Copywrite laws are they to vague?

[Will]

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
No, I'm not confused; If you'll notice, I said "Simply saying no direct copies is insufficient; for example" (emphasis added). Another way of saying that would be to say that I found the definition you posted to be lacking. Further, I later said "[...] and that which you would not [like to be acceptable] (changing a menu color)?" - which also implies that I know it isn't what you are actually after. That was just an example to demonstrate a problem with things as you had worded them; you now appear to be saying that you didn't mean things exactly as they were posted, so that's fine.

Well, I had a response written for your post, but I seemed to have hit "Add Reply" about five minutes after the forums went all narcoleptic... so my response essentially went *POOF!*.

The gist of it: I never said you were confused, I said you were misunderstanding what I posted. Confused would be the recipient having reduced mental faculties (I would consider saying confused in that situation unwarranted and an insult). Misunderstanding is a problem in the act of communication (and has absolutely no malice behind it), something being lost in the translation, so to speak.

To attempt to rehash my position on the limits to be put on copyright (not even going to touch trademarks or patents here, that's a completely different 900-pound purple gorilla): Copyright should protect against what is commonly accepted as plagerism, but nothing beyond that. That means that no significant portion of the copyright-protected work can be used by someone else. With the changing-menu-color example, that would violate copyrights because the rest of the game most certainly constitutes "significant". However, if the game was reverse-engineered, and every piece of it was created independantly, taking nothing but inspiration from the original, then that does not violate the copyright. Another example: say a writer has a terrible case of writers block. The writer comes across a short story done by someone else, and begins writing with the story as a model; the writer doesn't take a single sentance fragment from the original, but does use the same characters (with different names), plot, setting, etc. That, in my view, is more than a bit unoriginal, but should not violate copyright... the writer's story is its own, nothing tangible was taken from the "original". (As a side note, I would personally think it proper to let the "original's" author and any readers know about the source of the story idea, but I don't think that should be mandated by copyright law).

Also, there should be leeway given for personal use. There is already some in the current laws, but certain Groups are trying their damnedest to remove all personal copying. I think it's perfectly acceptable to do things like: make a backup copy of a CD, photocopy a poem and stick it on your wall, take a hex editor to SEIV and change menu colors (not to distribute, mind you!), multiple installations of software (several people on this board have more than one installation of SEIV on their computer), copy a DVD onto a VHS cassette so you can watch it with the VCR in the other room, etc. Not only are these legitimate uses in my view, but if copyright holders actually bother trying to collect payment for things so utterly trivial, then they seriously need to be institutionalized.

[Pax]

Originally posted by PvK:
Unless I'm mistaken, Gene Roddenberry invented Spock, and he died. I'd say it would be fine if humanity could inherit the right to use his literature without fighting about who first invested in the rights to use it decades ago. The absence of copyrights on pre-(c)/pre-TM literature isn't causing problems, and megacorps continue to profit from using such creations, even though I still don't agree that megacorp profits are something to try to protect. After all, they only exist to increase their own wealth and power, so they can continue to do the same thing, until they own it all, or as much as they can get away with - megalomania without the megalomaniac.

Roddenberry invented the idea of the Trek series, and pitched it to Paramount. Have you seen "The Glass Menagerie" ... ? The bits they watch in recording form, was the idea Roddenberry made and pitched to Paramount, and was the original pilot (re-used to make TGM itself).

Obviously, many changes happened -- the Spock character underwent significant changes, taking the place of the then-female first officer.

Ergo, the character of Spock as we know him, was created by Roddenberry while he worked under contract to Paramount. Thus, he was acting as an agent of Paramount, so, Paramount has reasonable and fair claim on Spock, the character, as IP. This is in terms of logic, reasonable common sense, and not under the especial light of the law itself.

[quote] Untrue. Handing out my own Versions of TOS characters will have little or no impact, and might even help, Paramount sell their own junk based on Roddenberry's work. Big deal.[quote]

Really? When people can get something for free (your pics), why should they pay for almost-the-same-thing (Paramount's pics) ... ?

Your free pics have denied Paramount potential sales based on their properties.

[quote][b] You're playing definition games, and I'm not really interested in the particulars of actual legal definitions. If fan art is illegal and a threat to corporations under the current laws, then I think the current laws are ridiculous.[quote]

And I think they're not. I think it IS important to stress, under the law, that if you take, for example, the characters and setting of Star Wars, and write novels that put them in situations and crises which George Lucas disapproves of, Lucas should have EVERY RIGHT to say "those are MY characters, that's MY setting, and you don't have permission to use them! Cease and desist!"

And the law should back him up on that.

Yet your story might have been intended as true fan art; perhaps you felt your stories owuld "add to the Star Wars legacy" in a positive way.

