----- Original Message ----- From: "Gametech" <voltronalpha at hotmail.com> To: <dragaera at dragaera.info> Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 12:25 AM Subject: Re: Artificial release dates and online publishing > Andrew Bailey wrote: > > Frank Mayhar wrote: > >> Andrew Bailey wrote: > > > > The entirety of the intellectual property issue is very interesting. > > > Intellectual property is a myth you *can't* own an idea like an object. > There are laws that govern this 'idea' and well, if most of society wasn't > capitalistic things would be very very differerent. Art would be based > purely on it's value of statement, Software would be based purely on it's > capability and performance, and people would re-use the same 'nearly > flawless code' in module form. (some do that in the open source world) > > I only pay for intellectual property when I see myself being served, if it's > the flip my consumption is payment alone, If it came between not running a > pirate version of WinXp and paying for it I'd just as well not use the > product *Becuase I'm not paying a company to hold it's monopoly* They aren't > losing a coustomer, I *will* never buy a license for it, hence no loss for > them. There are gains for them, I might pay for a software title they > produce that runs on said operating system which I wouldn't if I used some > 'other' OS. > > I would respect Intellectual property Laws a lot more if they expired in a > reasonable fashion, that is to say if everything got released to the public > domain after 7 - 10 - even 15 years the world would be a richer place for > the human efforts put forth. But no, it's not the case people feel the need > to strangle every last dime out of a piece of media/software. Well, Jhereg was published in 1983. Do you want to tell Steve that we get to publish our own editions of it? > If you can understand it, apply it, use it, and it's an 'idea' it's as much > yours as someone else that has those abilities. Copyright and Patents are > not neccesary to succeed, Hell look at the gaming industry. You can't patent > (or rather you generally can't -- occasionaly some moron at the patent > office grants an absurd patent related to gaming) or it isn't industry > standards to patent games, There is a HUGE ammount of 'piracy' involved in > games (both by users and makers), a huge ammount of 'borrowing of ideas' > and a huge ammount of success in the industry and all of it if not legal is > essentially treated as legal, people don't make a buisness out of 'copying' > someone elses work, becuase someone elses has done it, the lack of > regulations are the regulations, it sets the playing field - why as a > consumer would you buy 'Pikman' if 'Pacman' already existed, it's about > ideas, free ideas that once you are exposed to you *own* (like anyone else > whom is capable, etc, etc.) and you want to be exposed to as many ideas as > possible to create unseen combinations and learn from others ideas. > Copyright, patent, IP inhibits combinational artistic interaction. Unless of > course you are *very* rich. Games are works of art, you'd have to copyright them. Methods for interacting with a virtual environment, however, can be patented. I'd have to see specific examples of how patents and copyright limit expression, however. I believe inventors/artists *should* be protected. > > My take on it is that it shouldn't be dictated by market forces, > > mainly because this has lead to the situation that we have today, > > cartels. But rather with more consideration to the affect on society > > as a whole. There really has to be some kind of public interest > > criteria involved in the application of copyright law. Getting that > > right however is difficult. > > > > For instance the entire "gene patenting" issue is about to become very > > interesting in australia. At least one state government is going to > > start agitating for changes to federal copyright law so that basically > > public hospitals can continue to provide some of the genetic screening > > test that they up until recently did provide for free. Now the owner > > of that "gene patent" has signed an exclusive license agreement with a > > private company, and no longer can these test be provided. > > > > Andrew. Yeah, but without patent protection, nobody would have invested a dime in the research necessary to create that genetic test. Anyway, in 15-20 years that patent will expire and it will be in the public domain. That seems like a long time, but it's not really. As for patents vs. public interest, I believe that in the situation involving Aids drugs, some exceptions are being made. I could be wrong on that, it's late and I'm too tired to Google :) -Scott Ingram