Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Intellectual property

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Intellectual property

    The US Constitution in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8, says:

    To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause

    Is this still a good idea? Should it be removed, reduced, or extended?

    Note in the article how SCOTUS has wormed its way into allowing de facto eternal copyright through unlimited extensions.
    Dude, seriously, WHAT handkerchief?

    snooggums' density principal: "The more dense a population, the more dense a population."

    Iliana: "You're a great friend but if we're ever chased by zombies I'm tripping you."

  • #2
    Re: Intellectual property

    Oh, and here's the earlier thread on Piracy:

    http://www.tacticalgamer.com/sandbox/157552-piracy.html
    Dude, seriously, WHAT handkerchief?

    snooggums' density principal: "The more dense a population, the more dense a population."

    Iliana: "You're a great friend but if we're ever chased by zombies I'm tripping you."

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Intellectual property

      I think there should be hard limits imposed, such as:
      1) 10 years after a work has been furnished and made available to the public should that work be then considered apart of the public domain. This would apply to books, movies, software, etc. A creative commons like license would be attached requiring attribution and any subsequent works built upon it to also be made free with the same license. Meaning Half Life 1 would be open to legally free distribution by the November of this year (10 years from it's original release). Valve could still sell the game on Steam offering up their own download service, ties to steamworks, etc. as a reason to still sell. However if someone was to download or share with friends it would be considered fair use.
      2) Copyrights not acted upon within 2 years are no longer protected and open up to the public.
      3) Copyrighted names, etc. only hold if a previous work or current work has been acted upon to a fulfilling amount. For example, Blizzard can still maintain any variation of "Starcraft" due to a previous entry of the game starting with Starcraft 1. However is someone wished to make their own game using completely their own art they could release a free game as long as they earned no money for it (allowing fan projects, parodies, etc. to remain).
      4) The original artist no matter what circumstances still holds rights and claim to that work. In other words Toby Garb, original creator of the Tomb Raider series could make his own game despite the rights being signed away to another company. Only as long as his content did not infringe on the new original concepts and assets under development by the company now holding the rights.
      5) Content is only protected if the artist of which is being paid a substantial portion of the sales money. In other words no more publishers for music companies soaking up 90% of the profits on music sales. Otherwise that music may be shared and considered fair use. Maybe something like 25% minimum must go directly to the artist.

      When it comes down to it, I think it's still a good idea. However I think legal maneuvering has vastly outpaced the intent and time period of the law.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Intellectual property

        http://boingboing.net/2011/10/08/wip...ense-fees.html

        In Gurry's view, the Web would have been better off if it had been locked away in patents, and if every user of the Web had needed to pay a license fee to use it (and though Gurry doesn't say so, this would also have meant that the patent holder would have been able to choose which new Web sites and technologies were allowed, and would have been able to block anything he didn't like, or that he feared would cost him money).
        SlashDot discussion: http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/10/...d-and-Licensed
        Dude, seriously, WHAT handkerchief?

        snooggums' density principal: "The more dense a population, the more dense a population."

        Iliana: "You're a great friend but if we're ever chased by zombies I'm tripping you."

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Intellectual property

          Ugh. Seems that every organization that uses the word "Intellectual" in its name is anything but.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Intellectual property

            Latest Congressional IP action, as reported by "Demand Progress":

            http://www.zeropaid.com/bbs/threads/...Censorship(PR)

            Blog article is referring to:

            http://thecacp.com/blogs/reality-che...-scare-tactics

            Electronic Frontier Foundation's coverage:

            https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/1...99s-worse-ever

            https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/1...break-internet
            Dude, seriously, WHAT handkerchief?

            snooggums' density principal: "The more dense a population, the more dense a population."

            Iliana: "You're a great friend but if we're ever chased by zombies I'm tripping you."

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Intellectual property

              I think anything that hits the internet is free.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Intellectual property

                What do you mean, Lassiter? Legally, it's not. That's the problem.
                Dude, seriously, WHAT handkerchief?

                snooggums' density principal: "The more dense a population, the more dense a population."

                Iliana: "You're a great friend but if we're ever chased by zombies I'm tripping you."

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Intellectual property

                  I mean exactly what I said.

                  For example, I don't see why it should be illegal to download all things for free on the internet. All information is free. Everything is information. We don't make people pay to go into a public library and rent a movie so why should we on the internet? I think it's silly.

                  Also it's not a problem at all in Afghanistan as they have no copyright laws an interesting little tid bit.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Intellectual property

                    That line of thinking would kill anything in print, software, anything that can be contained in a digital file, which is just about half of all goods produced in this day and age, if not more. That would kill innovation, after all what's the point of making a video game, or writing a book, if it can "hit the internet" and be free? Markets such as China and Afghanistan are a problem simply because they don't respect copyright which means us normal users are saddled with DRM, region specific issues, always online connections, etc.

                    Information is not free. Public libraries are kept "free" by tax dollars. Are you implying that all digital goods should be freely available to the public and can be subsidized by our government?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Intellectual property

                      Originally posted by Sirusblk View Post
                      That line of thinking would kill anything in print, software, anything that can be contained in a digital file, which is just about half of all goods produced in this day and age, if not more. That would kill innovation, after all what's the point of making a video game, or writing a book, if it can "hit the internet" and be free? Markets such as China and Afghanistan are a problem simply because they don't respect copyright which means us normal users are saddled with DRM, region specific issues, always online connections, etc.

