I think that to retain the protections of a copyright, you should be forced to keep the protected property comercially available. Copyrights are to protect your economic interest in something, not to remove useful ideas or information from the public. So if you don't make it available to the public at market prices, after so long (5 years?) it should devolve into public domain.

This would expecially be useful for software. If you don't sell a program for 5 years, it becomes public domain and people can use it/download it/share it. Has some interesting implications for the recording and movie industries too.

Reply #3 By: Citizen Genghis Hank - 12/14/2004 3:59:11 PM Reply #2 By: Draginol - 12/14/2004 2:56:49 PM So if we discontinue a product it should just become free to everyone? I don't think so. Not right away, but if you aren't going to sell it or support it anymore, why not? What value does it have sitting on a server someplace unused? 5 years is a long time for software, but that's just a number I picked. What if it was 10? Edit: I also may not have made it clear. I am suggesting x years from the time it is discontinued, not from release.

Actually I very much like Hank's idea. It seems dead on. If someone discontinues a product, it should become orphanware, and after a reasonable period of time, it should be fair use and public domain material. That would keep companies supporting their products, or let them revert back to public domain when support is gone.

I'd allow for grandfathering in prior versions of software so that companies could maintain their patents/copyrights if they keep producing new versions of the same product line, but once a line was discontinued, from that point on the clock starts and after 5 - 10 years, the product becomes public domain and fair use for all.

That protects the copyright holder during their support period for the product, but balances out the publics eventual fair use of the product once it becomes orphan ware.

This should be interesting. In this corner we have Draginol the developer and owner of copyrighted software and in the other corner we have the anti-copyright group. Let's get ready to rrrrrrrrrrrrumble.

Okay that was lame.

We have an opportunity here to hear the opinion of a software developer on software copyrights and patents. This is a highly heated ongoing debate between IP owners and those who believe we all lose "knowledge" when a copyright is left to linger, but is not allowed to fall into the public domain.

I'm in the middle on this one, but I do think something has to be done. I sort of agree with GH's idea, but it should not be x years after a product is discontinued, but maybe x years after a product is "dead." By dead I mean that the copyright holder has no intention of further supporting the product, putting out new versions, or using the name.

In other words should "Snark Shoot" be considered public domain? Even though it was dead out of the water? If the IP is still being used; "Snark Shoot 3," "Snark Town," or other derived works then I say no. The IP is still being used and expanded upon. Now take Nintendo's "Kid Icarus" which hasn't been seen nor heard from since the 1980s, I feel that since Nintendo has no known plans (I could be wrong) then "Kid Icarus" should eventually become public domain.


None of this extending a copyright without using it that we currently have. You must be currently using the IP to keep the copyright. This would keep Disney happy as well as the public domain.

I didn't mean to turn this into a copyright in general thing, but I did.

If a product is created then those who create should have protection. Even if Nintendo does not plan to use Kid Icarus, the ideas in Kid Icarus may have been used to create other games. The move to make it unprotected is put forth by those who want something for nothing. Very Chinese concept.

Reply #8 By: Moderator Draginol - 12/14/2004 11:10:25 PM Reply #2 By: Draginol - 12/14/2004 2:56:49 PM So if we discontinue a product it should just become free to everyone? I don't think so. Not right away, but if you aren't going to sell it or support it anymore, why not? What value does it have sitting on a server someplace unused? 5 years is a long time for software, but that's just a number I picked. What if it was 10? Edit: I also may not have made it clear. I am suggesting x years from the time it is discontinued, not from release. Why not? Because if I make something, it's mine. If you're not using some of your furniture, should the government be able to come in and take it away after 5 years? People who make things should have the right to control that thing. If I make a piece of software and I choose to discontinue that should be the end of story. I made it, it belongs to me.

I disagree, and in many cases, so has the government. Example, a home that is abandoned is eventually confiscated by the government (condemned or similarly) and then can be "rehabilitated" through sale to a new owner.

