Re: Note to QC & PG

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

Liam Busey <xxx@xxx.net> wrote in message 397D5742.6683@xxx.net">news:397D5742.6683@xxx.net...
> **** **** wrote:
> >
> > Sandra,
> >     I like this thinking too. Unfortunately, we are in no position to
> > 'let' Apple do anything. And it's doubtful we could convince them. The
> > only real solution would be legislation curtailing intellectual
> > property rights. Renewable copyright permits, 5 years a piece, during
> > which the company or individual has to make the software reasonably
> > available for sale. After each 5 year period, the author can choose to
> > let the permit lapse, and it becomes public domain, or renew it. 3
> > renewals max. Copyrighted works that have existed for more than 15
> > years, would be permitted a single 5 year permit.
>
> 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. 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...  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... 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.

> >     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.

> > Is this a good thing? No, money is not good in this situation. You
> > see, people deserve money, some even deserve wealth. Those who create
> > deserve reimbursement, and even incentive to go on creating. Megacorps
> > don't deserve either of these things.
>
> 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.

> > Even individuals who continue to milk an old creation for all its
> > worth are abusing this system. It serves no longer as incentive,
>
> To them perhaps not, but to others most definately. For example, BLANK
> invented BLANK and through royalties will never have to work again.
> Would not knowledge of such person encourage inventions from other
> people?

Here I agree with you Liam. If you are continuing to service and/or support
an old product, then milk it dry. That's the basis of commercialism.

> > and is by any means well past the reimbursement phase.
>
> That's for Congress to decide.

"...well past the reimbursement phase." Isn't that called profit?

> > Usually, when someone or some company is the only source for a
> > particular good, and they have complete control of how much to charge
> > for it, this is called a monopoly.
>
> 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.

> >     But this is only ethical and moral, as QC would conclude, because
> > it's legal.
>
> 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...

> > Really, those who have tried to work within the system don't spout off
> > this idealistic bullshit, about being able to change it from within.
> > Hell, every once in a while they do toss you a crumb, but they don't
> > even bother to hide the loaf from sight while doing it. They actually
> > know what it's like. I used to think that too, now I just ignore the
> > system. It's broken.
>
> And now we come to the heart of the matter. If you think the system is
> so broken that it's beyond any hope of repair, abandoned copyrighted
> Apple II software is the least of your worries. Ignoring the system will
> only hasten it's fall. Remember, you are but one man among millions.
> Your voice will not be significant unless you can compel others to share
> your view. Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.

John's just noting the fact that anyone with such good ideas will have a
tendency to become dismayed by the restance of the people that support the
status-quo. This seeming immutable resistance causes a person to lose their
enthusiasm about their ability to affect the system. While changing the
system IS possible, even without major financial backing, you have to have a
thick skin to do it, but most people have thin skin.

<snipped>
> > Eventually, those who fervently believe in copyright protection will
> > be gone, because they'll either be getting reamed exponentially more
> > so than happens now, or they'll be forced to 'pirate', because the
> > only alternative is living in caves.
>
> The only reason why copyright laws have gotten so draconian as of late
> is that it's not an important issue for most people. The only people who
> care about it outside of buisnesses are the actual creators, unix
> people, emulator users, and a few music enthusiasts. A small voiceless
> minority. Once intellectual property laws start pissing off the average
> citizen, progress will soon be made. With legislation like the DMCA and
> UCITA were probably no more than 40 years from an outcry (everyone
> screams 40 years! I back into my cave).

That seemingly small community isn't so small and definitely isn't
voiceless. The trick is that someone has to step-up and organize them so
that they all say roughly the same thing. The problem is that at present,
these groups are merely a miriad of small voices saying something different.
To the "powers that be" they sound like background static.