[noisefloor]

>As noted above, where is the rule that says that it cannot be?

How about the precedent that's been in place for the last two hundred years? As you said: "The only rule is that the public has to benefit in the end."

"Well, if we cared about the guy who invented the wheel, wouldn't we still be paying him today?"

If he invented it recently and was still alive, sure!

"I can't even begin to count all the wheels around here. On my chair, in my printer, in my computer, on my bike, on my car, etc."

So I guess it's a pretty important invention...doesn't the guy deserve some compensation for that? If he knew that people could just steal his idea without him getting any benefit from it, why would he bother presenting his idea to the public?

"What if he invented the wheel and never got anything at all?"

He'd likely stop inventing things. There goes your benefit to society.

"We encourage progress NOT merely by rewarding creative people, but also by letting them build on what others have wrought."

Yep. But it's a balance: too much of the first and the public loses out, but too much of the second and the creative people stop creating.

"And it's good; totally non-obvious, but really good."

Note that you say *IS* good. Present tense. Wreck that balance and the system falls apart.

"Here you are WRONG. You are incredibly, demonstrably WRONG."

Just because current law is different from a law enacted in 1790 makes it wrong? Please.

"So please understand this: AUTHORS DO NOT DESERVE COMPENSATION! This is precisely what I was trying to make clear with the cow analogy earlier."

But the part of your analogy you ignore is the fact that if you stop feeding the cow, it will stop giving milk. You can phrase it however you'd like, but it doesn't change the fact that: authors copyright works because they benefit from it, if you remove that benefit they will either stop copyrighting their works (and stop contributing their works to the public domain), or will stop creating the works entirely.

"Dear me, I'm sure that Stephen King is all in a tizzy because people can read his books!"

It's not analagous - it would be like requiring King to release all his rough drafts to the public.

"I recall reading that when the original Star Wars came out in 1977 a number of kids interested in effects studied it and worked out how to do similar things."

So it was possible to learn by analyzing a finished product. Would it be easier to have source materials? Sure.

Is it possible to learn by analyzing binary code? Sure. Would it be easier to have source code? Of course.

Why the double standard?


"However, if it _were_ sufficiently difficult to emulate Star Wars by studying it, then I'd absolutely advocate more disclosure there too."

It IS difficult. Possible, but difficult. Just like learning from taking apart binaries. Besides the fact that authors have no obligation to explain their work, requiring that it be "easy" to understand is IMPOSSIBLE simply because "easy to understand" is a matter of opinion and can't be easily defined.


>>Where does the constitution mandate that all works be "easy to see"?
>Doesn't say that it can't be required to be easy to see either.

It's funny how you insist on following the constitution to the letter when it supports your arguments, yet discard it so quickly when it doesn't.


You still haven't addressed the fact that your proposed scheme would make the copyright process exponentially more expensive, slower, and more cumbersome. How exactly does discouraging people from submitting works for copyright help the public good?

[cpt kangarooski]

Developer--
It may be needed. If I start selling illegal copies of, say, Star Wars, I'm not prone to call up Lucasfilm and let them know about it. For them to catch me, they would have to be spending resources looking for people doing what I am doing. Or alternatively, they could opt to not actively search for infringement but act when word of it reached them. Or they could ignore it altogether and knowing what I was doing, let me continue.

Whether it is necessary to enforce a copyright or not is up to the copyright holder.

Right now, source code is copyrighted, even if it is never directly published. If you write a screen capture program that has code in common with Snapz then it very well may be a copyright violation. Or it could be entirely legal. It depends on the precise circumstances; it actually doesn't depend on 'common knowledge.' You're thinking of patents, which are generally outside the scope of this discussion. Implementing copyright examiners and disclosure requirements does not mean that copyrights and patents would be identical regimes.

On the other hand, something you _could_ do under my proposal that you could not do now is study more usefully code from Adobe, MS, or Apple, and use what you've learned provided that you did so in a way that was legal. For over a hundred years we've been developing a doctrine of fair use in the courts that guides us in determining what is legal and what is not under certain circumstances. It's never very clear, I'm afraid; that's the nature of the beast, but it is better than nothing. And it stands to benefit developers, especially of free software who cannot invest into R&D as heavily as big developers, quite a lot.

