Re: Note to QC & PG

[Liam Busey <xxx@xxx.net>]

Arkain wrote:
> 
> 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.

Any more lenient and creators will be paying royalties for the right to
create. ;)

> 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. If you believe the U.S. is going to hell because God
turned his back on us for removing religion from public schools then
perhaps it's time for a jihaad.

> 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.

> 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.

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.

> 
>>>     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?

 
>>> 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.

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.

 
>>> 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?

Bingo.
 
>>> 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.

This is an unfortunate use of intellectual property. It goes against the
spirit of the law.
 
>>>     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...
> 

I was referring to the ethics of citizens. Ideally buisnesses should
operate the same way. Ideally. :(


>>> 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.

Unfortunate.

> 
> <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.

I'll happily await that time.


Liam Busey