                      Information is not free. Public libraries are kept "free" by tax dollars. Are you implying that all digital goods should be freely available to the public and can be subsidized by our government?
                      Oh don't be so harsh, innovation isn't going to go away. If someone produces information solely for profit I'd question their morals. Information is needed to educate the public to successively innovate the next idea to sustain humanity in general. They didn't make money for inventing the wheel and you know they spread how to do it like wild fire, fire too.

                      To answer your question, "what's the point of making a video game, or writing a book, if it can "hit the internet" and be free?" Most game designers do what they do because they love to do it, many I've talked to said they'd be fine not getting paid to do it and would do it anyways. Same goes for writers and for both of those it's the publishers who are wanting the money mainly. If that wasn't true we wouldn't see the exact same game come out every year with another addition. That idea can spread passed publishing in general, Look at Apple's iPhone and iPad series. We knew they had the cameras and they could have done it in 3g or iPad 1 but no, gotta milk that sucker.

                      Yes, I assumed everyone knew taxes were paid, and we spend 25% or more of our GDP on defense so yeah why not I'm sure we could cut a politician or two's ear mark and do it. I doubt it would ever happen though sadly. It's funny how I'm classified as a Constitutional Republican yet I just said that.

                      As for China and Afghanistan that's what we get for not using a true free market system, dog eat dog. Not us we have to stay between two lines while our friends across the pacific can just step out mess with us and step back in without any repercussion.


                      I think the perfect economic system would be based on energy and raw materials as a currency not paper bills that are pretty much worthless. Whoohoo for a Governmental choke hold.

                      #thinktankin'

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Intellectual property

                        I think it's an interesting concept but our country is so wrapped up in this capitalism model. Your theory models the communist models from Star Trek and other Sci-Fi models. It's interesting but for it to work I think it would have to work for all goods and services, not just digital ones. People are greedy, and while I may love making video games and want to do it for the rest of my life regardless of how I'm paid, I'm a realist. If I'm expected to pay for other goods and services to provide for my home, food, and more, I'd prefer to be paid something, rather than not.

                        Also the US government's currency is based on our Gross Domestic Product and is much more tightly controlled than in other countries. The actual value of the dollar has always technically been the same. Inflation however is a natural problem and causes all currency of any kind to devalue over time.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Intellectual property

                          The notion of information being free is based on the idea of scarcity in economics. Information isn't a scarce resource. You can copy it without cost. You can't do that with material goods. Now if you had a Star Trek replicator, the entire economy could be run that way, because the only scarce good would be the energy and time to run the transmutor.

                          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_scarcity
                          Dude, seriously, WHAT handkerchief?

                          snooggums' density principal: "The more dense a population, the more dense a population."

                          Iliana: "You're a great friend but if we're ever chased by zombies I'm tripping you."

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Intellectual property

                            How is inflation "natural"? If you have a fixed resource as your currency and growing population, the value of the currency will rise, not fall. If you use an easily divisible resource such as a metal, this isn't a problem. At least until the population is the same size as the number of atoms of that resource available.

                            The problem with the dollar is that we have a gun to our head to use it. We can't easily use competing currencies. If we try to use gold as a currency (or another nation's currency that retains its value better), and the dollar inflates, we end up punished by paying capital gains taxes because we were smart enough to use a stable currency.
                            Dude, seriously, WHAT handkerchief?

                            snooggums' density principal: "The more dense a population, the more dense a population."

                            Iliana: "You're a great friend but if we're ever chased by zombies I'm tripping you."

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Intellectual property

                              Inflation is a natural process. It happens naturally within society despite the control and fixing of the supply of money. There are two schools of thought, one of quality of inflation and the other of quantity. Quality is simple supply and demand. As demand goes up, price should go down ideally, but it doesn't. Price does not lower itself, and due to capitalism, the prices remain higher and lead to inflation. It's the cost of operating a capitalistic society and happens in every successful capitalistic economy.

                              The other school of thought, the one that is more commonly known, is that the amount of money introduced into circulation has long term repercussions on inflation. We know just how much of an impact this has since, Jimmie Carter I believe it was, restricted the circulation of US dollars, and actually curbed inflation. I assume this is the stand point you're arguing from. The thing is we can directly correlate this to data to support it's effect over inflation on a long term scale. Quality of Inflation is much harder to track as the correlation depends on so many variables (what people are buying, how much they're buying, the price).

                              There are many causes of inflation, and many different beliefs. We can't point to any one thing and say it's this and only this, or that this is the main cause. There are so many variables that have impact.
                              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation#Causes

                              The problem isn't the US dollar. Gold, steel, and any other given co currency has problems with inflation. There is simply no stable currency. Nothing is going to be worth the same as it was 10 years ago or 10 years from now. The acceptance of alternate currencies is actually the seller's prerogative. Only America enforces that the US dollar is legal tender and must be accepted as payment, no gun to your head saying you must use it, only that you must accept it as payment for a legitimate business.

                              Comment

                              Connect

                              Collapse

                              TeamSpeak 3 Server

                              Collapse

                              Advertisement

                              Collapse

                              Twitter Feed

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X