----- Original Message ----- From: "Gametech" <voltronalpha at hotmail.com> To: <dragaera at dragaera.info> Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 4:10 AM Subject: Re: Artificial release dates and online publishing > Scott Ingram wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Gametech" <voltronalpha at hotmail.com> > > To: <dragaera at dragaera.info> > > Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 3:39 AM > > Subject: Re: Artificial release dates and online publishing > > > > > >> Scott Ingram wrote: > >>> ----- Original Message ----- > >>> From: "Gametech" <voltronalpha at hotmail.com> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 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 his copyright expired at say, 20 years, then next year I wouldn't > >>> have to talk to Steve. > >>> > >>> I could just take it. > >>> > >>> I don't think Steve would want to talk to me after that. > >>> > >>> -Scott > >> > >> Which would be his right, but his work has already affected you and > >> the things you do, > > > > Which is fine, because I paid for the book and the priviledge of > > reading it. > > > >> it's all relative anyway in a hundred years when we have > >> devices that help record all of our experiences copyright will be > >> broken, once I can access my database of experiences to full > >> reproductive measure the single exposure is all one will pay for and > >> not even likely that, I could just borrow something and then > >> experience it once and look back to that experience through a device > >> that reproduces it externally for me. Think of the computer evolved. > > > > So basically you're saying that you'll have a portable scanner and > > CD-burner. > > And maybe have it hard-wired into your brain so you can record the > > imput from your ears, or something? > > > > Yeah, portable computers rock, it's still piracy though. > > The *Hell* it is, My experiences are not owned by anyone and my right to > access a high quality record of *my* experiences is more fundamental than > anyones right to control what happens to media they created that they > 'willingly' put into the world. Whatever. I'll admit that today's copyright laws aren't built to accomodate your made-up technology. > Technically your memory is infringing thousands of copyrights.... It's such > a joke. > > Copyright, IP, Patents restrict the rights of the 'whole' for the increase > of rights for the entity (often a corporation). > So I better not take a picture of my room cause there is almost certainly > 100's of copyright infringements bound to happen... If I could extrapolate the contents of books or create perfect copies of pictures on your walls from the photo... then yes it would be a violation. But you'd really have to out of your way and break the *spirit* of the law as well as the letter to take pictures that detailed. Is it really so important to you that artists aren't given a degree of protection? Dammit, hard work needs to be respected. That's pretty fundamental, I think. > That's what fair use is supposed to be about, telling my computer to record > my memories would in no way violate fair use. You know, I thought about this, and maybe you're right. Then again, your experience of listening to some musician's CD might include your dog barking in the background and your mom screaming at you to come down to dinner. So what the hell, if you want to make a copy of that, go ahead. I wouldn't want to play that at a party though. > As reverse engineering a drug to save lives is also fair use, some things > are more fundamental than others even if they aren't legal. I'd really like to see an example of a case where a life was lost because the value of somebody's work was respected. And these drugs *don't* appear magically. People work hard and invest so that these drugs... and many many other drugs that don't work but are part of the path to finding drugs that *do* work, are created. If you start *stealing* from these people whenever it's convienient, then you aren't giving them much incentive to create the next new drug. Are there exceptions? Are there extreme cases (such as your memory copying machine and AIDS drugs). Yes, there are always extreme cases and exceptions. But you can't base laws on *exceptions* and *extreme cases*. Not every patent is a matter of life or death. And certainly, artwork and music in games is not a matter of life or death.