Quote from: estar;8155921)This is why you here news accounts of organization trying to set a high value on a download. Because if after multiplying by the number of download it is higher than limit then you gain the additional leverage of being able to file a criminal compliant against the violator.

The penalty also has to be severe and inescapable by way of, say, personal bankruptcy; otherwise the consequences will not deter it from happening.

Quote from: estar;8155923) Ideas can only be patented not copyrighted.

That's a very oversimplified definition, isn't it? Ideas in themselves cannot be patented.

Too many people have an opinion on the topic about IP ownership without a clearn understanding there are differences between copyrights, trademarks and patents; I know you know the difference, don't confuse those who don't ;-)

Quote from: Lynn;815602The penalty also has to be severe and inescapable by way of, say, personal bankruptcy; otherwise the consequences will not deter it from happening.

Criminal copyright needs to be used for people engaged in outright mass copying. For example making knockoff DVDs or a website that appears to be a legitimate seller of digital copies. Otherwise just use civil copyright penalties. Copyright is not so special as to require harsher than normal punishment.

What reform is needed, other than rolling back term lengths, is a copyright small claims court. With digital technology enabling small scale publishing it is needed badly.

Fines levied as a result of being guilty in a criminal act are traditionally not able to be discharged in bankruptcy. So that part is covered.  

Quote from: Lynn;815602That's a very oversimplified definition, isn't it? Ideas in themselves cannot be patented.

Quote from: Lynn;815602I don't feel it is that simplified considering that processes can be patented. While a specific machine may be the subject of a patent. What is actually protected are the ideas behind the machine. The arrangement of mechanisms or the process that the machine embodies.

What can't be patented are discoveries that involve fact about the natural universe or mathematics. There is a limited exception in the case of materials, and they are working out things in regards to genetics.

So yes you are right about patents not covering every idea under the sun but they about protecting ideas. You can't make a different expression of the idea that the patent and not be covered by it.

Which is why resolving Patent disputes hinges around what elements or idea are covered by the patent. Because if you don't do even one of them the same (or omit it). Then the patent doesn't apply.

Another reason for this is that patents cover not only "copying" the invention but use and sales as well. The monopoly granted by patents is much more complete than the one granted by copyright.

Quote from: estar;8155923) Ideas can only be patented not copyrighted.  

Correction noted. I meant idea in the general sense, not the legal definition, but I can see where the mixture can be confusing.

QuoteSince much of modern industrial civilization rests on people putting in hours of work in coming with ideas and how to use them society finds it beneficial to see that the originator of an idea is rewarded for his work.

Since unknown ideas are not useful to anyone, the IP system provides some incentive for the inventor (or discoverer if you are a Platonist) of an idea to publicize their idea rather than keeping it secret and risking its loss.

I think you unintentionally included a quote from my prior post without denoting it as a quote or commenting on it.

I don't have a problem with an author controlling his work, absolute copyright for the author during his lifetime is fine by me.

I don't however, want the works of Frank Herbert or JRR Tolkien to vanish forever because their children hated them, or in the future RuneQuest to completely vanish because the guy who inherits from Stafford is a diehard Lawsian who wants only HeroQuest to survive.

The problem has never been about the author, that's a smokescreen, the problem has always been about corporations controlling the works of humans long dead.

Quote from: Omega;815537Part of me wants to say that a good system might be to have the copyright last as long as the creator or current owner is actively still producing it in a signifigant manner. Which would make edition treadmilling more or a problem than it allready is and possibly curb stunts like printing 5 copies and saying its still in print and so still yours.

I think that maintaining the status of active brands should be best handled by trademark, not by copyright. Trademarks are eternal as long as they are maintained. So as long as Traveller is active, no one else should ever be able to create a "Traveller" game line or look-alike that blends with it on the shelf. I am totally against look-alike deceptive works that people buy thinking that they are getting the original. This is exactly what trademark is intended to block.

