Amiga.org
Amiga computer related discussion => General chat about Amiga topics => Topic started by: kamiga on March 28, 2008, 09:06:57 PM
-
This has been on my mind for quite some time, and I'm interested to know what other people think.
Everyone wants to see companies involved with the Amiga supported. We want to support software companies, hardware companies, authors of Amiga books, and so on. We support these companies mostly through buying their products, but also by visiting their sites and clicking their advertisements.
But what happens when the companies basically shutdown, but sell their Intellectual Property to someone else? Their IP can consist of copyrights, patents, trademarks, and so on.
Or what about when the self-published author decides to stop publishing his book, because there is no longer enough demand for it?
Or the shareware author leaves without a trace, but takes the serial number generator with him?
Or to extend it further, CBS decides that XYZ show is no longer popular enough to attract viewers, and so they take it off the air. And there will be no DVD sold.
Once the monetary incentive is gone, these people hit the road. Goodbye software, goodbye information from the book, goodbye hardware. Now sometimes, we see a resurgence, sometimes we see next-gen hardware, or a reprint of a book. But these are the exceptions.
And sure, there is always the 2nd hand market, but it sucks. Gotta find someone who has it, find the Englishman 3000 miles away that can mail the floppy to you, or get a book mailed book rate from across the country.
At what point SHOULD these rights, often now held by a company that doesn't know what an Amiga is, revert back to the community that can continue to get use of these things?
As a last ditch effort, is piracy now ok to ensure that the software continues to be available, albeit illegally, online? Many people think piracy is bad, but where there are no legal alternatives, or the legal alternatives are so cumbersome, how else is this stuff to be preserved?
When the authors no longer care enough about us, or about the information they painstakingly put together years ago, shouldn't it be OCR'd, preserved, and distributed to those who need the information? Doesn't that expand the authors legacy vs violating his rights?
It seems, on its face, to be stupid to let books fall apart, software go bad on a floppy, instead of preserving them. What a waste.
What do you think?
Keith
-
Legally, 17 years from the issue date or 20 years from the earliest claimed filing date, the longer term applying.
So you would have to change intellectual property laws for your suggestion. Good Luck.
-
@kamiga
The law always trails behind the good sense, and you show good sense here.
I once posted a few thoughts here on Amiga.org in this thread (http://www.amiga.org/forums/showthread.php?t=24569).
-
It will take a long time, but as the current generation grows older, the protection for intellectual property will grow weaker.
-
whabang wrote:
It will take a long time, but as the current generation grows older, the protection for intellectual property will grow weaker.
Not if "protection" is properly defined.
-
I've never really felt much obligation to obey laws that I find to be moronic. I can't speak for anyone else, or any other country, but here in the states, the copyright system (and the patent system, for that matter) are fundamentally broken.
Don't take this the wrong way, I can and do respect reasonable copyright, within limits. (And I certainly respect the rights of a website like Amiga.org to not have people linking questionable content in their forums.) The problem is, all reason has been lost here in the states, and the MPAA, the RIAA, etc., are all running amok, trying to prop up business models that have been slowly dying for 8+ years now. The software guys aren't that bad as the music and movie guys, but expecting me to feel guilty about copying a game that hasn't been financially relevant to a company for 15-20 years isn't going to happen.
-
You are allowed to make back up copies. Just don't sell or distribute them!
-
Good sense shmood sense. You have no right to see that show.
-
The consequence is clear: Make copies of the data you need without exempt.
Corporations is a a monetary beast, the don't have moral values. Only humans do. So act thereafter.
-
Intellectual property, copyright and trademark are three different things with three different laws attached to them. IP expires in 17 years, it is the right to the actual ideas. It can be renewed by making a significant advance in the IP. This is why drug companies reformulate their drugs every 17 years, it's also why there was an AmigaDos 4.0 to begin with.
Trademarks can be renewed, so long as the company is still in business. Amiga and AmigaDos are trademarks. If they are abandoned they cease to be trademarks.
Copyright is trickier, generally it's Berne COnvention, 50 years after the death of the author, but some contries, such as the US and the EU have extended it. Here in Oz, for example, Waltzing Matilda is a public domain song, in the US it is not.
Now how do you handle software? Generally software that hasn't been updated in six years is worthless. I have nothing on my Mac older than 2 years. But suppose I wrote a program 10 years ago and decide now I want to update it? SHouldn't I have the right to do so? How do you change copyright on software without changing copyright everywhere and who determines what's out of copyright?
-
@ abbub: Wrong. In the states legislation, pathents, etc. is bought and payed for, literally. The pathents office don't even bother pretending anymore; pay fee, get pathent for natural birth (ca-ching). When it comes to copyright/pathents/IP legislation it's more of a shady buissness with campaign contributions and such. But it's still a (political) buissness and not a legislation process propelled by the legal community itself.
