http://www.techdirt.com/...-copyright-monopoly.shtml

^-- I agree completely, copyright is a relic of the guild era and makes no sense in the modern world.

is pretty much for what I stand for, copyright needs to be used only in fields of research (if your research created results, then you deserve at least 5 years of legislative protection), copyright on everything else is downright retarded, musicians can just upload their music and place a little donation option, and they would likely get paid much more than what they do now :/

who has the copyright to the wheel?

good one oats :)

someone has copyright on the ball bearing though..

may i have all the code for Earth Empires for free now? :-P

This article looks very interesting. Will post again a little later when I have time to finish reading it. *bump*

Shouldn't you be walling instead of posting ridiculous long websites?

that's same kind of question than who owns copyrights to car.

different.

You can go and make a game called EarthEmpiress and try to copy the game to the best of your ability, but the moment you steal the code that is theft, is a different thing from making something fairly similar/same from scratch :)

LOL. how is it theft if they give it to me? besides, if the copyright laws aren't being enforced, how is it a crime? ain't nobody going to come and arrest me.

No, "stealing" or using the code would just be copyright infringement.

But do you see the code available anywhere? This is closer to a trade secret ;)

hmmmm

I was going around the lines of him stealing the information in some way (hacking, or physical removal of equipment) and both are illegal even without copyright BS :)

and yeah IF they give it to you, that is another thing :)

"hacking" is illegal yes; accessing without permission is effectively trespassing i think no?

so yea.... i don't think you need copyright to prevent somebody from copying your code, assuming you don't just post the code in the open

GL with SOPA...

You created something and you are sharing it with me under my agreement to comply with your rules. In this case, copyright rules + ingame rules. What's wrong with that? If the RHCP perform the best song ever and decide not to release it then that's their perogative. Or, put more simply, you don't own what you failed to create.

The water is more murky if you come up with the same idea independently.

mhmm but should there still be protection for years after somebody's death?

I'd support reducing copyright term to like... 5 years...

Trademarks and copyrights are really just commonly-agreed upon and enforced legal contracts. You could certainly argue to reduce the years, type of items covered, and whatnot, but I think people saying "I think it should be free therefore I'm just going to take it" is a little ridiculous.

I don't care for SOPA legislation or for the notorious RIAA, but I do believe in the concept of ownership and rules. And I live in a society where I have accepted the notion the basic premise of living by those contracts or suffering the consequences. At the same time I have the right to petition/argue/speak out for change to said aforementioned rules or run for office to change the rules myself.

As for your death point--how long do you think it would take some major MNCs to take advantage of the trademark/copyright ending upon death of an individual? I gurantee you Assassin would become owner of Raiders-related trademarks in minutes if it were possible.

well i know, but, for example, should Johnny Cash's cover of Hurt remain under copyright until 2100? that, to me, seems a little weird.

The fact that you rarely see the song "Happy Birthday To You" sung in a movie is due to the fact that it's still claimed as under copyright, and will be indefinitely as these things get extended.

Technically speaking, hundreds of millions of people owe Warner license fees for performing Happy Birthday To You in public; this, to me, seems simply stupid; these things are part of our culture.

And sure they should be protected if they make something; but not indefinitely; for a limited time giving them a limited time to recoup their costs.

Copyright is a relatively new concept, yet we have art and culture for years before then.


The death thing is particularly relevant with books, where it's Authors Life + 50 in Canada and i think +75 in the US ?


Copyright is supposed to be weaker than patents, yet it is considerably stronger it seems; how would this community react if patents were (retroactively as is often done in copyright) extended to authors life + 95 years; The lightbulb, for example, would still be under patent by Edison until 2026 in that case (he died in 1931). One could argue that that would be a bad thing for society.

Likewise it's bad for society to have indefinite copyright.

Owning the copyright doesn't mean that you're forbidden from allowing others to use it freely or that you will hunt down those that do. Hence some owners of copyrights/patents/etc freely share the information for reproduction and improvement.

You can cite examples ad infinitum, but it's really irrelevant to the point that original ideas were created that profit. What you're arguing for is a restructuring of the contractual rules governing said invention/idea/etc. That's fine and well and ought to follow the proper format that every other change must follow.

Patent/copyright is not as new of a concept as you may think. If you want to spin the debate on me then you would be wise to point out how the original colonies stole manufacturing technology from GB during revolutionary times. Again, this stuff routes back to commercial contracts. If you don't like it, change it. But the basic notion of agreeing to abide by the rules or laws is sort of a central tenament to our societies.

Oh, and as for the light bulb, tons of people improved and patented better variations of this very same idea. Hence how we got flourescent bulbs, LEDs, etc etc etc.

Oh they share them freely do they? So I can just get music/movies for free (legally?) and do with them what i will?

They're not necessarily ideas; they can just be performance. Or some random mullings; copyright barely extends to the 1600's, and patent is newer than that even.

And yes, if I could I would change it; but that's up to the multinational corps buying politicians these days, not individuals or even classes of consumers.

and sure there's been improvements, but it's good that patents expire after 20 years so that the technology can be more widely distributed, bring costs down, and more readily modified when there is wider access.

Patent history is actually thought to date back to the middle ages around 12th century, but the more modernized version can be traced back to Venice about three centuries later. I don't know what makes you think patents existed 1600 or later, but you're mistaken unless you're considering it as US patents and then, well, yes the country hasn't existed that long.

I said people/companies can share their copyrighted information freely. You can own images in clipart for instance, but allow them to be used freely. And then we get into the whole fair use doctrine. But that's another story for another day.

If you don't believe you can change anything because MNCs own everything than what exactly is the point of even discussing what you think should be changed? Either you're really interested in sharing what you already deem to be an entirely valueless opinion or you like to hear yourself type. I suppose both are possible. With that said, I disagree with your characterization of the political process and actually laugh inside because I think it's moving the other direction and quickly. The prevalence of information and ability to launch a citizen-based grassroots movement has never been easier. This ability has led to toppling of foreign regimes and the power isn't decreasing. But alas, that's another subject for another day.

copyright i said;



apparently patents are slightly earlier



Why do I state my opinion if I don't think I can change US Law? I happen to not live in the US, so i pontificate from my soap box that lets me talk to Americans that could, possibly, affect the process, though i still maintain the US Congress is largely bought and paid for. Fortunately, in Canada, our campaign funding laws are much more focused on individuals, and thus our political process is much more heavily influenced by individuals; so here I actually have a chance. But American laws have a weird way of spilling over the boarder (if you'd respond about why should i care if i'm not in the US) to Canada.


Sure people *CAN* freely share information; but what if, like the music industry, they simply lock everything away in a vault unless you pay through the nose for information which is infinitely copyable and thus lose their value on a per-copy basis. Or academic papers/journals and the insane licensing fees to read them. &etc


I know what you mean about grass roots movements, but it's also made massive surveillance and enforcement of things much easier too. It will be interesting to see how things play out; I certainly hope your instincts are correct, but I tend to be somewhat cynical about those matters.