Dragaera

Artificial release dates and online publishing

Tue Dec 10 22:34:29 PST 2002

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 :)
>