Copyright Protection
-
John Cardinal wrote:
there are people in the world who devote their lives to actually coming up with original ideas and they should be able to protect that idea if they developed it themselves
Absolutely not! If they want protection from patents, they should also come up with a work, product or something like that. You asked why someone would want to write books if the idea cannot be patented, well, why would/should someone read hundreds of thousands of pages of patented ideas before one can even begin to come up with an idea ? IMHO that would be a reason to not be productive and just mass patent ideas -not that someone would see money for their ideas. I don't want to be sued for having an idea that someone else has patented. Patents only protect those with the fat purses and not necessarily the inventors. And I doubt that a lot of research is to be done/paid for to come up with an idea. And even if it would be the case, imagine that: You have the ultimate-super-duper-mega idea. Someone else has come up with the same idea and if this guy/corp. has more money, you won't be able to get the patent. And if it was worse the other party could have even robbed your idea and would still be the legitimate holder of the patent.
Joerg Wiedenmann wrote:
Absolutely not! If they want protection from patents, they should also come up with a work, product or something like that.
You honestly think that a person who devotes their life to coming up with original and useful ideas should get no protection for their work? I'm glad I don't live in your world. In this world the work of people is valued and they have rights to protect that work and do with it as they see fit. Come up with a really good original idea that's worth millions then get back to me on this one!
Joerg Wiedenmann wrote:
You asked why someone would want to write books if the idea cannot be patented, well, why would/should someone read hundreds of thousands of pages of patented ideas before one can even begin to come up with an idea ?
So they don't get a lawsuit slapped in their ass of course. What kind of lazy ass argument is this? "Oh I can't come up with any ideas because it's too haaard to search through all those tens or even dozens of documents related to my idea at the patent office". That's just absurd.
Joerg Wiedenmann wrote:
You asked why someone would want to write books if the idea cannot be patented, well, why would/should
Ok, you are completely off the mark about what we're talking about, you're the second person who clearly doesn't understand the difference between a patent and a copyright, we're discussing two different things here, that's why they have different names. Look it up.
-
danmorin wrote: Am I a criminal?
John Cardinal wrote:
Well technically, yes you might be. You may be infringing on the patent of the forementioned someone who devoted their life to coming up with something which ethically is worse.
If someone spent his life producing something that took me a few weeks of work, then he is an idiot. I know I am not a criminal, and I never stole anything from anyone. Was the purpose of patents for protecting the inventor? I am the inventor of my own code, since I created it myself without copying from anyone else. I should have the right to enjoy the fruit of my labor without being harrassed by a greedy idiot. On the other hand, someone extorting money from inventors by claiming he is the owner of an idea because he "first" paid politicians (the government) for his right to legal plunder is not ethical.
John Cardinal wrote:
We are in Canada and a long time ago we were infringing on someone else's trademark, completely unknowingly, we got a very large package one day in the mail full of legal documents and complied immediately when we realized what we had done.
A trademark is a different issue, as it involves the identity of the product. If I pretend my product was built by Microsoft, then I am defrauding the customers purchasing the product as well as abusing the identity of another entity (Microsoft). A trademark infringement is somewhat similar to identity theft, and there must be provisions within the law to protect one's identity.
danmorin wrote:
A trademark is a different issue, as it involves the identity of the product.
No kidding, I used it as an example to illustrate the foolishness of using the head in the sand approach to any legal implication that might affect a person or business. Regardless of your beliefs you are operating within a system of laws and disagreeing with those laws isn't going to keep you out of jail or prevent you from losing all your worldly posessions in a costly lawsuit.
