Scott Ingram wrote: > ----- 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? What is the point? I don't want to publish my own edition of Jhereg, if you do you ought to talk to Steve. > >> 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. Games are generally public domain the instant they become available, that is the concepts within them are. If I wanted to make a game that played like monopoly, I mean exactly like monopoly All I'd have to do is change the images and names. It'd be legal. As I feel this has very little value in our world I haven't done so. > > 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. > Good I don't want them to invest a dime I want them to invest effort based on it's useful outcome to humanity. > 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. Putting the intrests of the individual above the needs of humanity is flat out cracked concept. > > I could be wrong on that, it's late and I'm too tired to Google :) >