However, if someone wants to make an explicitly different brand with rules based only on the original 1970s game line (along the lines of Pathfinder or OSR clones), I consider that totally reasonable at this point. If despite knowing clearly that it is a different fork, customers starts to buy that instead of the official Traveller line, that implies that little of value has been added to the brand since the 1970s.

In general, if people like an alternate fork better than the original, that suggests the holders of the copyright have added little or detracted from the line after decades of development (cough Lucas cough).

I hate Trademarking words, especially normal words.  Now if someone makes up a word for their product, then they have a right to trademark it, but trademarking a word (not a mark, a design, a specific presentation, but a WORD) derived from a work for which they do not have copyright, is just downright insane.

Quote from: CRKrueger;815653I hate Trademarking words, especially normal words.  Now if someone makes up a word for their product, then they have a right to trademark it, but trademarking a word (not a mark, a design, a specific presentation, but a WORD) derived from a work for which they do not have copyright, is just downright insane.

Tell that to Lucas and his owning the word Droid. Fasa tried. Failed. Or GW owning Space Marine. They got told to go to hell. Marvel and DC own Superhero. Found that out when they C&Ded a MMO I was a playtester on. Cue name change.

Quote from: CRKrueger;815653I hate Trademarking words, especially normal words.  Now if someone makes up a word for their product, then they have a right to trademark it, but trademarking a word (not a mark, a design, a specific presentation, but a WORD) derived from a work for which they do not have copyright, is just downright insane.

In principle, a trademark is only within a limited context. So it's not that a company has ownership of that word in general, but that another company cannot market, for example, an "Apple" computer or a "Sprite" soft drink or a "Wolverine" action figure. The trademark "Wolverine" means that someone couldn't market a comic book or action figure with the title "Wolverine" - but it doesn't prevent someone from using the word in other contexts, like "Wolverine Real Estate Services".

However, there are certainly abuses of the system - cases of bad judgement in granting trademarks with overly broad contexts and/or overly descriptive terms. I don't that one-word trademarks are inherently terrible, though, as long as the context is limited and it isn't too descriptive.

Blizzard C&Ding a movie called Diablo. A modern gangster movie. Mythic vs Myth (for having a flame over the Y. Which makes sense.) Elder Scrolls going after Mojangs Scrolls game.

Chris Perrin C&Ding some board game designer for making a game called Mecha Frame because Perrin has out Chris Perrin's Mecha, an RPG.

Quote from: trechriron;815404And we have achieved Godwin's law!

But is violating Godwin's Law a bad thing?

Quote from: CRKrueger;815257It doesn't matter if you're right or getting screwed if you can't afford a lawyer good enough to prove it.

There is no guarantee of justice even if you shell out for a bloodsucker. If you are fighting a moving target - like that T&T copying asshole or Chinese DVD copiers - even an Court order won't do anything if the target drops of the radar and pops up elsewhere and continues.

Quote from: CRKrueger;815257In other words, all this crowing about protecting the little guy is horseshit, what ends up happening just securing profit for the corporate IP holders.

I was at the Court archive last year when I met the original author of Death at a Funeral who just won her battle and was pushing her victory into another case for repayment. She did the whole thing representing herself, even taking on the film studio's team of attorneys.

It took her years of effort, but she refused to be stomped, and instead stomped the corporate scum.

Quote from: Omega;815667Chris Perrin C&Ding some board game designer for making a game called Mecha Frame because Perrin has out Chris Perrin's Mecha, an RPG.

Whoa, did not expect that one. I've talked to Chris before and he always seemed like a nice enough guy. Any more details on this? My google-fu isn't working.

The spirit of Godwin is in applying Nazis to topics where they really aren't related.

When we're talking about discounting responsibility and claim 'I was just following orders,' the Nuremberg Trials ARE PRECISELY the legal focus that showed the ultimate reason for invalidating this defense.

As usual, people inevitably miss the fucking point and say stupid crap like 'oh, you're calling all CEOs war criminals?'

Because strawmen make much easier targets.