-
If you want an informed opinion about IP visit http://lessig.org/ and read some of Lawrence Lessig's books / watch this presentation: http://www.lessig.org/freeculture/ Most people that say, "I don't want my work stolen" have no idea what that means or how to better market themselves - installing / maintaining / servicing open source software packages will be the future for most smoes. If you write a wonderful little tool that nobody else has, then you'll be known in the community and your "prestige" will improve - fame and fortune will follow. That is for 95% of all software (OS / email / web browsers should all be free). There is always going to be niche markets - for instance, Corporate Tax Software because there's too much domain knowledge and frankly nobody is doing that for free, cause it sucks. On the bigger, movie / song side of things - the CP laws DO NOT protect the artist - they protect the publisher. I know several producers of film / commercials who's stance is basically, they get paid to produce a video and could give a crap about what happens to it once it has been delivered. If you are an artist, make your songs available to everyone, upload your mp3's for free to everyone - because when you come to town to play a gig, you'll pack the venue and that's where you'll make your money. Artists only receive penny's on the sale of CDs. If you are a hollywood producer of movies, with a 100 million dollar budget, you don't care what happens to your Mission Impossible III movie after it has been PRODUCED. You are doing what you love to do. It is the publisher (who backed the movie with 100 million dollars and want to see big moneys on their investment) who needs to protect that investment, and I understand that. But, after 7 years it is public domain and anyone can do anything they want with it. This is how we grow, how we invent, and what the USA originally stood for. If you don't get this, then you are a publisher - a leech on society - and the only reason you exist is because of other people's talents. Brian
Lawrence Lessig? Come on, he's a fringe freak and always has been on these issues. The only people taking him seriously are the slash dotties of the world and wired magazine. If you want to know about IP, consult a lawyer.
BrianJElliott wrote:
If you don't get this, then you are a publisher - a leech on society - and the only reason you exist is because of other people's talents.
Oh man, I can see I should just exit this discussion now, there are too many people with no real idea of how business or the world works to bother. Why do you think people take their work to a publisher, because someone holds a gun to their head? No, it's because they are contracting with the publisher to take care of a hell of a lot of work that they do not want to do on their own because they are artists and want to make a living doing their art. We run a software company, we create the software, we market the software and we sell the software, guess where 90% of the work is? (hint, it's not actually writing the software) Ok, that's it, I'm officially out of this discussion it's getting way too absurd with these mindless ill-informed opinions that are just pissing me off for no good reason when I have real work to do.
-
danmorin wrote:
A trademark is a different issue, as it involves the identity of the product.
No kidding, I used it as an example to illustrate the foolishness of using the head in the sand approach to any legal implication that might affect a person or business. Regardless of your beliefs you are operating within a system of laws and disagreeing with those laws isn't going to keep you out of jail or prevent you from losing all your worldly posessions in a costly lawsuit.
Oh well, some individuals have no respect for individual liberty. They love tyranny and legal plunder... as long as they can benefit from it. By the way, I don't have my head in the sand. I know the law, as well as the meaning and reach of a jurisdiction.
-
Oh well, some individuals have no respect for individual liberty. They love tyranny and legal plunder... as long as they can benefit from it. By the way, I don't have my head in the sand. I know the law, as well as the meaning and reach of a jurisdiction.
I like a system of laws because it protects me, what we are doing is hardly plunder and we benefit just adequately from it. If you want to operate outside the law at least be prepared for the consequences and don't ever sell any product in the United States.
-
I like a system of laws because it protects me, what we are doing is hardly plunder and we benefit just adequately from it. If you want to operate outside the law at least be prepared for the consequences and don't ever sell any product in the United States.
-
I am not against laws at all. The law should be there to prevent injustice. The law should not be a tool for [legal] plunder.
But that's the whole point I've been trying to make all these posts. :) The majority of the people / corporations who are using those laws are not plundering anything, just because a few very public cases show plunder doesn't mean that the majority of people using the system are doing the same. The copyright laws and systems in place are still completely valid in this day and age. The big entertainment industry stuff is just a sideline really to the the actual laws and systems. The patent laws and systems are clearly in need of a refreshement, particularly the systems that allow patents on things that are so commonplace and simple that there really is no thought involved in "inventing" them in the first place. This is the area of greatest need for reform. The trademark laws and systems are in place and working just fine.
-
Lawrence Lessig? Come on, he's a fringe freak and always has been on these issues. The only people taking him seriously are the slash dotties of the world and wired magazine. If you want to know about IP, consult a lawyer.
BrianJElliott wrote:
If you don't get this, then you are a publisher - a leech on society - and the only reason you exist is because of other people's talents.
Oh man, I can see I should just exit this discussion now, there are too many people with no real idea of how business or the world works to bother. Why do you think people take their work to a publisher, because someone holds a gun to their head? No, it's because they are contracting with the publisher to take care of a hell of a lot of work that they do not want to do on their own because they are artists and want to make a living doing their art. We run a software company, we create the software, we market the software and we sell the software, guess where 90% of the work is? (hint, it's not actually writing the software) Ok, that's it, I'm officially out of this discussion it's getting way too absurd with these mindless ill-informed opinions that are just pissing me off for no good reason when I have real work to do.