Star Wars doesn't belong to you, though, so you have no right -- and should have no right -- to make that decision.

FWIW, Lucas is still alive, and "life +25 years" would still cover all of SW.

[qb] I disagree. I would say, from what I have read of Shrapnel and MM's publications about their work (q.v. on this web site) and their goals, is that they exist because they want to publish and develop the kinds of games that they really like, and be able to avoid working for a megacorp doing uninteresting junk to maximize profits.

"they exist because they want to publish and develop the kinds of games that they really like," ... and make a profit doing so.

Without profit, after all, they can't avoid the "work for a megacorp" bit.

If maximizing their profits were their reason for existence,

Did I say maxxing profit? No. Did I ever even imply it was their ONLY reason to exist? No.

Rare, IMO, is the corporation that truly DOES exist solely for profit's own sake. Even Micro$haft has other motives, at some levels of the hierarchy at least.

I think that's a bad thing.

Bugs Bunny is the creation of Chuck Jones, who I believe died Last year

Then the copyright should be running for ... 24 more years (life of author/creator plus 25 years). Your point is?

Recent Bugs Bunny cartoons may be the work of wage slaves, well-paid minions, or computers of WB, Inc., but why is that system a good one? If I want to draw Buggs and xerox it, I'm not going to do anything negative to WB, Inc., from a realistic non-twisted-legal standpoint.

In terms of copyright, it's not far form making a picture and xeroxing it, and making a home-done animated short and broadcasting it -- over the internet, perhaps.

Copyright relates to the rights to make ABSOLUTELY ANY KIND of copy. Period.

[quote]I'd probably have a positive effect by reminding people of something WB sells. If that's defined as piracy, then it's just another abuse of the English language by legal texts. If I wanted to argue about stupid legal definitions, I might have been a lawyer... eeeew. [qb][quote]

The law defines what you describe as an infringement; "piracy" is a common-usage term applied by people OUTSIDE the legal profession.

[qb]Mainly because so many people just herd along without questioning the status quo, and buy into the existing system. Kind of like the Brobroba (sp? - OOPS! TM INFRIGNEMENT! $5000 dollar fine!) States, who refuse to believe in the existence of Warp Points.

PvK

PvK -- that behavior is evolved into us. Youw ant to change that -- prove there is a god, and take it up with her.

I find your blue-sky wishful thinking to be of no use in the real world. Sure, it'd be NICE if artists just kinda got PAID, commensurate with the appreciation of their work by society-at-large;; it'd be NICE if noone stole form anyoen else.

But being nice doesn't make something possible. We live in a world where people lie, cheat, and steal.

As a result, we need laws that provide legal redress AGAINST those who have lied, cheated, and stolen.

Blue-sky wishful thinking won't change reality, no matter HOW hard you try to malign the corporate aspect of capitalism.

Speaking of capitalism -- you wouldn't happen to be a socialist or communist, would you? Because you sure as hell sound like one!

[Jack Simth]

Originally posted by Will:
Well, I had a response written for your post, but I seemed to have hit "Add Reply" about five minutes after the forums went all narcoleptic... so my response essentially went *POOF!*.

Been there - a lot. I've taken to using the clipboard and notepad to save my larger Posts before actually posting them to prevent just that.

Originally posted by Will:

The gist of it: I never said you were confused, I said you were misunderstanding what I posted. Confused would be the recipient having reduced mental faculties (I would consider saying confused in that situation unwarranted and an insult). Misunderstanding is a problem in the act of communication (and has absolutely no malice behind it), something being lost in the translation, so to speak.

You're right; you did say misunderstanding. Sorry about that.

Originally posted by Will:

To attempt to rehash my position on the limits to be put on copyright (not even going to touch trademarks or patents here, that's a completely different 900-pound purple gorilla): Copyright should protect against what is commonly accepted as plagerism, but nothing beyond that. That means that no significant portion of the copyright-protected work can be used by someone else. With the changing-menu-color example, that would violate copyrights because the rest of the game most certainly constitutes "significant". However, if the game was reverse-engineered, and every piece of it was created independantly, taking nothing but inspiration from the original, then that does not violate the copyright.

You are talking about "should not," correct? Such an implementation would pretty much only benefit the big corporations; if a small-time develper produces something, the big corporation could throw a million at it to duplicate it from scratch, then throw a few more million to advertise it, and pretty soon everyone is buying the big corporation's Version, forgetting where it came from, even though it is exactly like the original. A very large portion of the time spent developing a game is put into the design work; having the original as the design would eliminate most of that phase. A perfect clone could be put out, and even take over, in perhaps six months. Then, the creator of the original goes bankrupt, unable to compete with the corporation. The megacorps would love to be able to do that; it would be the perfect tool for driving small competiters out of business; reverse-engeneer everything they put out and distribute it for free. While driving the small competitor out of business, the megacorp can absorb the loss (they absorb the loss from most of the software they put out anyway - a few more aren't going to hurt them). After, the megacorp can mop up the market.