Which would all be ok if it was a local phenomena that didn't spread like a *censored* cancer. Which is a problem since IP is essentially thought control and therefore not valid outside the US. Or would have been so if it wasn't for the fact that local law is overuled by international treaties.
That's why we have pathent/copyright/IP for-life-and-beyond legislation right now.
-
@ freqmax: "don't have moral values. Only humans do.". Good point.
Don't care for company; company doesn't care for you. And don't confuse the company for the people in it - they're all interchangable while the company remains. Mail your resumé to competitors on steady intervals. If you suddenly find you don't like your job anymore then switch seats before you get thrown out together with a few hundred (or thousand) others.
-
JetRacer: I'm not sure what I'm wrong about. I pretty much agree with your assessment of the current patent system 100%. I don't think there's anything in my post that contradicts that..?
Edit: or do you mean about the Software people not being as bad as the Music and Movie people? I only say that because I don't see many software companies actively targeting their customers in the same way that the entertainment guys are trying to.
-
@ persia: you're confusing publication copyright with a composers right to his work. It's not the same thing; everything regarding music industry is placed in a separate set of legislation. There's also something going on with international treaties in that mess aswell.
Copyright is the god-ruler of all laws. It's the most powerfull legislation on earth. Whoever holds copyright can deside exactly what to do with the copyrighted material.
People often think that licenses applies to or binds the copyright holder in some way; not so. A copyright holder can distribute identical copies under any number of licenses, change licenses at will, prohibit any single person, group or corporation from ever touching or distributing the copyrighted material. Licenses is a way to automate distribution rights so the copyright holder doesn't have to sign a million consents. If a buissness looses money due to a copyright holders bad behavior then the copryright owner can be successfully sued.
When a copyright holder say "jump", then people jump. Then he/she have to face the music if it doesn't fly in court.
-
@ abbub: this part "fundamentally broken".
I replied they're not "broken" just bought and payed for. They were designed the way they work rather than deteriorating to their current state.
-
whabang wrote:
It will take a long time, but as the current generation grows older, the protection for intellectual property will grow weaker.
Im 13 actually im 14 not coz its past 12 and im in2 amiga and trying to get my friends in2 it so you could count me amigas next generation :-D
-
I think that intellectual property can be preserved on thumbdrives (USB drives) these days and the data retention on them is supposed to be 10 years. The information can be encrypted if a company is worried about secrets but they could give the password out if they go belly up.
If you buy a product, it implies a relationship. Don't we deserve anything as a customer?
I think the current laws should be ammended. My distant relatives bought a cemetary plot and I don't have any rights to the plot but the owner was bulldozing the stones down and another relative of mine got signatures, had the cemetary declared as a historical property and it went to trial and they were appointed as trustees.
If you buy stock in a company, only the bondholders are guaranteed to be paid back first. When we buy a product meant to be used for long term, we are in a sense investing in that company. We don't own the company but they owe us their end to the relationship.
-
@ ChuckT: the point was kinda that such a password essentially would die with the company.
The trend goes towards the companies still owning the physical product and the customer is merely "lending" or licensing it until the day they die - with no right to 2:hand nor enherit it.
Quite frankly: if they could make money off our carcasses in a legal way then humanity would be hunted towards extinction.
I can tell you think people within a company have something to say about how a company behaves or can let their personal morals have an impact on how they do buissness. They don't. The executive is held in a leash by a board and the board answers to stockholders who answers to no-one and feels no moral obligations whatsoever, except for their account balance. They (stockholders) get together and say get cheaper laybour (read: next step down is exploiting the workers in the 3:rd world) like everyone else or we take our investments elsewhere". The board hear the whip crack and then they swing their whip towards the exec and the exec either takes the desition or walks.
Buissness with the big boys 101. We'd like to think that's not the case in Europe (or Asia for that matter) - but in contruary this is a global phenomena.
The root to the problem is usually a military-strategical one: buissness is of national interest and therefore buissness is above the law. Like when a highway or nuclear plant is forced through the legislation system and built under massive public protests.
-
kamiga wrote:
It seems, on its face, to be stupid to let books fall apart, software go bad on a floppy, instead of preserving them. What a waste.
What do you think?
Keith
I agree 100%. If I owned all of the rights to Amiga software and Hardware and books, I would make them public domain. I can see our machine sinking as time moves forward. Nobody wants to see that. But i guess we're entitled to an opinion. Here's hoping the Minimig can "re-kindle"(no pun intended amazon) interest. Heres looking forward to the MinimAGA. (A1200?)
-
If the Amiga was considered real estate, the users could call the neighborhood 'blighted' and the city council would put out bids for a comprehensive redevelopment plan under the power of eminent domain and get the land back.
-
@abbub: Amen brother re: your general attitude towards the situation, MPAA, RIAA, and so on.
