Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Velvetelvis

Intellectual property rights is .....Illogical.

Recommended Posts

I don't like trademarks and blanket I.p. coverage.

If you put something out in the public sphere that's it....It's out there. 

If you don't want the public messing with it....Keep it to yourself and whatever trusted few you feel are necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Velvetelvis said:

I don't like trademarks and blanket I.p. coverage.

If you put something out in the public sphere that's it....It's out there. 

If you don't want the public messing with it....Keep it to yourself and whatever trusted few you feel are necessary.

This would be a disaster!! Way to many fanastic inventions and ideas would never see the time of day! Progress would halt....

 

Let people invent and profit from it! Those who thinks otherwise are just trying to steal!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't say so away with them altogether. Otherwise, companies could put billions into research in order to make something only for another company to take the concept after they release it with zero money down on their part. Likewise, if Joe creates the next great thing in his basement, a company can just start selling it as their own idea and Joe will never see a penny for his efforts (although this actually happens at a disturbingly frequent level).

 

I would however agree that we need to liberalize these things a bit. Stuff like 'Happy Birthday to You' should be put into the public domain if nobody has tried to market it after 5 years. Drugs and other lifesaving things should automatically trigger a 'generic' option that any company can freely start making it if the price is raised by a certain percentage (no more companies buying up stuff like Epi-Pen and jacking up the cost 400% because they have a monopoly on the product).

Stuff like characters and entertainment are a lot more difficult to do stuff with. One can't just say that you can freely do something with a character as long as it's done for no profit as Marvel could easily release a free comic called 'Batman eats dog poo' just to drag their competition through the mud. And if these companies are still using those characters as their main bread and butter, then they should have some protection to do so. But nobody has done anything with Flash Gorden in decades. Same thing with the original Wizard of Oz movie. Old stuff like that has had more than enough time to make money for their company. Let somebody put it up for free as long as they aren't personally profiting from it. Or let them profit from it as long as it's just from ad revenue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We could do away with IP rights, I suppose, if we wanted the free market to collapse. IP rights allow for George Lucas to have an incentive to spend years of his life working on Star Wars. They allow for board game designers and video game designers to spend their time designing their games. They allow for musicians to compose music. I suppose it would be all right if we got rid of IP rights, if we want only the ultra wealthy to be able to spend time in creative pursuits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 16/04/2017 at 6:37 PM, Sciencius said:

This would be a disaster!! Way to many fanastic inventions and ideas would never see the time of day! Progress would halt....

 

Let people invent and profit from it! Those who thinks otherwise are just trying to steal!

Yup no-one profits from free software.

Wait

15 hours ago, TasteTheRainbow said:

No IP protection means no well-funded IP's. I would not care for that at all.

Yup there's no well-funded free software.

Wait

 

To be serious, there are a number of software products which are free-as-in-speech (i.e. anyone is legally permitted to copy the source code, and do whatever they want with it up to and including compiling and selling it on themselves) but not free-as-in-beer (i.e. if you want to use them, you have to pay for them, or you have to agree to certain T&Cs to use them, etc) which are perfectly well-funded and make money, either by direct sales, or by crowdsourcing donations to and work on them.  The idea that a lack of IP protection makes it impossible to invent or impossible to fund that invention is patently (:V) untrue.

 

However, personally, I DO actually support some intellectual property rights - artists who put the work into creating art, should have some means to protect the time they invest in it, and guarantee their own ability to make money off it if they want to.  Similarly, inventors and patents.  But equally I support artists' right to make art which is based on others' work - from fan-art and fan-fiction to works of parody either created originally like e.g. Rusty and Co, or remixed from the original like e.g. Darths and Droids.  And to subsequently profit from them.  It's shameful that people like Paul LaRue and our forums' very own CitrusCannon can spend hours lovingly creating entirely original artwork based on characters owned by Disney, and can't make any money by doing so unless they're willing to risk the Wrath of Mouse for their trouble, or unless Disney, in the person of FFG most likely, commissions them officially to do so.  But doing the same thing for work that was released before the arbitrary date that copyright was invented, carries no risks at all.

