Re: Note to QC & PG

["Arkain" <rwking@no.usa.spam.net>]

Liam Busey <xxx@xxx.net> wrote in message 397ECE28.3A60@xxx.net">news:397ECE28.3A60@xxx.net...
> Arkain wrote:
> >
> > Liam Busey <xxx@xxx.net> wrote in message 397D5742.6683@xxx.net">news:397D5742.6683@xxx.net...
> >> **** **** wrote:
> >>
> >> That's rather restrictive. In fact, it's shorter than the copyright
> >> terms laid out in the constitution. I suspect you'll have a hard time
> >> getting any support.
> >
> > Rather restrictive? In a society that has a tendency of legally
> > "throwing the baby out with the bathwater," I actually believe that
> > the suggestion is quite lenient.
>
> Any more lenient and creators will be paying royalties for the right to
> create. ;)

Not true, most softare companies have a reasonable expectation that 10 or 15
years from now, their *current* software package will be obsolete and
possibly even unusable. To that end, if the company wants to continue to
hold the copyright to that package, then they should be made renew the
copyright under the stipulation that they must either continue to sell
and/or support the package. I.E. If they don't see it as profitable any
longer, then they should let the copyrights fall to the public domain.
Paying out a few hundred to make a few hundred thousand is not unreasonable.

> > Consider that 1 grumpy old lady(now dead) got Christian practices
> > thrown out of schools(note that since then, the US has been going
> > to hell in a handbag) despite the fact that you have to teach about
> > Christianity to even understand why the US enforces so many freedoms,
> > like say, freedom of religion...
>
> This is of topic but ... Religous (although predominantly Christian)
> practices were removed from public schools to ENFORCE freedom of
> religion. When education is mandatory and the only option for many
> parents is the public school system the government has a responsibility
> to provide a religion free enviroment. It's a matter of seperation of
> church and state. <snipped>

It actually serves to enforce freedom *FROM* religion rather than freedom
*OF* religion. Teaching about the U.S. Christian heritage in school is along
the same lines as mentioning the names of people that donated large sums of
money at a charity ball. It's only proper. The separation of church & state
only means that state cannot enforce a religion on the populous. Teaching
that the US has a Christian heritage doesn't violate that. Not teaching it
forces teachers to leave out large portions of US history though.

Don't worry. I won't say anything more on that. That's a discussion for
another NG altogether. I was trying to use that as an example of how the
government has a tendency of over-reacting to a supposed violation.

> > A few, albeit horrible, cases of abusive child beating and govenment
> > decides to take the belt out of parents hands entirely instead of
> > properly teaching parents how to spank children correctly. Note
> > that this didn't help the US's moral or social posirion either...
>
> Yes, I agree this lunacy. As to how this effects the U.S.'s moral or
> social standing I don't follow.

Because the children no longer fear their parents. The parents have little
or no power to discipline their children, and the children know this. That's
why ever since this law was created, the rate and severity of juvenile
crimes have been going up. The crime rate is a sign of a social deficiency,
the severity a moral deficiency.

> > Given a pattern like this, I'd say that the solution of reducing the
> > length is a great idea when the norm would be to eliminate it
> > altogether since companies are abusing it.
>
> I would hardly call it the norm. The companies' transgressions are
> incomparable to your examples. Can one really compare not distributing
> intellectual property to child abuse or possible religous oppression?
> Let the punishment fit the crime.

You missed the point. The possible religious oppression is a vague crime.
The fact that you took to the other side of the issue proves that.
Government acted rashly, trying to take the constitution for the letter of
the law instead of the spirit of the law as was intended. The crime of child
abuse is very specific, but hard to catch and even harder to draw clear
boarders around. Since government couldn't clearly define where a normal
spanking ends and a beating begins, they took away the right to spank as
well. In both cases, government overreacted. Their punishments didn't fit
the crimes.

I wasn't interested in comparing the action of the crimes, rather
governments solutions to the crimes. Both crimes are incomparable with each
other as well as with the copyright problem. Despite that, the system
reacted the same, rashly. My fear is that if push comes to shove in
copyright law, and the end-users begin to complain en mass, then government
may react rashly and remove all copyright priviliges. Such a punishment
wouldn't fit the crime. I'm suggesting one that would.

> Also, IIRC companies are not the only ones entitled to hold copyrights.
> Why should everyone have to pay for the abuses of the few? Furthermore
> this would only effect the little guys. The larger companies will
> copyright their works abroad so that they'll have better protection. If
> the US does not respect the foreign copyrights, well lets just say that
> this is what wars are made out of.

First, I doubt that a country would want to go to war with the US over a
copyright dispute. ;-)

Second, the copyright that I'm proposing is only for software, hardware, and
firmware. It wouldn't affect other forms of merchandise.

Third, if the company wouldn't get a US copyright, then they'd be shooting
themselves in the foot since the US has the largest technology market in the
world.

Fourth, I'm one of the "little guys" too! I think this is a good idea since
if I've made a reasonable profit from my copyrighted works, then I can
afford to renew the copyright in 10 years.

> >
> >>>     Will this ever happen? No. Not even close. Too much money
> >>> involved.
> >>
> >> That and your terms are unreasonable to creators.
> >
> > Not true. The creators will have the option of renewing the copyright
> > so long as either
> >     a) they continue to sell and support the product, or
> >     b) it has been less than 10 years since option a.
>
> If we're to have a discussion I'd appreciate it if the terms were kept
> consistent. The original post suggested a 5 year copyright plus the
> option of 3 5 year renewals. Which do you advocate?

While writing the last post, I came to the conclusion that 5 year intervals
are just too short. 10 years is a more reasonable span.

>
> >> Aren't megacorps made up of people too. What makes people in >>
megacorps undeserving of money where as smaller groups are?
> >
> > Megacorps are a legal entity regardless of the people that run them...
> > It isn't thar megacorps are undeserving of money, but if they deem a
> > product non-viable then they shouldn't care if it becomes public
> > domain since they **don't want** to profit from it anymore.
>
> A megacorp would be irresponsible to its investors if it surrendered its
> intellectual property whenever it was not of immediate use. I suspect
> they're obligated to sit on it until it regains further usefulness or
> falls into the public domain.

If after 10 years of sitting idle, a company fails to reinstate a particular
package, chances are that the investors don't even remember about the
package. They're probably too busy worrying about the "next big thing."
Another problem is that packages, due to their life+70 year duration, won't
simply "fall" into the public domain within the lifespan of anyone able to
remember using that package. After that point, there's likely no point for
the package to even exist anymore.

<snipped>
> >> Yes it is. Intellectual property laws grant limited monopolies to
> >> encourage people to create. This is generally seen as a good thing.
> >
> > The problem is when someone has a monopoly on something that is
> > publicly known and available, but is neither sold nor supported. That
> > monopoly only serves to keep others out and generates no profit.
>
> This is an unfortunate use of intellectual property. It goes against the
> spirit of the law.

Which is exactly why IP rights should me constrained to a more reasonable
amount of time.

> >> Shouldn't you try your best to uphold the law so long as it's not
> >> unethical or immoral?
> >
> > Ethics + Business = ???
> >
> > I don't know 'cause I've never seen it happen...
> >
>
> I was referring to the ethics of citizens. Ideally buisnesses should
> operate the same way. Ideally. :(

Unfortunately, businesses are legal entities and can be considered in the
same light as citizens.

Arkain