John Cardinal wrote:
If you want to know about IP, consult a lawyer.
Lawrence Lessig is a professor of law at Stanford and before that at Harvard. You, Mr. Cardinal, apparently are a manager of some sort, who I've never heard of - so I'll take Mr. Lessig's opinion over yours. Yes, selling & marketing software is hard work, so is making software - in most businesses it is a sybiotic relationship. I know and work with our salespeople - helping them with sales, presentations and implementations in addition to writing code and running projects. I ask for their help in writing stories of what features to write and how I can better the software to help them sell it. I can't do it all, so I obviously need help - and I'm not wired to sell - some people are really good at it and can't write code - so we work TOGETHER. Ok, I've read your other posts and mostly you say some good things. You are obviously a little peeved and have little tact when it comes to other peoples opinions (why are you on an opinion forum is beyond me). I have absolutely no problems with trademarks (except the idiots who try to trademark everyday words). I have problems with the current patent system because of squatters who say they come up with an idea and then wait for someone to actually implement it. I'm currently in the process of patenting one of the projects I pioneered because the company lawyers demand it - I personally don't think it is all that unique, but we employee a lot of lawyers and I do take them seriously (and btw - several of them had Lessig as a professor and think he's great). I work under Thompson corp who owns Westlaw (amoung many other co's). I do have problems with the current copyright laws because of the TIME change. It used to be 7 years - and that frankly was fine. At this point I can't copy Mickey Mouse even though he is as much a part of our culture as Mark Twain. If you think you should have rights to something for eternity, then please understand that all ideas come from something else and if nobody can ever grow an idea, we would not be here today. Give me an example of something that should be copyrighted for longer than 7 years and I'll honestly consider your opinions of why. Brian
-
John Cardinal wrote:
If your house is robbed some time you will be surprised at how your attitude changes about these things.
There is a clear difference between robbing material and/or someone's work vs an "robbing an idea". For instance, if I invent a new knot and someone is using my knot, it does not hurt me at all, however if someone is stealing my computer(s), then I cannot do my work. People think ideas belongs to them, as if they were the first in the world to originate such idea. Next, they file for a patent hoping they will be granted a monopoly on that idea and make a ton of money without lifting a finger. Again, there is a big difference between an idea and some intellectual work. For instance, writing code is more than an idea; it is some actual work. If someone copies your CPP files and re-compiles the executable without your permission, he/she is stealing your work (intellectual property). On the other hand, if someone wants to make a new application from scratch (such as a new search engine, web browser, image/vidoe/music/CAD editor), there should not be any law and/or patent to prevent him/her from creating something innovative. On the other hand, if there is a patent on an idea (such as a web browser), then the small developer cannot afford to pay the fees to get started. The proposed "Copyright Protection" is sponsored by large corporations to reduce competition by stiffing out the small developer to compete against them. By having tons of patents and regulations, many of us risk of being sued by large corporations claiming they own such and such idea. The other solution would be for us to work as slaves for those large corporations :(. As a rule of thumb, what politicians do benefits them and their friends - the large corporations. -- modified at 12:55 Tuesday 25th April, 2006
danmorin wrote:
For instance, writing code is more than an idea; it is some actual work. If someone copies your CPP files and re-compiles the executable without your permission, he/she is stealing your work (intellectual property).
Copying an idea, a design, is no different to copying the bytes contained in a CPP file, or an MP3 file. I have been involved in ventures which harnessed ALL of my years of experience, everything I've learned, every lesson I had to go through, to come up with some NEW way of doing something, only for that idea to be copied by a company with more resources behind it, who can take it further, faster, bigger. And they didn't have to go through the years of learning and practise to get to the point I had to. So, is that fair?
-
People can do that now, but how are authors to make a living doing it if they have no copyright protection? Seriously some of the arguments here I'm seeing are pretty pie in the sky and childish. People have every right to make a living doing whatever they do within the bounds of the law. The only protection people have that allows them to make a living writing books (for example) is copyright law. A lot of people here seem to think that's a silly antiquated notion, clearly those people are not making a living writing software and selling it.