There are similar examples, but basically after a while your right to control your object should be over-riden in favor of the greater good and the chance that someone can improve upon your work, modify it, update it, and make it more useful than it was.

You should know that there are thousands of old games, and other software, that all could serve as the basis for newer, updated games, and yet we can't have them because companies like EA or Atari or others control the rights to them, even though some of those companies (Activision and others along the way) may be out of business.

We have to balance it out so all sides interests are served, not simply those of the content creators.

Applying Patents to software is not the way to go.

This would give control of all software to a few companies who has been filling patent on Software.

Imagine giving a patent to Mills and Bone for a romance novel.
No one else can ever write a romance novel without paying them.

Write an article on joeuser about your love life. Sorry pay Mills and Bone 1cent per word.

Copyright law is the way to protect software.
You can argue about the recent changes to copyright law but it is still the best way to protect the time and investment spend in producing software.

Copyright law is also the foundation of many open source licenses.

Applying copyright law maybe complex but its is fairly easy to show when someone has stolen that peice of code.

With patent law and our current patent systems even if you independently create a peice of software if someone has patented the idea behind the software then you can still be sued for patent infringement.

Just look at some of the recent patent lawsuits. Most of the the ideas patented are broad and are usually not novel. Some stand up in court others do not.

The only ones who win are the patent lawyers.

Oh who filed this suit. You guessed it. A patent lawyer.

Interesting link on Software Patents

http://lpf.ai.mit.edu/Patents/patents.html

I'm all for copyright on software.

Remember that it's only the code that is copyrighted not the concept which you used the code to express. So MOO1 code is copyrighted, but Stardock can happily use any ideas it liked from that game in GC1 or GC2, so long as it writes new code to implement those ideas. MOO1 however belongs to owners can no one else can ever re-release that game and make money from it.

Patents in software are a more complex area though and one which I generally disagree with. You cannot patent an idea or a mathematical construct which blocks the majority of areas in software that you may want to patent. You can only patent an implementation. The question then is how do you protect your business if it is founded on software code (eg. a zip algorithm)?

Paul.

Let's try this another way. What if somebody (we'll use Bill Gates because he's rich and fun to pick on) decided to rid the world of Beatles music. He goes out and buys the rights to all the Beatles songs and locks them away. Nobody can ever sing them again, record them again, listen to them again. All gone! Anyone who tries can be arrested for IP theft. Is this in the public interest?

That'd be quite a pain, but it his property, and he has every right to do what he wants with it. Now what about my example? Should a girl who published her poem on a small site or book once ten years ago lose all rights to that poem if she hasn't published it again since then and the book is no longer for sale or the site is no longer up?

I think that the software should become 'freeware' after certain years, maybe something like 10 years. But any characters in it should be copyrighted pretty much same way as any art.

In technical terms currently, downloading a very old computer game or ROM file of a old console game is illegal, but that's basically the only way some of those games will survive the destruction of the media it was in.

People who don't write software may not understand that software, just like writing a book or a poem is a creative endeavor.

Software should be treated the same as other copyrighted material. Peroid.

Patent law deals with ideas. You do not have to implement the idea.

Not actually true. You must prove that the idea is workable and this usually requires working models before final patent approval. So for example, you cannot patent the idea of teleportation. You could describe in great detail how it would work, but unless you can prove the concept the patent is not worth the paper it is written on. The patent may actually be granted as (depending on the country) its not up to the patent office to enfore this requirement. Many people hold patents which they later discover are worthless because of this issue. Many patent lawyers also fail to inform clients of this requirement. I have had to challenge opposing patents and invalidate them on numerous occasions now , and showing that the initial patent had not provided proof of concept is the easiest way to do this.

Paul.

Indeed. I was talking about preservation of original games. I'm not exactly worried about source code.

There is many Atari games and NES games that has no hard copy extant now.

Like I said, some games have been saved from going totally extinct.

Also, the Atari games are all coming out now on those controllers that emulate the Atari system.

Yeah. My friend bought one for Xbox and it's fun.