I've been following the patent and IP discussions closely and I am wondering if there could be an easy fix for all that mess:
Make the copy- and patent rights non-transferrable.
Think about it, it was a human that created the thing in the first place, so why should a non-human (corporation) be allowed to own it?
Most of the problems stem from BigCorps with lot$ of money owning the rights, and as we all know, anonymous corporations don't have morals. So a creator/inventor can still cash in upon licensing the invention or having a corporation protect his copyright for a slice of the share, but there would be no way to assemble a patent portfolio in the first place. Thus IP-only firms would have a hard time, because they wouldn't own anything, just representing one or a group of inventors.
Feynman writes in his appendix of the final report:
"The actual hardware is obsolete; for example, the memories are of the old ferrite core type. It is becoming more difficult to find manufacturers to supply such old-fashioned computers reliably and of high quality. Modern computers are very much more reliable, can run much faster, simplifying circuits, and allowing more to be done, and would not require so much loading of memory, for the memories are much larger." Interestingly this statement was quite true in 1986 but it is no longer true today. It is nowadays expensive to produce a microprocessor that is space-hardened due to the extremely small dimensions that are used in computer chips nowadays. The space shuttle computers are PDP-11, if I recall correctly, manufactured with discrete logic, maybe even discrete transistors, making them suitable for a high-radiation location as space itself. A single charged particle that hits a discrete transistor will not induce any errors while it might bring down a complete modern CPU.
If NASA were to replace the shuttle computers they would need to have their own CPUs manufactured with rather coarse structures, they simply cannot use any of the modern embedded processors. I'm not sure if designing and manufacturing your own CPU chip nowadays is really cheaper than custom-threading magnetic core memory...
CALL -151 OMG, you just touched something deep inside my memories... long lost, but fond memories... and I now turn very emotional and will have to hug somebody for that deep feelings that arise in me... *sigh* *snif*
Your moral basics tell you it's OK to claim someone elses work for your own? No, I'm talking about the idea, not the whole work. You see, having an idea is only 1%, the remaining 99% are the crafting of words describing that idea...
It's not about the sentences but also about the whole setup. While you are free to write a story about four kids and a dog and their adventures along the british coast, you would get into some troubles if it would be about two boys and two girls and a dog who find a lost pirate treasure and solve a criminal case on the side... especially if one of the girls wants to look like a boy. Then it'd be considered a rip-off of a Enid Blython novel.
So while it wouldn't be possible to write another book about Harry Potter and his friends, it would be possible to write about another kid that gets its education in a school for sorcerors (say, the MIT-equivalent if Hogwarts was Harvard), set in a universe with the same rules as H.P.
Or you could call him Hairy Porter and do a parody...
Unfortunately your 'moral basics' don't count for much in court. Unless my moral basics conincide with the law...:-) And you haven't shown that they don't.
Regarding sequels: yes I can write a sequel to H.P., as long as I don't use the same names, which may be trademarked. So while it is surely not possible to have Hairy Porter himself in such a sequel (except if it is clearly a parody), I can write a book that tells the story of a different kid and its adventures in Hogwarts. I may not be permitted to mention the name of the school or of the now-famous teachers, but there is no way anybody can prevent me from telling a story about a kid at a sorcerer-school...
Only the words describing an idea can be copyrighted. So while it has been common courtesy to ask an author before you write novels set in his or her universe, it is not required by law. And this is rightly so, because the work lies in crafting the words, not in having the idea.
If I would write another H.P. novel, I would have all the work, so I should get the money, no? You might say that Rowling developed all the characters and should be compensated for that work. I say, she already has been compensated und I had to work hard to get the feeling for the characters and "get them right". So I clearly should be compensated for that work also. The only thing that Rowling can try to enforce is the "Harry Potter" trademark.
But of course greed makes you see things differently...
(IANAL, so my information about and interpretation of copyright law may be wrong, but my moral basics tell me that this is the way it should be)
I support the idea of having a lexicon/wiki/whatever. But going out and trying to sell the information that is inside the books is taking it too far. Wrong. Information is free (well, it used to be and it definitely should). It is the physical representation of that information that gets protection, via copyright or patents.
So Rowling is clearly in the wrong if she insists that the whole H.P. universe is protected because she invented it. Only her words describing that universe are protected. The lexicon has every right to collect and write about each and every item in that universe, using the exact names and concepts and so forth. But it must not use any of Rowlings sentences to do so...
Tie patents to natural persons. Make them non-transferable, only licensable. All licensing agreements have to be esablished direktly between the inventor and the license taker.
See? No more IP-only companies and patent-portfolios any more...
Well, instead of stopping to buy music I'd suggest you start buying from the honest ones like http://www.magnatune.com/ where not only artists get 50% of what you pay, the music is without DRM and you can listen to everything beforehand and decide if you really like it...
Oh, yoda-talk? Maybe I can be of some help? But how can I make you see the fucking clue? Still, thank you that you still invest so much time into this conversation...
How is it possible that someone so sophisticated in the usage of words describing female genitalia is making himself dependend upon answering again and again and thus continuing a relationship that may best be described as stockholm-syndrom situation?
Ah, your psychological background comes from being a patient, not a student, right?
"Sorry cunt, but I have no time for idiots like you"
I didn't read any of your post, again.