John Cardinal wrote:
A lot of people here seem to think that's a silly antiquated notion, clearly those people are not making a living writing software and selling it.
I think that's the main divide here. I'm also in the camp where my living, my child's welfare, my healthcare, my bills, all stack up against whether I can make a living selling software that I design and implement. I did some studies for a product that has no copy protection mechanism, just a 'please pay for this'. And similar software that utilizes 'weak' copy protection (which can obviously be broken). The 'weak' copy protected software causes purchases to the order of x20 (compared to unprotected software). Relying on the world's good will, dear punters, is simply not a way to make a living today. What the Sony's want to do is have 'unbreakable' copy protection, maybe to the extent of policing-the-hell out of everything. I dunno. I'm not a Sony, so I don't know what's called for. I just know that you HAVE to protect your rights. Everyone out there, who ISN'T a provider/writer/artist, seems to have the mindset that they can do whatever the hell they like with your creation.
-
It's not about the value of the product it's about the fact that people say "it's too expensive so it's fair for me to just download it for free" when we all know it is *not* in fact too expensive for that market.
John Cardinal wrote:
It's not about the value of the product it's about the fact that people say "it's too expensive so it's fair for me to just download it for free" when we all know it is *not* in fact too expensive for that market.
I agree here. It's always the rich who say they can't afford something. The difference with current times is that it's just too-damn-easy to copy/steal music/movies, etc. And most people who do it like to justify their actions however they can. It was a LOT harder to copy a book 30 years ago (with a photocopier), which is probably why book culture has lasted as long as it has. Juts stand back and see what happens to current music-culture without it being protected. Wake up sometime, say in tens years time, and remember how there used to be REALLY GOOD music once.
-
People can do that now, but how are authors to make a living doing it if they have no copyright protection? Seriously some of the arguments here I'm seeing are pretty pie in the sky and childish. People have every right to make a living doing whatever they do within the bounds of the law. The only protection people have that allows them to make a living writing books (for example) is copyright law. A lot of people here seem to think that's a silly antiquated notion, clearly those people are not making a living writing software and selling it.
Hmm, looks like what I said can be understood as if I don't want copyright protection - I sure do. Maybe I should have phrased it differently.
-
John Cardinal wrote:
It's not about the value of the product it's about the fact that people say "it's too expensive so it's fair for me to just download it for free" when we all know it is *not* in fact too expensive for that market.
I agree here. It's always the rich who say they can't afford something. The difference with current times is that it's just too-damn-easy to copy/steal music/movies, etc. And most people who do it like to justify their actions however they can. It was a LOT harder to copy a book 30 years ago (with a photocopier), which is probably why book culture has lasted as long as it has. Juts stand back and see what happens to current music-culture without it being protected. Wake up sometime, say in tens years time, and remember how there used to be REALLY GOOD music once.
gpsmobiler wrote:
It was a LOT harder to copy a book 30 years ago (with a photocopier), which is probably why book culture has lasted as long as it has.
or they could have just lend it to someone else.
gpsmobiler wrote:
Wake up sometime, say in tens years time, and remember how there used to be REALLY GOOD music once.
I already do and therefore only listen to free web-radio. But that's a matter of taste.
-
It's not about the value of the product it's about the fact that people say "it's too expensive so it's fair for me to just download it for free" when we all know it is *not* in fact too expensive for that market.
John Cardinal wrote:
It's not about the value of the product
I understood it like that. They monitor how much money they have and think "I want my piece of the pie" and make prices based on that data rather than the products' actual value. It *is* too expensive (for me, and that's why I [turn it down|abstain from it|do without it] don't know the exact word), but *no* reason to steal it. I can wait until it is on radio/TV and should it vanish there I won't bother, it's all crap (junk food for the brain with the main point of a "chick" in a leading role) what they are producing at the moment (at least for my taste). This may sound ignorant but I'm the consumer and I'm only going to spend money for stuff I really want consume. I'm not going to labour for 3 hours to be able to buy a DVD movie with a running time of 1.5 hours unless it rocks and I want to see it more than once and that happens about 0.5x/year.
-
Joerg Wiedenmann wrote:
Why ? The USA is not the whole world, only a part of it.
Really? Geez, here in Canada we didn't know that, thanks for clearing that up for us, I'll pass it on.