And again, nothing forces developers to hunt down infringements and persue offenders. It's voluntary. Imagine how many people could sue, say, Mad Magazine for copyright infringements, trademark violations, defamations of character, etc. Certainly enough to destroy them. But it's quite rare in fact, because it's pretty clear that it would be wasted effort. You'd have to try to outspend them into oblivion since you could never actually win. And because there would be no precedent on your side, you would have to start all over again when the next parodist came along. And the next, and the next, and so forth until you can no longer keep it up, and it turns out to have been for nothing.

Where source-related infringements occur, there will be suits, people will understand the limits of what is legal and what isn't, and few people will try their luck. Where there are no actual infringements, the suits may effect a few people, but will have no effect overall. This is actually a lot like what is happening with p2p music sharing _despite_ it presently being an infringement. The pirates are so many, and so small, that they're not afraid en masse of the copyright holders. They could never sue them all. I really wonder if this should indicate to us that maybe such sharing shouldn't be illegal.

So there could be a bit of a turbulent time, as the new boundaries are established, but things will settle down and there will likely be little need for developers to spend more time policing their copyrights or fretting about suits, letting them get on with development.


Oh, also, throughout most of human history, art has indeed been copyable. When a storyteller told a tale, others could repeat it. When a potter made a nice looking pot, others could emulate it. When an interestingly-designed building was made, another building could be made just like it. (the Romans did this a lot) If you mean that there were works that were incapable of being copied, show me one that was inherently copy-protected.

If you mean that the law might prevent a copy (perhaps Sumerians weren't allowed to make idols unless they were licensed idol-makers) then that's as arbitrary as it is today. But unusual. Your typical king is worried about sedition, not the fortunes of two different artists. And of course, there were those who encouraged copying, e.g. the Alexandrians who mandated it so as to supply their Library with more scrolls.

[Developer]

Originally posted by cpt kangarooski:
Right now, source code is copyrighted, even if it is never directly published. If you write a screen capture program that has code in common with Snapz then it very well may be a copyright violation.

It isn't a copyright violation, because I'm not publishing the source code.

And again, nothing forces developers to hunt down infringements and persue offenders. It's voluntary.

You don't want to understand, do you? If you force me to publish the code, you force me to investigate if I infringe a copyright, if I don't want to be sued. That drives the costs to develop software ad infinitum.

Oh, also, throughout most of human history, art has indeed been copyable. When an interestingly-designed building was made, another building could be made just like it. (the Romans did this a lot)

I have never heard that the Romans forced the architects to release their plans.

[noisefloor]

Developer, you obviously don't understand...programmers need source code, but anyone else can create an exact replica of anything by just looking at it...

[diamondsw]

Originally posted by Brazuca:


huh?

"Zealotry"? I find the points well explained and very reasonable. It seems that the Capt is taking a lot of time and effort to back up his propositions with reasoned statements and facts. Where is the zealotry if not on you?

Whereas I feel that most of cpt's arguments are made up of false analogies, and a steadfast refusal to realize that however utopian his system might be, it is not a pragmatic one. Simply put, the vast majority of developers will not spend years of work just to have other people take it. Rather than advance, the progress of computer science will slow to a crawl, simply because people will not put forth the effort. Computer science and programming is not rewarded as an art, it is rewarded as something productive, creating an end-product.

As such, computer science and technology has advanced far faster than art or literature (if the two are comparable at all, which I don't believe they are). Consider the progress computer science has made in 100 years (nothing to what you see around you) versus ANY 100 year period of art or literature.

Finally, art and literature have a far greater lasting value than computer science. No one will be interested in the code of today even 20 years from now, just as you really wouldn't want the original VisiCalc source code. All of these comparisons between software and the arts are fallacies.

Originally posted by Brazuca:

"ivory tower idealism"? This is nice to throw around when people feel that the waters are getting too deep. Somehow, the aim to better the system is now a goal to be avoided? I won't quote all the occasions where Capt has pointed out that he is willing to talk about different approaches to further society. His arguments seem well rooted in reality.

Ivory tower idealism exists, my friend. Visit nearly any CS research department. And while the captain has stated his willingness to discuss other ideas (which is admirable - few have been presented), he has shown an incredible reticence to considering the ideas of others.

Originally posted by Brazuca:

"profound lack of understanding of the issues involved"!! Now this is a laughable comment. Actually it is disappointing coming from you, Moki (not that I think you care what I think). If anything he has shown a disturbingly intense understanding of all the concerns as they relate to copyrights and software. I just can't understand where he is lacking in this department, but then again, maybe you understand and I don't. My little brother says the same thing to my parents when they disagree with him ("you just don't get it").