But, I don't think IP should last anywhere NEAR as long as it does.  Personally, I'd say that patents are the right model, more or less - they last as I understand it around 10 to 15 years, which is more than enough time for the vast majority of the money that's going to be made from a thing, to be made.  Certainly IP shouldn't, for my money, last after the creator's death.  One of the biggest chokeholds on originality at the moment is Disney jealously guarding Mickey's mouldering corpse from being re-used, 100 years after the original work was made and 70+ years after the original creator died.

What becomes really difficult is IP that is created not by one person, but by multiple people, and isn't held by any single individual, but by a corporation that won't die, and won't share.  It's not like Lucas was ever the sole creator of Star Wars - dozens of people like Ralph McQuarrie had major creative influences even outside those who actually wrote and acted - and ad-libbed - the characters, and hundreds if not thousands of people did the grunt work, especially in ILM.  SO which person's death would the IP be released under?

That's why I think that IP should probably go into the public domain a certain amount of time after its original release date.  Because there's no other rational model that doesn't end up with all IP being owned forever by coprorations, aside from the arbitrary chunk of stuff that was created before this copyright thing was invented, and the arbitrary chunk of stuff that kind creators put into the public domain themselves.

Note though that, as above, this *wouldn't* mean that it would automatically stop being sold.  Plenty of people - probably the vast majority of people - are more than willing to pay for public-domain IP, either for the convenience of accessing it in certain formats or locations - people will still buy Moby **** or Frankenstein in hard copy, despite it being free in digital - or for the moral rectitude of supporting the creator's work - c.f. pay-what-you-want models like Humble Bundle etc.  It's not like people don't pay big bucks to attend 200-year-old operas and concerts the music for which is all in the public domain, either.  And similarly, people still buy the products of the original patent-holder rather than the later copies, even when the later copies are just as good, because the patent holder is usually the one that's been on the market for 10 years and people know it much better.

In short: I don't think abolishing IP entirely would be sensible, as the argument that it drives innovation to some extent is strong, but I think the system HAS to change, and has to change soon, to a much, MUCH less long-lasting model, or we're going to completely choke small creators under the weight of big corporations before too long.  There is nothing new under the sun, and when all the old stuff is owned by some corporation or other who will throw lawyers at people 'copying' it...  That is going to kill innovation just as hard.

Edited by thespaceinvader

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

Yup no-one profits from free software.

Wait

Never said that. 

This is your interpretation.

56 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

To be serious, there are a number of software products which are free-as-in-speech (i.e. anyone is legally permitted to copy the source code, and do whatever they want with it up to and including compiling and selling it on themselves) but not free-as-in-beer (i.e. if you want to use them, you have to pay for them, or you have to agree to certain T&Cs to use them, etc) which are perfectly well-funded and make money, either by direct sales, or by crowdsourcing donations to and work on them.  The idea that a lack of IP protection makes it impossible to invent or impossible to fund that invention is patently (:V) untrue.

However, personally, I DO actually support some intellectual property rights - artists who put the work into creating art, should have some means to protect the time they invest in it, and guarantee their own ability to make money off it if they want to.  Similarly, inventors and patents.  But equally I support artists' right to make art which is based on others' work - from fan-art and fan-fiction to works of parody either created originally like e.g. Rusty and Co, or remixed from the original like e.g. Darths and Droids.  And to subsequently profit from them.  It's shameful that people like Paul LaRue and our forums' very own CitrusCannon can spend hours lovingly creating entirely original artwork based on characters owned by Disney, and can't make any money by doing so unless they're willing to risk the Wrath of Mouse for their trouble, or unless Disney, in the person of FFG most likely, commissions them officially to do so.  But doing the same thing for work that was released before the arbitrary date that copyright was invented, carries no risks at all.

But, I don't think IP should last anywhere NEAR as long as it does.  Personally, I'd say that patents are the right model, more or less - they last as I understand it around 10 to 15 years, which is more than enough time for the vast majority of the money that's going to be made from a thing, to be made.  Certainly IP shouldn't, for my money, last after the creator's death.  One of the biggest chokeholds on originality at the moment is Disney jealously guarding Mickey's mouldering corpse from being re-used, 100 years after the original work was made and 70+ years after the original creator died.

