Gametech 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. Well yes, and its still an option :) But most people actually like the concept of ownership. I mean consider what would happen to the music an d publishing industry if copyright laws were revoked. Reminds me of one of my favourite jokes: Why do anarchists drink herbal tea? Beacuse proper tea is theft. > 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. > Umm don't patents expire in 17 years in the US or did they get "Mickey Mouse Billed" too. But yes it's a real issue. > 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. As I understand it, the idea is that if you spend many many years and quite a lot of money reasarching an idea you are entitled to recoup some of that. The problem is that sometimes the idea is so useful that it probably shouldn't be locked away in a monopoly or the idea is so basic that it shouldn't be patentable, like one-click-shopping. In the former situation perhaps society should compensate the inventor. > 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. > Umm the computer gaming industry? You mean like Sony Playstation? As in mod chips infringe our copyright? I take your word for the fact that patenting in gaming design is uncommon. But I suspect copyright is enforced. As an experiment start burning games to CD and floging them on the internet and see how long it is till you get a visit from some lawyers. Trust me if you spent 3 years writing a game and then some punk started making there own copies and flogging them at three quarters of the price openly you might think that copyright was a useful set of laws. Andrew.