No, the Capt understands law. Moki understands software development and the economic realities of it. Perhaps it's because I also am a developer, but I would hazard that moki has a much more keen sense of how this would impact software development than a lawyer would. Captain studies cases and legal theory, Moki actually lives off of his development.

Originally posted by Brazuca:
Sorry to go off topic, but I was enjoying the discussion and learning a lot from it, refining my opinions and coming up with new questions. I would have reacted the same had blatantly unfounded criticism been made towards someone arguing the opposite position honestly.

You don't seem to afford the same attention to Moki's views.

[Developer]

Originally posted by noisefloor:
Developer, you obviously don't understand...programmers need source code, but anyone else can create an exact replica of anything by just looking at it...

What's that supposed to mean?

If you want to argue with me, then please use some "arguments" that at least make some sort of sense.

[noisefloor]

It's supposed to mean I was being sarcastic (and agreeing with you).

Sorry, I thought I was being blatantly obvious.

[Developer]

Sorry, I didn't get that.

[Souljah]

Isn't it great that we can come here and openly debate in this manner ,confessing our crimes or shamlessly join the warez witch hunt with absolutely no fear of reprocussion,legal or otherwise?

While I do not advocate piracy I must agree that it does promote fair use, more so that fair use itself.How so?Well if 1 of your friends tells you they 've purchase it and the other tells you they've Carrachoed it,whom would you ask to burn you a copy?I bet the honest purchaser would most likely tell you to buy it since that would be piracy while the pirate would say sure or point you in the right direction.So you install,lock up,reinstall,wipe HD,etc etc. and begin the pain staking search for another copy from another server or pirate hoping that this time the copy is good.Is this really worth it if you don't have the $ to purchase it?Well yes it is until you have the $ to actually purchase a legit copy,which BTW most of us will after that experience.

Now suppose you're legit purchasing buddy does burn you a copy,well you can always share the costs and keep buying more software on that basis, which equals to half pirated lost revenue.LOL I hope that makes sense!

Simply lost revenue is forever lost revenue,it's part of the cost of doing business,think of it as free advertising.
If I have the $ I will buy,if not I will find other means to stay current.
Some one who lives at the the poverty level will never pay for software if their situation never changes.Does this mean that they do not deserve to have a pirated copy in hopes of one day being able to support developers by future purchases of apps they've come to depend on?Please don't compare apples and oranges here,forget cars,TVs and whatever.
Ask Bill or Steve which they rather have floating around...legitimate and pirated copies or just legit?It is impossible to collect from people who simply will not pay ,cannot pay or are cheap SOBs who do not like to pay.It's a waste of time,$ and energy better spent developing updates for those loyal supporters.

Now ... I cannot stand sheepish witch hunters who point the finger while screamming "WAREZER" without thinking about how many times they've Napsterized their HD...it's the same damn thing.
What I do with my comp is none of anybody's business,I can piss on it download porn,smear crap on the screen,burn it,or yes...warez.
It's a personal choice just like smoking weed,jumping off a cliff,buying hot merchandise or yes rolling my own smokes is.If I get caught or not it won't directly affect you.
There are ethical lines drawn in the sand in all facets of life,boundrys to push,
chances to take and yes,even laws that need bending.

Now..Apple has this Family OSX deal going for 5 single users.
Can 4 of my buddies chip in and install even if they are not part of my family,or live under the same roof,am i warezing?Do the other 4 have to have the same last name as I do?You see my point?


You want to blame someone go after the employee who uploaded the copy in the first place..damn warezer... not the poor small guy who likes to somewhat feel like a part of society's current trends or advantages it offers by staying up to date.

You have every right to fight for your right to ownership,conpensation or reward but don't think because laws are in place to do so,you're offered some sort of vigilante anti warez badge to one day piss off the wrong pirate.
I will keep my mouth shut but be the first to blow the whistle when I realize that I can make a difference in protecting someone from getting hurt.

In the meantime chill,enjoy your time with things that really matter to you, be it,
driving your Porsche,getting drunk,smoking cancer sticks,playing or making a living with computers....everything in moderation.

BTW I didn't check typos or spelling errors..but i'm sure it's understandable.


Peace

[flatcatch]

Originally posted by cpt kangarooski:
Access to source code is, frankly, a necessity under the copyright system. It borders on criminal that we do not have it now. (Although it is essential to note that having access to it is not the same as the right to use it. I have access to the text of Stephen King novels, but I cannot legally print up more copies. Though I could legally quote from them. Fairly tough to quote from an executable and retain real meaning.)