@jetracer: re: There is a trend towards licensing vs owning something and I think it sucks. If I buy a music CD (which I haven't in years, out of principle), darn it, I own that CD. If I want to make a copy to listen in my car, I'm going to. If I want to rip it and put in on my ipod, that's what I'm going to. The RIAA actually wants to you to buy multiple copies in this case. The licensing thing gets ridiculous.
@amithony: Amen, I'd release the stuff to public domain too. And some of the companies have actually done that. It's amazing and speaks highly of them. I haven't dug into all the alternatives, but yes, minimig looks pretty cool. Great piece of work.
In general, my beef is with these companies and authors whose livelihoods we supported for a long time. And sure, maybe some didn't become as rich as others, but I'd say most creators with a solid product and decent business plan made money. And so the community PAID for that software to be produced. Sure, we paid after the fact. And sure the company assumed the risk by fronting the money --- but they were rewarded for doing so. So when there is no more money to be made, isn't it time to give that software back to the people who paid for it to be produced??
The other thing that really amazes me is how people can abandon months/years of hard work and have no desire to preserve what they've done. Example: CBS aired a short-lived series in 1983 called "Whiz Kids", which featured young school kids solving crimes with the help of their home-brew computer. It was an attempt to take advantage of the buzz surrounding the movie "War Games." In any event, it only made it one season and was taken off the air. Within the past five years or so, there's been a desire by at least some old fans to have it brought to DVD. Now while there is about zero chance of that happening, someone managed to contact the co-producer of the series. The co-producer said, "Wow. Yes, I remember that show. But I don't have a copy." He even indicated that the original company that produced it is unlikely to have a copy, perhaps jammed in some corner of a warehouse, unlabeled.
Now how does a company, the actors, the producers, the camera men, everyone involved, spend tons of time, money, energy on producing a show across 6 months, and nobody has a copy of the work? To me, it's absurd. It's absurd because these people should have more respect for the work they've done, for what they've produced. Luckily, some evil pirates scanned some VHS tapes in, and have made all 18-episodes available online -- if even in questionable quality.
How can an author write a book, spend hours upon hours writing that book, and at the end of the day not say, "I'm done making money on this, let's give it away online for free." Getting this stuff into PDF couldn't be easier today. I keep mentioning authors because information is the KEY to preserving this technology. Reverse engineering stuff is hard --- original documentation, source code, or info surrounding the product/software/OS/hardware AT THE TIME IT's MADE is extremely valuable.
Thanks for discussion
Keith
-
@ kamiga: well, in that perticular case the music industry have painted itself into a corner where you have the right to unlimited replacements and an obligation to give you a free pirate-protection-free cd if you claim the original didn't play. And the law holds them in a very short leash in this matter. And usually personal-use overule in court (US milage may vary).
Even the music industry realize what morons they were and stopped their anti-piracy protection schemes long ago. But every now and again some record label is blessed with a new idiot CEO presenting a new scheme that he claims will work 100% - until it actually hits the market and inevitably fails. Usually when 50cent thinks it's so pesky that his expensive Alpine multimedia system won't play the disc and the label is once again forced to distribute free unprotected versions.
-
For what it's worth, I managed to contact the producer of the show I mentioned a couple posts back.
I figured I really couldn't complain unless I tried to do something personally about it.
The producer got back to me.
He basically said that although he's tried to get the show put out on DVD that the company that owns the rights (Universal) simply doesn't think it's worth their while. They didn't release a full season to begin with, and they think there's not enough interest.
So SOME people involved in the process DO care. It's just the ones that have the ability to change things -- ie the ones in charge, don't think it's a worthwhile investment.
It's a shame that some larger organizations, like maybe the Library of Congress, or something, can't purchase these items and archive them.
Incidentally, the producer seemed to think that a mailing campaign of a few thousand people signing a petition and submitting it to Universal Home Video would do the trick.
Just a follow up
Keith
-
kamiga wrote:
For what it's worth, I managed to contact the producer of the show I mentioned a couple posts back.
Incidentally, the producer seemed to think that a mailing campaign of a few thousand people signing a petition and submitting it to Universal Home Video would do the trick.
Just a follow up
Keith
If only we could do the same for the Amiga to do the trick. :)
-
kamiga wrote:
In general, my beef is with these companies and authors whose livelihoods we supported for a long time. And sure, maybe some didn't become as rich as others, but I'd say most creators with a solid product and decent business plan made money. And so the community PAID for that software to be produced. Sure, we paid after the fact. And sure the company assumed the risk by fronting the money --- but they were rewarded for doing so. So when there is no more money to be made, isn't it time to give that software back to the people who paid for it to be produced??
Although I think that is sucks when something drops off the map and it's no longer supported - I don't agree with your premise.
We didn't pay to have the software produced. We paid for a piece of software that did something we wanted. So the whole concept of 'getting what's owed us' falls down, because nothing is really owed us at all after the fact.