What becomes really difficult is IP that is created not by one person, but by multiple people, and isn't held by any single individual, but by a corporation that won't die, and won't share.  It's not like Lucas was ever the sole creator of Star Wars - dozens of people like Ralph McQuarrie had major creative influences even outside those who actually wrote and acted - and ad-libbed - the characters, and hundreds if not thousands of people did the grunt work, especially in ILM.  SO which person's death would the IP be released under?

That's why I think that IP should probably go into the public domain a certain amount of time after its original release date.  Because there's no other rational model that doesn't end up with all IP being owned forever by coprorations, aside from the arbitrary chunk of stuff that was created before this copyright thing was invented, and the arbitrary chunk of stuff that kind creators put into the public domain themselves.

Note though that, as above, this *wouldn't* mean that it would automatically stop being sold.  Plenty of people - probably the vast majority of people - are more than willing to pay for public-domain IP, either for the convenience of accessing it in certain formats or locations - people will still buy Moby **** or Frankenstein in hard copy, despite it being free in digital - or for the moral rectitude of supporting the creator's work - c.f. pay-what-you-want models like Humble Bundle etc.  It's not like people don't pay big bucks to attend 200-year-old operas and concerts the music for which is all in the public domain, either.  And similarly, people still buy the products of the original patent-holder rather than the later copies, even when the later copies are just as good, because the patent holder is usually the one that's been on the market for 10 years and people know it much better.

In short: I don't think abolishing IP entirely would be sensible, as the argument that it drives innovation to some extent is strong, but I think the system HAS to change, and has to change soon, to a much, MUCH less long-lasting model, or we're going to completely choke small creators under the weight of big corporations before too long.  There is nothing new under the sun, and when all the old stuff is owned by some corporation or other who will throw lawyers at people 'copying' it...  That is going to kill innovation just as hard.

So first you disagree as a reply to my post, and then you agree in principle (LOL). 

The exact details of "who", "what", "how long" - is not something we can discuss as I am not a lawyer and dont know the details of IP propertyright law, which is also different from country to country. 

However I strongly disagree with your last sentence: "when all the old stuff is owned by some corporation or other who will throw lawyers at people 'copying' it...  That is going to kill innovation just as hard." 

If you are copying then you are not inventing!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sciencius said:

Never said that. 

This is your interpretation.

So first you disagree as a reply to my post, and then you agree in principle (LOL). 

The exact details of "who", "what", "how long" - is not something we can discuss as I am not a lawyer and dont know the details of IP propertyright law, which is also different from country to country. 

However I strongly disagree with your last sentence: "when all the old stuff is owned by some corporation or other who will throw lawyers at people 'copying' it...  That is going to kill innovation just as hard." 

If you are copying then you are not inventing!

That's just my point: take a look at CitrusCannon's thread on the main forum:

His work is highly original.  He's drawn every single thing he's drawn, himself, from scratch.  He's not copied any artwork.  He's used IP owned by Disney for reference, and created original works based on that IP.  But in current IP terms, he's copying, not inventing, I'd argue he's actually doing a bit of both, and a LOT more of the latter.

He's unable to make any profit from his work under current IP law, despite putting in a huge amount of work, to create something highly desirable and original to himself, which has not previously been created by anyone else.

I don't think that's morally right.

Do you?

(My last sentence was mostly with respect to artwork covered by copyright and trademark, rather than invention typically covered by patent, admittedly.  In artwork terms it's perfectly possible to both copy (i.e. draw inspiration from an existing universe) and invent (i.e. create original works of art) simultaneously.  There's no contradiction there the way there much more arguably is in inventing new technologies or products.)

Edited by thespaceinvader

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess it depends what is meant by an "artist" in this context. 

 

A graphic artist in a cubicle designing and laying out a page in a magaizine ought not care what happens to the work after its released. he/she gets a check for the time put in.

A filthy punk rocker who drunkenly writes something similar to music in a rotten basement  doesnt really care if anyone wants to make a donut jingle out of it.(other then a misguided anger about capitalism or some such)

A retireee who wants to sell stuffed socks shaped like farm animals at a church sale doesnt care if the sock animal ends up on a coffee table or a dump truck dashboard.