* Shaking head, blinking eyes in disbelief *

I did not just read that did I? Would you propose Motorola provide you with the complete design schematics for the G4 and free access to their fabrication facilities when you purchase a new Mac?

[moki]

Originally posted by Developer:
You don't want to understand, do you? If you force me to publish the code, you force me to investigate if I infringe a copyright, if I don't want to be sued. That drives the costs to develop software ad infinitum.

You hit the nail right on the head -- he doesn't understand the things he's discussing outside of the shiny white walls of academic utopia.

Hey, some people believe the bullshit ESR spouts; more power to 'em. Join the OpenSource bandwagon, change the world -- have fun. You can do it within the framework for the current system just fine; if OpenSource is a better model for furthering progress as people are saying, it'll eventually win out.

When I look at human history, and what we call "progress", it seems quite evident to me that providing financial motivation for hard work is significantly more progressive than any 60's-ish "let information be free, man!" mantras.

Why is it so difficult to understand that providing people with protection and motivation to innovate furthers the arts and sciences more than forcing people to give away their work? *sigh*

[moki]

Originally posted by diamondsw:
No, the Capt understands law. Moki understands software development and the economic realities of it. Perhaps it's because I also am a developer, but I would hazard that moki has a much more keen sense of how this would impact software development than a lawyer would. Captain studies cases and legal theory, Moki actually lives off of his development.

He actually only puts for legal theory that furthers his misguided agenda; there's plenty of IP law out there that he ignores utterly, simply because it doesn't jibe with the way he thinks the world should work.

The problem with theories that exist in a vacuum is that they degenerate rapidly when the dirty little world we call reality creeps into the picture. An entirely uninformed view of the software development business combined with a few select examples from the law books he studies in college does not a convincing argument make. Not to me, anyway...

[cpt kangarooski]

Noisefloor--
Congress isn't bound by precedent. Lord knows they don't worry too much about it when it comes to regulating interstate commerce. Really there are only a few rules about IP that spring out of the Constitution and thus are binding.

*Whether there are any IP laws whatsoever is up to Congress. They aren't manditory.
*If Congress grants exclusive rights to a writing or invention, it must be to the author or inventor, not a third party.
*If Congress grants exclusive rights to a writing or invention, it must be for a limited period of time, not forever.
*If Congress grants exclusive rights to writing or invention, it must promote the progress of the arts or sciences; if it does not, such rights cannot be granted.

(we'll leave a discussion of trademarks, which arise out of the commerce power, IIRC, for another time)

Congress is totally free to act within those boundaries. If they decided that authors had to strip naked, paint themselves purple, stick a rubber glove on their heads and run around yelling 'I'm a squid, I'm a squid,' then that would be the deal. They could do that.

Particularly since there are precious few metrics for determining whether or not a copyright law yields an overall public benefit. Congress is usually afforded a lot of leniency in deciding by the courts. Which is why the Eldred case is so interesting. It's quite like the Lopez decision in which a curb was finally placed on the commerce power after fifty years of it being rubber stamped.

(For those joining us late, the Eldred case seeks to overturn the retroactive extension of copyright term lengths that happened in the late 90's. The plaintiffs claim that extending existing copyright term lengths by 20 years every 20 years violates the constitutional mandate of limited term lengths, even though at any one point in time the term is of limited length, be it life+50, life+70, or life+1,000,000 years. I'm rooting for the plaintiffs, incidentally.)

Anyway, placing conditions on copyrights is not unusual. Until very recently, if an author failed to properly mark a copyrighted work as copyrighted, he lost the copyright. Because Congress felt that people who weren't serious about the technical requirements didn't deserve anything. In fact, IIRC it is thanks to this that MLK's "I Have a Dream" speech is in the public domain: he forgot to put the copyright notice on it. Likewise the first US copyright act required that the author be an American. Charles Dickens complained bitterly about this. Since it only covered books and maps, I imagine that songwriters, musicians, painters, etc. weren't overjoyed either.

But hey -- it's not as though they were _worse_ off than they had been. It's important to remember that the worst thing that can possibly happen is that copyrights disappear, a failed experiment, and we resume having everything always be in the public domain, just as was the case throughout all history save the last couple of centuries. (barring state secrets, censorship of seditious works, etc., which is a freedom of speech issue, not a copyright issue)

It's kind of funny really. This whole argument turns on how much of a hand out we're willing to give. That is, the measure of our subsidy.