Quote from: estar;815616Criminal copyright needs to be used for people engaged in outright mass copying. For example making knockoff DVDs or a website that appears to be a legitimate seller of digital copies. Otherwise just use civil copyright penalties. Copyright is not so special as to require harsher than normal punishment.

I disagree...physical media, did you just step out of a time machine? ;-)

Physical media at least was finite, and relatively easy to track down. What isn't finite are people posting works to torrents and private share networks (like the recently closed Rapidshare), where they can be copied again and again.

Online sharing perpetuates every possible share that can occur as a result of the share itself. "Copying that floppy" type for the most part, limited the sharing.

So yes - it does require it. If someone releases your $4 PDF out to these sites, its shared again and again and again.

These companies do not fool themselves into thinking a $20K a year waitress is going to cough up $4 million in penalties for sharing a few hundred songs; but they do need a scaling punishment that provides a severe deterrent.

Quote from: estar;815616What reform is needed, other than rolling back term lengths, is a copyright small claims court. With digital technology enabling small scale publishing it is needed badly.

Fines levied as a result of being guilty in a criminal act are traditionally not able to be discharged in bankruptcy. So that part is covered.

If such a court is a criminal court, and can act easily across state lines. That would be very useful but I think its a pipe dream given how poorly other criminal justice works between states.

Quote from: estar;815616I don't feel it is that simplified considering that processes can be patented. While a specific machine may be the subject of a patent. What is actually protected are the ideas behind the machine. The arrangement of mechanisms or the process that the machine embodies.

Processes can be patented, yes - that's the point.

Quote from: estar;815616What can't be patented are discoveries that involve fact about the natural universe or mathematics. There is a limited exception in the case of materials, and they are working out things in regards to genetics.

So yes you are right about patents not covering every idea under the sun but they about protecting ideas. You can't make a different expression of the idea that the patent and not be covered by it.

Some ideas, yes, if you are defining an idea as close to the same thing as a process. But two products for example, can have the same rather unique purpose, yet be created / implemented in completely different ways.

For example - lets say you have an idea of a product that generates visual 3D worlds that you can navigate freely on your computer. One might be an elegant, almost purely mathematical procedural "zone free" solution. The other might subdivide the world into zones and employ mostly non procedural techniques to get the end user to perceive something that looks the same.

To the end user, there's no real difference between these two. Both products could be packed with patented processes which are quite different from each other.

I guess my point is this: they are different - just you, me and the greater than 99% of humanity don't really think about it, or care about it that much. But its quite an important difference for the tiny fraction that are very involved with patents on a daily basis.

Quote from: estar;815616Which is why resolving Patent disputes hinges around what elements or idea are covered by the patent. Because if you don't do even one of them the same (or omit it). Then the patent doesn't apply.

Another reason for this is that patents cover not only "copying" the invention but use and sales as well. The monopoly granted by patents is much more complete than the one granted by copyright.

They can, and that's why patents are a far more serious matter than copyrights when you look at length of term.

Quote from: Bren;815574That seeming is a result of your lack of reading comprehension. I've discussed a number of alternatives to the present system in this same thread.

And yet you keep harping on the same point that doesn't apply. In response to "this would be a better system" you invariably reply "you are not recognizing that it is illegal". Projection (along with your own lack of reading comprehension) is again your trademark.

QuoteThey can grant access during the term of the copyright.

You describe a deal that explains copyright, that creators are granting eventual entry to the public domain in return for protection of their right in the near term; then you're surprised that this is understood to mean that you believe that, in the absence of copyright, they have an eternal natural right and are only giving up the tail end of that in return for what copyright offers them. This is the biased framing in your posts that both jhkim and I pointed out.

Quote from: CRKrueger;815628I don't have a problem with an author controlling his work, absolute copyright for the author during his lifetime is fine by me.

Two problems with lifetime copyright term are that it may be difficult to determine if the author is still alive, and that it rewards young and healthy authors more than older and less healthy ones.