Who else is there? the "lets dip some church stuff in a urine jar crowd"?

Lets say I am the dirty punker in a basement and i am trying to sell my vaguely song like noises to people for beer money..... step one....release the stupid songs for free on the internet. step two....provide a more interesting way to get the songs for 10 bucks on a thumb drive that has some drawings as well, some links to other ......artists....... materials and maybe comes with a sticker or some crap.

 

What I am saying is...its easy to make money peddling ideas around without having some galactic empire level governmental restrictions on what you can do with it once its in the wild.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10-15 years? Heh So George RR Martin should have lost his exclusive rights to his own characters before his 5th book was even released? Yea no. You're talking about losing longterm project cohesivity for EVERY IP. It would be a disaster.

 

The fact that Mozilla exists is not evidence that great longterm IP's would survive the loss of patents to their own characters during the second decade of their lifespan. 

 

Do do you think Disney would be investing his heavily in the SW IP without control over it? Why would they? Just pure good-heartedness?

Edited by TasteTheRainbow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Velvetelvis said:

I like this post. It is interesting.

 

It sais " humans are not smart enough to figure things out, so we need humans with laws and guns to enforce the un-figured out ideas."

 

its just wierd to me.

 

I'm not quite understanding your position. 

Do you mean that all people's ideas should alway belong to everyone? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, TasteTheRainbow said:

10-15 years? Heh So George RR Martin should have lost his exclusive rights to his own characters before his 5th book was even released? Yea no. You're talking about losing longterm project cohesivity for EVERY IP. It would be a disaster.

 

The fact that Mozilla exists is not evidence that great longterm IP's would survive the loss of patents to their own characters during the second decade of their lifespan. 

 

Do do you think Disney would be investing his heavily in the SW IP without control over it? Why would they? Just pure good-heartedness?

Yes.  He should have lost his exclusive rights to those characters.  Possibly not quite that quickly, but I'm open to persuasion as to timeline.  I'm saying that he could publish every novel whenever he feels like publishing it - but if he waits too long, other publishers than the one he first picked could also publish his work, and other creators could write their own stuff in his universe, legitimately, as opposed to semi-legitimately and not-for-profit, as they do now.  If you wanna take 20 years to write the sequel, that's up to you, but be prepared that other people might get there first - just like they actually DID with the show.  They might choose to license the books off him - many would - or they might not, but that would be up to his agents, or himself, to manage.  Indeed, they might choose to license the books off him simply because their being in the public domain wouldn't mean that the actual digital original files were easily available, and it might be easier to negotiate for a license to publish the work, than to reverse engineer it from a bought copy.  Just for instance.  Nor would this stop the original publisher from publishing the sequels, nor would it stop them from publishing the originals, either, and a lot of people would end up buying the originals since... that's where the bulk of the stock would be, even after it went PD.

He wouldn't be prevented from writing in his own universe, nor would he lose any more control over it than he already has by spending 6 frigging years not publishing the sequel whilst the show overtook him.

Publish, or perish.  If your job is 'writer'... WRITE.  Or accept that someone else might get there first, if you don't.  GRRM could just as easily have lost popularity and sunk into obscurity like a thousand other fantasy authors after his first ASOIAF book was published and it took 3 years to print the second.  Heck, for a long time, he DID, he invented the freaking Githyanki for D&D back in the '70s (and wrote some neat sci fi into the bargain), and was barely heard from again until ASOIAF hit it big.

I don't think Disney would exist in its current form under a proposed IP legislation like this, neither should it.  If IP had been rational from the day some genius thought it up, Disney would have had to find some other way to make money than clawing every single piece of IP under their roof eternally and suing anyone who made anything remotely similar, or go bust.  In other words, compete on a level playing field with everyone else.  Big corportations being able to hog IP is really the issue for me.  Maybe we wouldn't have Star Wars now if Disney hadn't done its number on IP.  Or maybe, in the  80s and 90s during the time when the EU was being licensed out to third-tier hacks who invented K-Wings, some visionary would have come along, found some finance from a studio, and made Star Wars Episode 1 and had it not be dreadful, and reinvigorated the franchise a decade early.  We have no way to know.  Maybe in the mid-00s we would have had Rogue One, maybe now we'd be looking at a Star Wars series on Netflix, etc etc etc.  It's impossible to tell.  You can argue that Star Wars would have died on its derrière, I can argue that it would have succeeded beyond our wildest dreams.