There is no 'retroactively produced something for us' - I work in an industry where I produce things for other people - they come to me and tell me what I am to make for them, and I do it, then I get paid and they walk away with the product, they own it, and they can do with it as they will. It is a work for hire, and it's an agreement made before the fact - never afterwards.
It sucks when someone takes their ball and goes home - but at the end of the day they own the ball and can do with it as they please - even if that means doing nothing with it. I can't steal their ball to continue the game with my mates, no matter how much I want to play it.
-
Sig999 wrote:
Although I think that is sucks when something drops off the map and it's no longer supported - I don't agree with your premise.
We didn't pay to have the software produced. We paid for a piece of software that did something we wanted. So the whole concept of 'getting what's owed us' falls down, because nothing is really owed us at all after the fact.
I guess that means they shouldn't worry too much if the software gets distributed over the internet for FREE. If they are no longer interested, they shouldn't care what happens to the source should they?
-
Amithony wrote:
I guess that means they shouldn't worry too much if the software gets distributed over the internet for FREE. If they are no longer interested, they shouldn't care what happens to the source should they?
I guess I mean what I wrote - as for what anyone who wrote and then stopped developing software, I couldn't speak for them now could I?
That's their call to make, and theirs alone. Some folks turn things over to the public domain, others declare it 'abandonware' and let folks copy it to their hearts content.
Others don't - and are quite within their rights to have takedowns issued and whatever else floats their boat. They own the rights - for good, for ill, to do with as they see fit - and no matter how you write it up, that's the alpha to the omega of it.
In the end everyone will do what they want anyway, and that's the way of the world, and to make themselves feel better they'll come up with justifications for their actions.
*shrug*
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
The average joe might copy and swap and do whatever.
What the smart joe would do is write their own version to fill the niche.
Then of course theres the other route of trying to ask the holders of the rights if they mind... a few people do that.
-
Sig999 wrote:
It sucks when someone takes their ball and goes home - but at the end of the day they own the ball and can do with it as they please - even if that means doing nothing with it.
Do you think abandoning a piece of work, or specifically denying others rights to distribute it, does justice to the original effort put into creating it? Assuming the profit potential is gone, as a creator, wouldn't you want to see more people using, enjoying, appreciating your creation? Doesn't that add respect(to you, to your creation) and make your past effort seem more worthwhile?
To me, just knowing that others have appreciated my contributions to the community, is a reward that money could never replace.
Example: Let's say I wrote a book in 1990 on the Atari ST(sorry I can't resist). Outside of that book, I'm a nobody, except in small circles. I've made some money from the book, but the Atari ST went away, and it's no longer published. It's now 18 years later and I'm approached out of the blue, by a well-meaning stranger, who wants to OCR my book, and make it available because a number of ST enthusiasts could really use the material.
I don't know about you, but I'd be jumping up and down for them to do this!! WHY? Because these people UNDERSTAND the value of that information. They appreciate the work I did 18 years ago!! My creation is still relevant!
Doesn't that improve your self-worth? Why not?
Keith
-
A clearing house that checked with owners of programs and provided copies of programs that the authors agreed to allow distributed would be fine. The issue here is that the owner of the IP has absolute rights when it comes to their software, yeah they can sit on it if they want, but you could provide a site for owners who don't.
-
kamiga wrote:
Do you think abandoning a piece of work, or specifically denying others rights to distribute it, does justice to the original effort put into creating it? Assuming the profit potential is gone, as a creator, wouldn't you want to see more people using, enjoying, appreciating your creation? Doesn't that add respect(to you, to your creation) and make your past effort seem more worthwhile?
I think it has absolutely nothing to do with it. If it's their work, and they choose to abandon it and keep the rights - they can if they choose. It has nothing to do with what *I* think or want. What 'justice' is done to *their* original effort is left up to them - they have numerous choices, but they are theirs to make, irrespective of what decisions you, me, or anyone else wants or thinks is right.
As for the example - well, that's what you'd do... that's your right and your decision. But just because that's what you'd do, or what I'd do, doesn't mean that everyone else has to follow the direction of our compass.
A *real* example would be me telling you what you should do with your creation because it's what *I* want you to do... I have a feeling you'd tell me to sod off - and rightfully so!
Which leaves only one REAL decision, and it's not if what they are doing is wrong or right (because whatever they choose - it's right, for whatever reasons), it's whether others will respect their rights and their decisions.
-
@Sig999: I understand your position on the matter completely.
Fortunately, for most people involved, things have a way of naturally taking care of themselves.......
Thanks
-
@Sig999
But just because that's what you'd do, or what I'd do, doesn't mean that everyone else has to follow the direction of our compass.
Kant said:
'I ought never to act except in such a way that I could also will that my maxim should become a universal law’