If [the inventor of the wheel] knew that people could just steal his idea without him getting any benefit from it, why would he bother presenting his idea to the public?

Got me. Undercutting your argument though is the fact that he did anyway. Maybe he knew that you cannot steal ideas. Jefferson said that an idea is like fire. If he lit a fire, and you lit a taper from it, his is not diminished. Instead you both can benefit from the light produced. Maybe he knew that he would benefit from it because another caveman would refine his invention and share it just as freely. Wheels are great, but right away you start wanting axles.

Some people would not invent things unless we gave them the Moon. Well, to hell with them. Such inventions are not worth the price that would be paid for them! Companies involved in inventing drugs HATE that patent terms are as short as they are, probably that they're limited at all.

Maybe we'd have more and better drugs if the term lasted a hundred years. But we would lose having cheap drugs manufactured by a wide variety of companies. I, and the government, find the latter to be better overall. Even though some things may never be invented.

I refuse to be held hostage by recalcitrant authors or inventors. To afford them any particular importance would turn things upside down. Rather, let us look for whatever will benefit the public the most. Since the public benefits from derivative works as well as from novel works there will ALWAYS be a balance where only some things come to pass but they're all we need. You know what a supply and demand curve looks like? Two intersecting curves, one waxing and one waning? With an optimal point in the middle that doesn't fully satisfy anyone? That's very much like what we're looking at with copyrights.

The problem is that what if, as I suspect, we are _way_ over to one side, and nowhere near the optimal point at all?

In that case it behooves us to scurry back to the right spot. Even if this means sacrificing works that then will not be created, and rejoicing in regaining freedoms that we had been deprived of. We're still better off doing it.

(Incidentally, note that uncopyrighted works are in the public domain: the public domain is the default condition of creative works. An author who created a work and didn't copyright it would be legally unprotected.)

So it was possible to learn by analyzing a finished product. Would it be easier to have source materials? Sure.

Is it possible to learn by analyzing binary code? Sure. Would it be easier to have source code? Of course.

Sure. Thing is, it is orders of magnitude harder to analyze a binary to be able to work with it than it is to analyze a movie in order to work with it. I seek to artificially reduce this difficulty to a more managable level. Show me that something else is difficult and it too likely should be reduced to be managable.

The threshold is fuzzy, sure. But then we also have a threshold for what constitutes a fair use, and that's fuzzy. And we have a threshold for deciding whether a work is creative enough to be eligable for a copyright or not, and that's fuzzy too. Don't worry about fuzzy standards -- the law is full of them, and everyone is used to dealing with them and guiding people through by pointing to various examples. It's not a problem.

This is in keeping with the mandate of promoting progress. Things that are very very hard to learn from do not promote progress much.

Developer--

t isn't a copyright violation, because I'm not publishing the source code.

You don't necessarily have to publish a work just in order to infringe on it. Until Congress fixed the law, it was a copyright infringement to copy a computer program to RAM even if it was totally necessary to run it. It's pretty easy to infringe. Harder to get caught, since the catcher likely doesn't care too much about such a small fry.

So if I force you to publish source code, it changes nothing.

At most someone may allege that you copied too much, and are infringing. It's incumbent on them to prove this of course. And again, standards will rapidly emerge so that you have a good idea for what you can and cannot do. Do you really think that people sweat at night trying to decide whether they are within fair use, or accidently infringed? No -- because it's often clear enough though the standards are fuzzy, and because it's often a non-issue to begin with.

As for building plans, again, it's one of those things where study is easy and there's little pressing need for supplementary information. (though IIRC we do require publication of plans copyrighted or not!) If you built a 2d Flavian Amplitheater back then, you were okay. Today we can at least study buildings, though we cannot build duplicates if the plans are copyrighted.

[cpt kangarooski]

Diamondsw--

Finally, art and literature have a far greater lasting value than computer science. No one will be interested in the code of today even 20 years from now, just as you really wouldn't want the original VisiCalc source code.

Sounds like an argument for reducing the term length of software to me. If no one will want it in 20 years, and copyrights are rather predicated on expecting that people will want stuff upon term expiration, maybe 10 years would be appropriate?

Of course, my all-time favorite computer game is Bolo for the Apple II. It's 20 years old, ironically enough. I have to resort to using an emulator to play it since even were it no longer copyrighted, no one knows enough about it to port it to anything modern. You should check out MAME sometime. If there were information sufficient to let a programmer of ordinary skill port it, I'd pay good money for the labor.