I'm not talking just about Mozilla, by the way, though that's one example of a successful piece of IP that exists under a free license.  *Nix systems in particular, are used broadly in like... every server in the world, and continue to be well maintained and well funded, GIMP continues to be well maintained and well funded, Inkscape, Blender, OpenOffice/LibreOffice,etc etc etc.  I've been a bit out of the free software world for a few years or I'd be able to suggest a lot more.  But again, those fall more into the realm of invention rather than art, so would be more covered by patent rather than copyright or trademark, though they're a bit of both, of course.

It's possible that 10 to 15 years after initial publication is too short for art.  Maybe 30 or 50 would be better.  I'd be perfectly happy to acknowledge that I'm spitballing here.

But 70 years after the death of the creator (or 95 to 120 years after publication) is FAR too long.  And the death of the creator is a functionally impossible thing to measure any more for a lot of IP, when it comes to copyrights and trademarks being held by corporate entities which Don't.  Die.  Coporation-held copyright DOES have a theoretical expiry date - 95 or 120 years depending on legal foopery - but you can bet that gets extended every time anything important gets close to being released.

5 hours ago, TasteTheRainbow said:

What book?

Like, anything written by E.E. 'Doc' Smith, for instance.  I don't think I've ever seen any of his work republished except the Lensman series, and that not for many years, since the '70s.  There are probably millions of books out there that haven't seen a publisher in decades, but are still covered by copyright, and can't be legitimately bought except on the second hand market, and heck in a lot of cases don't HAVE digital versions available unless Google (or whomever) have digitised them.

I'd love to see a Lensman film, or a Family d'Alembert film, but I doubt either will have much chance of getting made and made well under current laws.

Similarly, I find it ludicrous that half of Lovecraft's oeuvre is under copyright, and half isn't.  Why not all?  Because of when he happened to be writing and when he happened to die.  It's entirely arbitrary - but there's an awful lot of good fiction which has been made explicitly set in Lovecraft's worlds, to the betterment of fiction and its writers in general (and a lot of terrible fiction too, to be fair).  I don't see why that should not happen to any other long-published works.  But it doesn't.  Anything published/created in the last 50 years or so, will not be public domain in our lifetime, and I'd be willing to bet, for the foreseeable future, unless it's actively put into the public domain by its copyright holder.

Edited by thespaceinvader

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, BlodVargarna said:

I'm not quite understanding your position. 

Do you mean that all people's ideas should alway belong to everyone? 

 

Maybe but I'm not sure. I try not to do " should" . I don't always succeed...But I try. I guess I'm taking a sort of Socratic approach. 

 

I'm working on the idea of ownership over an idea. Like...A guy builds a wagon.i understand it's his wagon. His effort built it and whatnot. I'm asking if it matters that an intangible idea gets the same category.

Or something along those lines. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Velvetelvis said:

Maybe but I'm not sure. I try not to do " should" . I don't always succeed...But I try. I guess I'm taking a sort of Socratic approach. 

 

I'm working on the idea of ownership over an idea. Like...A guy builds a wagon.i understand it's his wagon. His effort built it and whatnot. I'm asking if it matters that an intangible idea gets the same category.

Or something along those lines. 

Maybe the idea took a lot more effort than the wagon?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

I'd love to see a Lensman film, or a Family d'Alembert film, but I doubt either will have much chance of getting made and made well under current laws.

Get the money and buy the rights. Then you can make the movie. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Velvetelvis said:

I like this post. It is interesting.

 

It sais " humans are not smart enough to figure things out, so we need humans with laws and guns to enforce the un-figured out ideas."

 

its just wierd to me.

 

That's what it looks like to me when you say that humanity can figure out how to make things work and then complain about how they went about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you read GoT fan fic? It is pure garbage.

 

There would have been dozens of poorly-funded episode 1's without protection. Check youtube fanmade flics for reference on the quality. Episode 1 never would have happened. Not with a real budget. Forget about any of the better ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×