Read that until you get it, or better yet, have someone smarter than you read it to you and explain it. I'm reading it, over and over again! But still, please, I'm begging you, I desperately need your help! Can you please read it to me aloud? Maybe then I will understand why your use of words describing female genitalia is so abundant.
By the way, what does behavioral psychology say about a situation like this? I feel like slipping into a stockholm syndrom situation here...
Slashdot Mirror
I've been following the patent and IP discussions closely and I am wondering if there could be an easy fix for all that mess:
Make the copy- and patent rights non-transferrable.
Think about it, it was a human that created the thing in the first place, so why should a non-human (corporation) be allowed to own it?
Most of the problems stem from BigCorps with lot$ of money owning the rights, and as we all know, anonymous corporations don't have morals. So a creator/inventor can still cash in upon licensing the invention or having a corporation protect his copyright for a slice of the share, but there would be no way to assemble a patent portfolio in the first place. Thus IP-only firms would have a hard time, because they wouldn't own anything, just representing one or a group of inventors.
If NASA were to replace the shuttle computers they would need to have their own CPUs manufactured with rather coarse structures, they simply cannot use any of the modern embedded processors. I'm not sure if designing and manufacturing your own CPU chip nowadays is really cheaper than custom-threading magnetic core memory...
It's not about the sentences but also about the whole setup. While you are free to write a story about four kids and a dog and their adventures along the british coast, you would get into some troubles if it would be about two boys and two girls and a dog who find a lost pirate treasure and solve a criminal case on the side... especially if one of the girls wants to look like a boy. Then it'd be considered a rip-off of a Enid Blython novel.
So while it wouldn't be possible to write another book about Harry Potter and his friends, it would be possible to write about another kid that gets its education in a school for sorcerors (say, the MIT-equivalent if Hogwarts was Harvard), set in a universe with the same rules as H.P.
Or you could call him Hairy Porter and do a parody...
Regarding sequels: yes I can write a sequel to H.P., as long as I don't use the same names, which may be trademarked. So while it is surely not possible to have Hairy Porter himself in such a sequel (except if it is clearly a parody), I can write a book that tells the story of a different kid and its adventures in Hogwarts. I may not be permitted to mention the name of the school or of the now-famous teachers, but there is no way anybody can prevent me from telling a story about a kid at a sorcerer-school...
...will be resolved by this mission.
See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYMzVkhkrqA
Only the words describing an idea can be copyrighted. So while it has been common courtesy to ask an author before you write novels set in his or her universe, it is not required by law. And this is rightly so, because the work lies in crafting the words, not in having the idea.
If I would write another H.P. novel, I would have all the work, so I should get the money, no? You might say that Rowling developed all the characters and should be compensated for that work. I say, she already has been compensated und I had to work hard to get the feeling for the characters and "get them right". So I clearly should be compensated for that work also. The only thing that Rowling can try to enforce is the "Harry Potter" trademark.
But of course greed makes you see things differently...
(IANAL, so my information about and interpretation of copyright law may be wrong, but my moral basics tell me that this is the way it should be)
So Rowling is clearly in the wrong if she insists that the whole H.P. universe is protected because she invented it. Only her words describing that universe are protected. The lexicon has every right to collect and write about each and every item in that universe, using the exact names and concepts and so forth. But it must not use any of Rowlings sentences to do so...
Tie patents to natural persons. Make them non-transferable, only licensable. All licensing agreements have to be esablished direktly between the inventor and the license taker.
See? No more IP-only companies and patent-portfolios any more...
Well, instead of stopping to buy music I'd suggest you start buying from the honest ones like http://www.magnatune.com/ where not only artists get 50% of what you pay, the music is without DRM and you can listen to everything beforehand and decide if you really like it...
Thanks for your continuous share of infinite wisdom. I'm learning from you with every reply you make...
Hmm, I doubt that you can remember my arguments, so they aren't wrong anymore. I have clearly won this argument.
Oh, then I'll finally descend to your level, in a few months, hooray! I'm looking forward to it. Life should be much simpler then...
Oh, that's easy, I just imagine what you would do. But unfortunately most of the time I fail to reach that low... but I keep trying.
Oh, you peeked? But that violates our contract. You said you wouldn't read my postings... :-(((
And please, I'm a nackig idiot savant. Thank you.
Oh, yoda-talk? Maybe I can be of some help? But how can I make you see the fucking clue? Still, thank you that you still invest so much time into this conversation...
Well, at least you had the time to add some bold formatting to your reply. I think we're making progress here...
So good to see that you still have time to answer my posts... :-)
Well, you MUST be much smarter than me. Or are you simply not able to explain it to me? That would be a pity...
How is it possible that someone so sophisticated in the usage of words describing female genitalia is making himself dependend upon answering again and again and thus continuing a relationship that may best be described as stockholm-syndrom situation?
Ah, your psychological background comes from being a patient, not a student, right?
I didn't read any of your post, again.
Read that until you get it, or better yet, have someone smarter than you read it to you and explain it. I'm reading it, over and over again! But still, please, I'm begging you, I desperately need your help! Can you please read it to me aloud? Maybe then I will understand why your use of words describing female genitalia is so abundant.
By the way, what does behavioral psychology say about a situation like this? I feel like slipping into a stockholm syndrom situation here...