rights vs preservation

[kamiga]

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

[persia]

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.

[arkpandora]

@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.

[whabang]

It will take a long time, but as the current generation grows older, the protection for intellectual property will grow weaker.

[arkpandora]

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.

[abbub]

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.

[bloodline]

You are allowed to make back up copies. Just don't sell or distribute them!

[weirdami]

Good sense shmood sense. You have no right to see that show.

[freqmax]

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.

[persia]

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?

[JetRacer]

@ 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.

[JetRacer]

@ 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.

[abbub]

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.

[JetRacer]

@ 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.

[JetRacer]

@ 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.