Copywrite laws are they to vague?

[PvK]

Originally posted by Jack Simth:

quote:

---

Originally posted by PvK:
You suggested "a significant slip up would cause, not a fine, but a total cease and desist order with frozen assets for five or ten years." for corporations - sounds good to me.

Which was exactly my point - if you make corporations count as people, then you need to adjust things slightly so that they are treated like people; a total cease and desist is very similar to a prison sentence; freezing their assests just prevents it from being a death sentence; apparently you just hadn't thought the implications of corps counting the same as private citizens through.

---

What I meant was that corporations should not have the same rights as people, for instance:

* No right to sponsor candidates for government or petition government as if a private citizen. All attempts to influence government should be highly suspect.

* No right to freedom of speech. Corporate speech should be controllable by legislation.

* No "freedom to innovate" abusive predatory business practices.

* No perpetuating patents or copyrights by acting like an immortal person with insane wealth.

etc.

I never meant to say that they should be free from any of the obligations that people have.

Supposedly the USA is a government "for the people", not "for the megacorps" - organizations whose declared purpose is to maximize the corp's bottom line don't help any people except accidentally, or where it serves the corp's own needs. That's not good - corps should only exist where they help people and don't do harm.

...I was just trying to point out how Bruce could unintentionally hurt Alice by using her characters without her permission, which you had seemed to be denying was possible.

I'm not sure it's not possible. I think society needs to decide what level of bad behavior to tolerate, as in your "pervo-fan fiction" example.

As far as Alice goes, as I explained, I don't think your example would count as damage, because the modder didn't get anything, the product was in a different market from Alice, and SE4 sales were benefiting from a unique and valuable feature of SE4 (the ability to use player-made mods of any setting). I don't believe Alice has any claim to a share of SE4 sales because someone makes a mod based on her work.

Ideally, I'd hope to see a reward system where consumers can give approval to content providers, which results in them getting credit for the work that people like, but with distribution of the work being unrestricted. So Alice, Shrapnel, and even fan sites and modders could all get something to allow them to do what they do best, as long as enough people like it enough to register their approval.

No, that's someting different - they are trying very hard to reverse the above law+rulings on what makes an object leagal, changing it to "It must have no illegal purpose." Very different, and yes, an amazing power grab. It is actually quite leagle to make a backup copy of stuff you have a license to - you just aren't allowed to distribute them, modified or not, free or not, without totally transferring the license and all copies to a single recipient (many licenses prohibit trasfer).

Yes, that too. Similar to the moronic and vile attempt to outlaw encryption software, and the sniffing of all computer traffic for anything Big Brother might be interested in. It's not that evil schemers are fictional; it's that real evil schemers tend not to be as visible as they are in fiction.

There have been a lot of people trying to design an education system that will do that for a long time; so far, they have had only very limited success with individuals that would likely have no problems with that in the first place. The other problem is that such attempts usually require a surprisingly small class size, which isn't going to happen until the school system gets considerably more funding.

Well, the megacorps are dominating the economic system... if our civilization were more focussed on doing good than corporate commercialism, adding teachers and paying them enough would not be very hard at all.

...
The problem with corporate media is more a problem of a glut of channels; when there were only two or three channels available for any given area, there were only a few good show ideas a year, and so the bad ones tended to get thrown out. Now, you can pipe a few hundred channels into a household, but there are still only a few good show ideas a year. Unfortunately, it is surprisingly difficult to sort a good idea out from a bad idea beforehand, so the good ideas don't get the relative budget they desreve, and seldom get prime time. As for McDonalds, if people stop buying their food, they will eventually go away.

I'm more concerned about the level of control, and the motives behind the people with that control, than the quality level. Once again, it's controlled by organizations whose purpose is greed. Reporting standards are only valued as much as their perceived value as a commercial product, and to a slight degree, the amount to reduce fines and bribes to deflect ineffective government controls.

Am I correct in assuming that we both agree that cutting down on the amount of time patents and copyrights Last would help (though still not be perfect)?

Yes, absolutely!

I think we actually agree in principle on most things - we're mainly just bonking on specifics because you're talking more about the realities of the existing system, while I'm talking as an idealist about what I'd like to see happen.

PvK

[ June 21, 2003, 09:17: Message edited by: PvK ]

[Pax]

Originally posted by PvK:I never suggested removing the concept of copyright and not having anything to serve its good purposes.

Yet, to make fan art and otehr derivative works no longer protected by copyright (and, as an aside, trademark) laws ... you would have to do that very thing.

What I do suggest though are that:

* Fan art shouldn't be a copyright violation nor any concern of any lawyers, to include Marvel characters in Dungeon Odyssey mods, or Star Trek ships in SE4 mods.

Define "fan art" in such a way that it does not permit, by any reasonable means, person X to profit off the creativity of person Y, without Y receiving their fair share ... ? Assuming Y does not give X permission from teh get-go, of course.

* The existing patent and copyright systems are flawed.

The only flaw is that the period of protection has been extended indefinitely. Had we stuck to the original terms, the situation would be much better.