Joerg Wiedenmann wrote:
There are countries where software can only be patented under special circumstances or not at all and if he doesn't sell his work in contries where such a patent applies I don't see how he can infringe on a patent.
Well you're right, but try selling licenses in those countries and see how well that goes for you.
Joerg Wiedenmann wrote:
And if someone requires a life to come up with something, he/she/it can hardly earn the fruits of his work.
Maybe they want to pass that on to their children, it's what they worked their whole life to achieve and they want to see their children get wealthy implementing it in a product or service, oh, but wait, no they should have all their rights to their ideas stripped from them. That's the most cancerous idea I've heard in a long time, congratulations "comrade".
John Cardinal wrote:
Well you're right, but try selling licenses in those countries and see how well that goes for you.
read this as well ?
Joerg Wiedenmann wrote:
and if he doesn't sell his work in contries where such a patent applies I don't see how he can infringe on a patent
John Cardinal wrote:
Maybe they want to pass that on to their children
This works for copyright protection, not for patents - patents are limited in time (up to 20 years in germany) and that's hardly a whole life. And if someone couldn't make up for it or more within 20 years I would say the product is a failure anyway. A teacher told me once "What a human brain is able to come up with can be redone by another brain at any time again". Would be intersting to see what you'd be doing if someone patented "YOUR idea".
-
Joerg Wiedenmann wrote:
Absolutely not! If they want protection from patents, they should also come up with a work, product or something like that.
You honestly think that a person who devotes their life to coming up with original and useful ideas should get no protection for their work? I'm glad I don't live in your world. In this world the work of people is valued and they have rights to protect that work and do with it as they see fit. Come up with a really good original idea that's worth millions then get back to me on this one!
Joerg Wiedenmann wrote:
You asked why someone would want to write books if the idea cannot be patented, well, why would/should someone read hundreds of thousands of pages of patented ideas before one can even begin to come up with an idea ?
So they don't get a lawsuit slapped in their ass of course. What kind of lazy ass argument is this? "Oh I can't come up with any ideas because it's too haaard to search through all those tens or even dozens of documents related to my idea at the patent office". That's just absurd.
Joerg Wiedenmann wrote:
You asked why someone would want to write books if the idea cannot be patented, well, why would/should
Ok, you are completely off the mark about what we're talking about, you're the second person who clearly doesn't understand the difference between a patent and a copyright, we're discussing two different things here, that's why they have different names. Look it up.
John Cardinal wrote:
Come up with a really good original idea that's worth millions then get back to me on this one!
Here's one: I would patent the idea of using toilet paper as well as the general idea of the cleaning up after such "business". Another one: I would patent the idea of using a display to display stuff (words, pictures, diagrams, pixels).
John Cardinal wrote:
you're the second person who clearly doesn't understand the difference between a patent and a copyright
I absolutely do - I was merely commenting your "patents for ideas" idea.
John Cardinal wrote:
Ok, you are completely off the mark about what we're talking about
Agreed, this discussion is off-topic and i appologize to everyone for my off-topic replies.
-
danmorin wrote:
For instance, writing code is more than an idea; it is some actual work. If someone copies your CPP files and re-compiles the executable without your permission, he/she is stealing your work (intellectual property).
Copying an idea, a design, is no different to copying the bytes contained in a CPP file, or an MP3 file. I have been involved in ventures which harnessed ALL of my years of experience, everything I've learned, every lesson I had to go through, to come up with some NEW way of doing something, only for that idea to be copied by a company with more resources behind it, who can take it further, faster, bigger. And they didn't have to go through the years of learning and practise to get to the point I had to. So, is that fair?
First of all, who said it was your idea? Being the first to pay someone else (a politician or bureaucrat) does not mean it is your idea. There are probalby many othershaving this idea before you, however those never paid, either because the idea was too simple (in their mind) to worth a patent, or they could not afford the legal paperwork. Ideas should not belong only to the "wealthy" capable to afford paying politicians. The idea of a patent was to promote innovation. If someone came with some NEW way of doing something, then good for him/her. You claim someone copied your idea, but those guys propably went to the same learning process as you did. In fact, I would venture they are not aware of your work, so how could they have copied anything from you? If you are so smart, why didn't you came with the NEW way of doing something better than they did?