is too creepy to contemplate.
Nonetheless, it is clear that not everyone can be allowed to copy the goods for free, as the lack of rewards for the inventor would stifle innovation even more than patents do today.
This may be true for patents, though I would say that it depends on the subject matter of the patents -- software and method patents probably inhibit innovation more than they stimulate it. So beware of blanket statements.
As for copyrights, we've gone _way_ beyond the optimal point. I suspect that we have gone so far that we are now in the realm of where it would promote the arts more to shut the entire system down than to stay where we are or continue current trends. A massive reform is called for, reducing the subject matter, term lengths, rights of, etc. copyrights.
Remember, the lack of any protections is our baseline. We can always return to it. Thus, any protection scheme must result in a net benefit to society that is greater than that. It need not be the optimal benefit to society, but should not pass beyond the optimal benefit. And we must be mindful of the fact that changing circumstances may result in the optimal point dropping below the baseline, necessitating shutting down the system, though I don't expect that to happen anytime soon.
All you open source zealots out there, remember that the cost of programming is relatively small compared to other R&D. It may be one thing to copyleft some program that you wrote in your spare time (and I have done this myself), but it is quite another to copyleft pharmaceutical research which took years to develop in a multi-billion-dollar facility, plus several more years of expensive tests to get FDA approval. And these costs don't even take into account the failure rate of such research, ie the number of promising leads which turn out to be dead ends.
Well, I'm no open source zealot, though I do approve of it, and I feel that we should mandate source disclosure for copyrighted software in order to ensure that software is deserving of copyrights.
However, I have no qualms at all about short patent terms and the placement of inventions into the public domain. Nor in patent conflicts. And I have to say that a) special needs of the pharmaceutical industry need not burden unrelated industries, and b) the world's smallest accordian plays for them. If it took a fifty year patent term to stimulate the investment necessary for an otherwise-unheard of wonder drug, that still does not mean that it was worth it. The OVERALL public benefit may yet be greater with lesser protection. It's the big picture that we must deal with, not piddling pharmaceutical companies.
No, I recognize that there's an up-front cost for the development. That doesn't change the fundemental DIFFERENCE between real and personal property as opposed to writings and inventions, which is what the quote was illustrating.
You say that "[i]deas need to be paid for." In part, I must disagree. I would say that only ideas worth paying for must be paid for.
That is to say, any author or inventor who puts a lot of effort into his creation has no right to expect that he will even have the opportunity to make a profit. A movie that cost a trillion dollars to make doesn't deserve to be copyrighted for however long it might take to recover the sunk costs.
Rather, society needs to decide how much it is willing to suffer in temporarily setting aside some of its interest in using a work freely in order to encourage the creation of works.
This will limit the number of works created. Massively expensive-to-develop inventions or writings will tend not to be created, because there is little hope of net profit.
BUT the value to society of eventually being free to do as it pleases with the works that are created will be maximized. And that's the only yardstick for a successful system.
I don't have serious problems with the current system in general, just in how it happens to presently be implemented. I feel that a better implementation is well within our grasp, if we simply focus on societal needs, and reduce protections to a degree that produces the most societal benefit. Right now we're far too skewed towards the benefit of the author or inventor, as well as so short-sighted that we don't see that it is going to harm the next generation of creators as well.
There would still likely be some protection, however. Copyrights and patents can, when properly wielded, spawn greater benefits than we'd know without them.
I'd be happy to do so.
Basically, I think that self-help is unacceptable in conjunction with the legal protections conferred by copyright.
That is, a copy protected piece of software will never stop being copy protected. Even when the copyright holder loses their rights in the work. I'm fully prepared for copyrights to be granted, and for copyright holders to be able to pursue me for infringing on the rights.
BUT only where I stand to benefit from this as an ordinary person or author. Which means that I expect that after a reasonable period of time, I should be able to use, copy, alter, and base derivative works upon it. Upon any copy, with no particular difficulty beyond something inherent in the medium and not used as a deterrant. (e.g. a CD needs a CD player, but there's little special about that; adding encryption to it is not ok)
If someone wants to release copy protected works, then I think that they should do so without benefit of a single legal remedy. If they want the help of government and society in protecting themselves, they must acknowledge that it is a quid pro quo, and honor their end of the agreement. Copy protected works will never truly enter the public domain; they are an effort to cheat the public. Such publishers are much more reprehensible than the pirates that prey upon them, IMO.
Similar arguments exist as to why software developers should be required, as a prerequisite to getting copyrights, to deposit a full, complete, and well-documented copy of the source code with the Library of Congress. (n.b. that this is NOT open source, merely 'disclosed' source.)
Perhaps HDTV pixels aren't square? I really don't know much about the format, but IIRC this was an issue with NTSC. (and some computers have had non-square pixels, including the Apple Lisa, I believe)
Well, even copyrighted works are not property. The copyright on those works may be, but not the subject matter of that copyright.