('Course something that old is likely in assembly anyway, but the point stands. I might want to play Marathon in twelve years or something.)

And while the captain has stated his willingness to discuss other ideas (which is admirable - few have been presented), he has shown an incredible reticence to considering the ideas of others.

The ideas of others have nearly uniformly been: the status quo is fine, don't change anything.

What's weird though is that several of the people who have explicitly or implicitly said this have ALSO said that well, maybe term limits are too long, or fair use is not expansive enough, or the RIAA and MPAA are going too far.

Yet I'm sure if I asked Hillary Rosen (RIAA) or Jack Valenti (MPAA) for suggestions for reform, they'd tell me that the status quo is fine, don't change anything.

So something doesn't add up to me. I suspect that people closely involved in any sort of industry or commercial venture related to copyrights doesn't want change. Because it could jeopardize their business. Even if it could irrefutably be shown that it was in the best interests of society, they'd still rail against it.

So hey -- if you think things are 100% perfect now, say so. If you think that there is anything at ALL that needs reforming, and is within the realm of potential reform permitted by the Constitution (as interpreted by the courts) let's hear it. If I'm on the wrong track but reform would improve things I need to know which way to redirect my efforts.

So far nothing has been forthcoming. Andrew refuses to even acknowledge that I've asked him a direct question.

So excuse me if I disagree with you here that I refuse to consider other positions. All I refuse to believe is that we've perfected things today.

Besides which, I'm not just a law student, I'm also an artist. And I've supported myself entirely through artistic endeavors in the past. Even art needs copyright reform. Recognizing that, and refusing to be blind even if to my own personal advantage is actually what sparked my interest in law. I really think, as an artist and a law student, that artists need less protection than we have today.

Souljah--
Hm? Who said there wouldn't be repercussions. You can get in trouble for publicly admitting the wrong thing.

Anyway, it's great to see a revival of the original subject! Anyway, as near as I can tell you're basically saying that it's unlikely that individual infringers will be caught and stopped. I'm inclined to agree. Which doesn't mean it's good, just that that's likely.

If I poke someone on the street, I can be sued for damages. On the other hand, I could probably poke nearly anyone with impunity, because only a very rare person is going to spend money taking me to court over a mere poke. (unless it causes expensive injury or something, which is a risk that I'd be taking; stranger things have happened in the world of torts, believe me)

Same principle, same acceptance that some people are not worth suing even when they could or should be.

Flatcatch--
Oh, you read it. You just totally failed to understand it. No, I would not demand that Moto include G4 specifications with every Mac, and I would never, ever, ever demand that they let people use their facilities. You need to read _all_ of this thread, a hard task, I know. Hopefully then what I propose will be not only more clear, but even agreeable to you.

If nothing else though, definately be aware that a wide gap divides the world of knowledge and the world of physical things. I don't mean to bridge that gap anytime soon. So while I want Moto to reveal to the world how they made their (patented) fabrication systems, I don't care if they keep people from using them. Only if they keep people from learning about them and (eventually) duplicating them.

[noisefloor]

"It's important to remember that the worst thing that can possibly happen is that copyrights disappear, a failed experiment, and we resume having everything always be in the public domain, just as was the case throughout all history save the last couple of centuries."

I'd think that "thing that can possibly happen" would be that people stop creating things, a possibility that you keep ignoring. How would that help the public good?

I assume you think it's just coincidence that the time period in which copyright law existed JUST happens to be the same time in which progress in the sciences has moved the FASTEST? Listen to yourself, you're lamenting that the world isn't more like the dark ages!

"I refuse to be held hostage by recalcitrant authors or inventors."

Problem is, ALL authors and inventors are "recalcitrant" to some degree. As you reduce protections and incentives, more and more of them become "recalcitrant".

And even if you have authors who are willing to work for free, you're still screwing The Public Good if you make it impossible for them to get compensation for their work - if they're not getting paid to create, they need to get a day job to pay the rent, and can only invent in their spare time!

PLUS, your disincentive to get copyrights is a double whammy: at the same time you are reducing compensation for creating, you're exponentially raising the price of getting a copyright. If someone DOES invent something, it likely won't make it into the LoC just because they can't afford to register it!

"Rather, let us look for whatever will benefit the public the most."

Wouldn't that be people creating useful things? Makes perfect sense to discourage that.

"The problem is that what if, as I suspect, we are _way_ over to one side, and nowhere near the optimal point at all?"