* Ideally and eventually, the existing systems will be replaced by something very different, because it's fundamentally silly and wasteful to not use computers and networks to do what they do with great and natural ease - duplicate and distribute data which, once we get over our ancient and corrupt economic and legal institutions,

PvK, no offense, but your repeated cries against how corrupt, monolithically-conspiratorial "megacorporations" controlling this, that, and the other ... leaves me with nothing so much as the impression that you are, in a word ... a crackpot.

I'm serious. The copyright law itself is not what is flawed ... it is the additions and modifications to it that are the problem. And specifically, the interminable extensions of protected status.

will allow us to use it to share all data with everyone freely. All that's required is a replacement for the corporate-dominated system of employment and intellectual property ownership, so that creative people can earn a reasonable wage by virtue of how much people appreciate their work, without a corporate monster devouring most of the profit and dictating what everyone creates.

Except, by the things you've described, there would be no way to guarantee that the most "appreciated" creative work would ever generate one thin dime for the author!

It's a little something I've heard called "the ******* factor" (pardon the language); you, PvK, might want to think there are enough good and honest people in the world that some sort of "honor system" would work ...

... but you'd be wrong; you'd be vastly overestimating humanity. And, perhaps more to the point, grossly UNDER-estimating man's capacity to be *******s to their fellow man.

People steal. It's that simple; theft has been with us from before we achieved sentience, and won't be going away anytime soon.

And when people steal, you need laws to PROTECT those who are stolen FROM.

It is not the fault of those laws, that they have been ABUSED by various corporate (and other) concerns.

[DavidG]

Originally posted by Pax:
PvK, no offense, but your repeated cries against how corrupt, monolithically-conspiratorial "megacorporations" controlling this, that, and the other ... leaves me with nothing so much as the impression that you are, in a word ... a crackpot.

Nice. "No offense" but you're a "crackpot" Gee how could someone be offended by being called a crackpot.

[Pax]

[quote]Originally posted by DavidG:

Nice. "No offense" but you're a "crackpot" Gee how could someone be offended by being called a crackpot.

Back at you.

I didn't CALL him an actual crackpot; I said his words leave me with that IMPRESSION. There is a difference with saying one is left with the impression of someone being something, and saying they actually are that thing.

And IMO, PvK's not-quite-IMO-rational opposition to all things corporate is teetering dangerously on the edge of that particular precipice.

Sue me for being completely honest, eh?

[Phoenix-D]

He does have a point. If you, say, eliminate copyright entirely, you get something like so:

Guy makes a web comic, its popular. He isn't getting paid, but he doesn't care because he likes doing it. He has a modest, not huge, readership.

Someone else (with more money) sees this, turns his creation into a huge, over-marketed over commericalized thing. No one will go near the web comic except the original viewers, because they naturally think its a rip off of the over-marketed thing. The over-marketed rip off eventually dies its inevitable death, leaving the first guy with..jack. He gains nothing from the cash grab, and most people have been turned off his comic now too.

I see only a few problems with copyright law, and one of them is a law in general problem.

1. It Lasts too long, and really shouldn't be renewable.

2. Its too expensive to defend yourself from accusations, or go after violators. Smaller Groups HAVE been run into the ground by baseless (but expensive!) lawsuits.

[Pax]

Originally posted by PvK:
it's fundamentally silly and wasteful to not use computers and networks to do what they do with great and natural ease - duplicate and distribute data which, once we get over our ancient and corrupt economic and legal institutions, will allow us to use it to share all data with everyone freely. All that's required is a replacement for the corporate-dominated system of employment and intellectual property ownership, so that creative people can earn a reasonable wage by virtue of how much people appreciate their work, without a corporate monster devouring most of the profit and dictating what everyone creates.

Another thought for you, turning your words above to another concept and end:

it's fundamentally silly and wasteful to not use nuclear armaments and delivery systems to do what they do with great and natural ease - destroy cities and slay millions of innocents which, once we get over our respect for human life, will allow us to use it to obliterate all life on this planet. All that's required is a replacement for the instinctive system of morality, so that psychotic people can kill untold millions of people, without a single shred of guilt.

[ June 23, 2003, 19:06: Message edited by: Pax ]

[Phoenix-D]

Uh, Pax? I think I speak for more than myself when I say:

Where the HELL did that come from?

[Rojero]

Ditto

[Erax]

I think he meant to say that just because we have the technology to do something doesn't mean we should go ahead and use it.

But there are, um, better ways to say it. In fact, I can't think of many worse ways to say it.

Pax, you sometimes come across as... intense. Too intense. Maybe you should reword your example.

[PvK]

Yeah, you could just say that you disagree with the premise that it would be a good thing if everyone could have free access to all content.

I suppose I overstated my cases about megacorporate evil, particularly if you happen to be someone who thinks megacorporations are good. I've just seen plenty of examples, and to me the idea of most of the wealth and power being concentrated in organizations whose stated overriding purpose is to maximize their own wealth in any way they can come up with, satisfies my definition of evil.

I agree there are plenty of people (you used the word "***") who will try to steal other people's work for their own ends. It seems clear to me that megacorporations tend to institutionalize and legalize this behavior, for instance by buying up smaller companies for their intellectual property, and then laying off the staff, destroying their competition at the same time. However I don't agree that the existing copyright system (even with shorter time limits) is the best answer.

PvK