----- Original Message ----- From: "Gametech" <voltronalpha at hotmail.com> > Scott Ingram wrote: > >> 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 Your consumption is payment alone? WHAT? > >> 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. Charitable of you. Chances are, however, that you'd probably just pirate the game as well... > >> 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 Confused here... Are you referring to game creation, or the actual copying of software? > >> 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. Maybe you're referring to both? Well, a lot of effort is put into the creation of software and the game's artwork and the music. These people deserve to be paid, and the rights to their work protected. But hey, if you ask them nicely, maybe they'll grant you a licence to use their work. > >>> 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. Useful outcome to humanity is fine in the long run, but in the short run, I have to pay the mortgage with dimes. ... as well as the grocer, the kid who shovels my driveway... I keep on telling them that my work will have a useful outcome for humanty, but they just look at me cockeyed and hold their hands out for dimes. I say, "Hey, this is for HUMANITY". They say, "Who the hell are you to tell us what's good for humanity?" I reply, "Humanity does!". They say, "Well, when humanity shows up, have them talk to OUR landlords and grocers for us, then we'll see about shoveling your driveway, feeding you and housing you". Then they walk away. Man, when humanity shows up, my grocer, banker, and shoveler are gonna be in SO much trouble! -Scott