What if things are just fine? Your arguement is nonexistent, you simply pitch a hypothetical WHATIF future with no basis in reality.

"Thing is, it is orders of magnitude harder to analyze a binary to be able to work with it than it is to analyze a movie in order to work with it."

Have you done either? So what exactly is this comment based on other than simply pulling it out of your arse? (FYI, there were animation techniques used in the early days of Disney that weren't recorded and were lost and not rediscovered for FIFTY years)

As for building plans, again, it's one of those things where study is easy and there's little pressing need for supplementary information. (though IIRC we do require publication of plans copyrighted or not!) If you built a 2d Flavian Amplitheater back then, you were okay.

Wow, you couldn't be more wrong. The roman technique of building domes was lost for a thousand years. So even with a THOUSAND years of "study", nobody could build a Pantheon 2. Nice try though.

Gee, a lot of things seem to be "easy" when you just sit around and imagine doing them instead of speaking from experience.


"Of course, my all-time favorite computer game is Bolo for the Apple II. It's 20 years old, ironically enough. I have to resort to using an emulator to play it since even were it no longer copyrighted, no one knows enough about it to port it to anything modern."

Hey, thanks for providing an example where source code was NOT necessary! It's 20 years old, and you can still play it. What exactly is the problem?

"I might want to play Marathon in twelve years or something"

Which I'm sure will be possible (probably at a better resolution and frame rate than is possible today) using an emulator, if that's necessary.


"The ideas of others have nearly uniformly been: the status quo is fine, don't change anything. What's weird though is that several of the people who have explicitly or implicitly said this have ALSO said that well, maybe term limits are too long"

Contradict yourself much? Just because people think your proposal is a terrible idea doesn't mean they don't want any change. Notice how the discussion centers on the idea of releasing the source code, while shorter terms don't stir up much disagreement.

[moki]

Originally posted by noisefloor:
"Of course, my all-time favorite computer game is Bolo for the Apple II. It's 20 years old, ironically enough. I have to resort to using an emulator to play it since even were it no longer copyrighted, no one knows enough about it to port it to anything modern."

Hey, thanks for providing an example where source code was NOT necessary! It's 20 years old, and you can still play it. What exactly is the problem?

Not to mention the fact that the source code to Bolo for the Apple II would be utterly useless in creating a port. It was written in 6502 assembler -- it'd be infinitely easier to just rewrite the game yourself by looking at the gameplay.

Originally posted by noisefloor:
"I might want to play Marathon in twelve years or something"

Which I'm sure will be possible (probably at a better resolution and frame rate than is possible today) using an emulator, if that's necessary.

Bungie actually open source'd the code to Marathon years ago, on their on volition -- no law was needed to make this happen. Ironically, rather than advancing the arts and sciences, what's happened to the Aleph 1 project is they've torn the heck out of the code, breaking it, and added a lot of fairly useless features to it. It still doesn't entirely work to this day (networking has been broken).

They've also spent a great amount of time re-discovering well-known and well-published techniques in the gaming industry. You see, competition in the gaming market is what has driven technological innovation -- though I will grant that many budding programmers have no doubt learned from the code, they also have ironically eschewed many well-known techniques and myopically focused on the Marathon source code.

Using the techniques people have touted here, Open Source programmers have managed to break and re-break Marathon repeatedly over the past two years... if the desired result is more finished projects (the culmination of advancing the arts and sciences), this sure isn't a shining example of it. Look for yourself: https://sourceforge.net/projects/marathon/

This is how things work in the real world.

I'd also like to point out that someone's *want* to play a game decades later has nothing to do with advancing the arts and sciences. It is just appeasing their own selfish desires.

Originally posted by noisefloor:
Contradict yourself much? Just because people think your proposal is a terrible idea doesn't mean they don't want any change. Notice how the discussion centers on the idea of releasing the source code, while shorter terms don't stir up much disagreement.

I concur. Verbosity doesn't make one right, it simply makes one persistent -- or worse, closed-minded. Its like talking to someone who spends so much time speaking that they have no possibility of actually listening.

[Brazuca]

noisefloor:

Why do you think that people would stop inventing anything?
Under the proposed reforms, a publisher would be granted a copyright for his/her work, deposit the commented source at the LoC who would then make it available to students and other interested parties for learning purposes.
If you notice than anyone is using your software illicitly (your biggest fear), you have EVERY RIGHT to sue them and get them to stop. You have EVERY PROTECTION under the law to prevent people from stealing your knowledge. NO ONE is allowed to use what you created outside the scope of fair use and study.