Originally posted by Will:
Another example: say a writer has a terrible case of writers block. The writer comes across a short story done by someone else, and begins writing with the story as a model; the writer doesn't take a single sentance fragment from the original, but does use the same characters (with different names), plot, setting, etc. That, in my view, is more than a bit unoriginal, but should not violate copyright... the writer's story is its own, nothing tangible was taken from the "original". (As a side note, I would personally think it proper to let the "original's" author and any readers know about the source of the story idea, but I don't think that should be mandated by copyright law).

That is different from the case of copying software from scratch; with the case of a story, it is the wording that is important for copyright issues (as that is what the user sees), especially considering that most ideas in print have their roots in other ideas in print. Using not one scrap of the originals wording will invariably produce a vastly different story. With the case of software, it is possible to completely duplicate something without the source code and without duplicating the binary. However, the design (which would be duplicated in your case) isn't dependant on any specific bit of code being done in a particular fashion (barring the standard things to deal with the hardware and OS that virtually every program for a particular hardware/OS combination use, of course).

Originally posted by Will:

Also, there should be leeway given for personal use. There is already some in the current laws, but certain Groups are trying their damnedest to remove all personal copying. I think it's perfectly acceptable to do things like: make a backup copy of a CD, photocopy a poem and stick it on your wall, take a hex editor to SEIV and change menu colors (not to distribute, mind you!), multiple installations of software (several people on this board have more than one installation of SEIV on their computer), copy a DVD onto a VHS cassette so you can watch it with the VCR in the other room, etc. Not only are these legitimate uses in my view, but if copyright holders actually bother trying to collect payment for things so utterly trivial, then they seriously need to be institutionalized.

Most of those actually are legal at this point for private individuals: backups (if not distributed), medium conVersions (this one covers both the poem-on-the-wall and DVD-to-VHS); however, multiple installations and editing the finished product aren't. No-multiple installations can be programmatically enforced reasonably well, and has some reasonable correlation with solid products - if you wanted to use a toaster in five different locations, you would either need to buy more toasters or carry one of them around with you and plug/unplug it every time.

But yes, trying to make those legal ones illegal is quite the power grab.

[Erax]

Blue-sky wishful thinking won't change reality, no matter HOW hard you try to malign the corporate aspect of capitalism.

Pax, I'm going to pull a Pax on you (in a friendly way, no offense intended) :

I can imagine someone in America around, say, 1770, defending King George this way :

Blue-sky wishful thinking won't change reality, no matter HOW hard you try to malign the tyrannical aspect of monarchy.

[Erax]

Posted by Will :

say a writer has a terrible case of writers block. The writer comes across a short story done by someone else, and begins writing with the story as a model; the writer doesn't take a single sentance fragment from the original, but does use the same characters (with different names), plot, setting, etc. That, in my view, is more than a bit unoriginal, but should not violate copyright... the writer's story is its own, nothing tangible was taken from the "original". (As a side note, I would personally think it proper to let the "original's" author and any readers know about the source of the story idea, but I don't think that should be mandated by copyright law).

That is essentially what I did in my story here in the forums in the June 19 post, although with me it wasn't a case of writer's block, I had been meaning to do that scene for about 20 days and had to move the story along until it was possible to insert it. And I mentioned the original work, encouraging people to go out and buy it.

[Pax]

Originally posted by Chief Engineer Erax:
Pax, I'm going to pull a Pax on you (in a friendly way, no offense intended) :

I can imagine someone in America around, say, 1770, defending King George this way :

quote:

---

Blue-sky wishful thinking won't change reality, no matter HOW hard you try to malign the tyrannical aspect of monarchy.

---

But, not ALL monarchs are tyrants (George III was also likely not well, which might explain some of his treatment of the colonies). Monarchs come, and monarchs go ...

[PvK]

Pax, I've been over the same points with you a few times, and the energy required to keep responding exceeds my interest in the conversation at this point, particularly as I have a lot of work to do and one of my main computers had a hard-drive crash yesterday.

I will say though that there is a world of difference between making "a profit" and making "as much profit as possible, no matter what it takes."

Again, yeah it's difficult to change bad laws and institutions, particularly when there are people who decide it's "practical" or to their advantage to defend the status quo even when they know there is a better way. So stop it already!

To answer you're oh-so-polite question about whether I am a communist or a socialist, I wouldn't say so, but I have received that question (usually voiced as an accusation...) from people who well, I'll just say I guess you'd probably get along with better than I would. Is there something that offends or threatens you about discussing better systems of ecomony and law than the current ones? Nor would I call myself a "capitalist" - would you?

PvK