So, if you can still profit from your work, why would you stop working?

OTOH, if you think that this is not feasible due to enforcement issues, then you at least must agree that the idea is a good one. We can then talk about whether it is feasible to implement it and in which form. But you will then have to agree that this is an improvement over the current system since CS students can OOOHH and AHHHH over Moki's genius, Professors can point out a particular clever way of solving a problem, etc.

Once again, this proposal is NOT to go back to the 60s style free everything mentality. This is NOT a call to allow anyone to use your source and steal your ideas. You STILL GET TO KEEP THEM and profit from them.

[Souljah]

"stop inventing or creating"...please...would never happen.The open source community works for little or no compensation other than bragging rights and maybe in hopes of one day getting that elusive knock on the door from a major developer,publisher etc etc...some are totally against cooperate monopoly ala MFST and will not be bought(i never quite understood that one).

In all of this,we're forgetting an important factor...human endeavor...that drive that keeps us up through the wee hours of the morning on an empty stomach in an attempt to fill that " i just gotta do this" void....call it "the need to accomplish" or whatever you see it as.
The point being that "invention" is in our souls,it drives us,it destroys us,some we actually do benefit from.
We're simple men with not so simple needs,thank God you're in that 5% of the richest people on Earth ...to even know the difference.

[noisefloor]

"Why do you think that people would stop inventing anything?"

1) Loss of financial incentive
2) Loss of income - less time to invent since you'd have to do something else to pay the bills
3) Many people still would invent, but they'd either keep their work for themselves or use protections other than copyrights


"Under the proposed reforms, a publisher would be granted a copyright for his/her work, deposit the commented source at the LoC who would then make it available to students and other interested parties for learning purposes."

Including the publisher's competition. Copyright is for getting FINISHED WORKS out to the public, not "how to" guides. Why is it so important that we suddenly change the whole PURPOSE of copyrights?

"If you notice than anyone is using your software illicitly (your biggest fear), you have EVERY RIGHT to sue them and get them to stop."

Which you can only find out from studing thousands of lines of your competitor's code. And even then, they will likely change the code just enough that it's harder to find infringements. How practical.

"You have EVERY PROTECTION under the law to prevent people from stealing your knowledge. NO ONE is allowed to use what you created outside the scope of fair use and study."

Except that "fair use" hasn't really been defined in terms of software. Some people here think that copying and pasting others' code is fine, I don't agree.

"So, if you can still profit from your work, why would you stop working?"

If your competitors can easily create a product similar to yours by "studying" your work instead of doing it themselves, you WON'T profit from your work. Others will.

"you at least must agree that the idea is a good one."

Sorry, I don't agree. I'd be OK with requiring depositing of source code as long as it were only released to the public on expiration of the copyright. But even that isn't very practical, nobody would know if the source code was even valid until after the copyright had expired.



"stop inventing or creating"...please...would never happen.

Of course it wouldn't stop completely, but you'd have far less, and most people inventing or creating wouldn't bother releasing their stuff to the public, they'd just keep it for their own benefit.

"The open source community works for little or no compensation"

And let's look at the results of that community. Even for FREE, the average person isn't interested in using most of that software.

"In all of this,we're forgetting an important factor...human endeavor..."

Sure, people will still do things because they simply want to. But why bother releasing it to the public? And how much can you get done if you can't even start working until you finish your 40+ hour work week?

Hey, let's decree that it's wrong for people to get paid for building roads. Would a few roads still be built? Sure. Will the quality or quantity be even a tiny fraction of what we have now? Nope.

Souljah, would you keep doing your job if your boss told you that you would no longer be paid for it?

[wolfen]

You guys are complicating things beyond reason. Every million $ in software profits means $1 million more for next year's budget.

When they ask Osama BL how he can kill innocents in the name of Allah he says "If it works out that way, so be it. It all works out in the end. If it wasn't for the best, Allah wouldn't allow it!" Don't confuse your convoluted post hoc rationalizations about stealing with sage-like insight into the grand-scheme-of-things. Go pitch your manure somewhere else -- you're stinkin' up the place.


Bottom line, making software takes money. Piracy makes you the lowest form of consumer. You are a parasite. You are like the street corner addict hustling for change so he can get another hit of something he can't otherwise afford. That's the only friggin' analogy you need to remember.


wolfen