I've been thinking about this for a while. I really think that software should not fall under the same category for copyrights as other copyrightable things like music, movies, books, and other works of art. Software is not art. It is a tool, closer to something you would file a patent for. There is no need for software to be protected for fifty plus years. It is not timeless.

Why can't the copyright length be something more reasonable like 15 years? Companies could be required to release a piece of software and its source code where it would become public domain. Things like a franchise or characters would remain copyrighted as always, but the games themselves, with no further value to the company could belong to the public, where they actually get a chance to use old things that they would have otherwise never gotten a chance to buy. The companies would of course while and lobby, but so what? Medicine companies have very little time to benefit from their expensive research before the generics can get a hold of it. Obviously there would have to be expectations for things like bank software, and other things that would caused compromised security, but for most things it wouldn't really be a problem.

This chart is sure starting to make sense....

I think you're stupid too, Antony.


...

explain ur sig plz

You do know patents are filed for software right?


UHHH DURRRRRR.

True, but they seem to be under copy right too. I mean, most old games that are available only on illegal .roms won't be available for decades to come.

Aaaand?

Oh buy hey, I forgot all you seem to be interested in is sitting inside and playing free games.

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!
IRONY!

Except... not. I'm not putting forth an opinion, but an idea, with the hope that people who know more than me could actually contribute.

But then, trolls can't understand that concept. They see any post as a black and white declaration of what is right.

Sheltered children don't understand logic.

Rob, stfu

True story.

Some software is functional and other software is art. The software that is art should be copyrighted.

OOHHHH SCORE!

Meanwhile, those who've matured since third grade know how to engage in actual conversation.

explain ur sig plz

Hmm, should be others' beliefs instead of other's beliefs.

i like capers.

This is true, but in the case of, say Super Mario Bros, the game itself is both art and a tool. The underlying code is just the tool but the ideas such and the characters and the world would remain copyrighted, so that no one else could make a a Mario game. It's kind of a unique situation because, unlike movies and music, the game will become obsolete, but the franchise will not.

Super Mario Bros is never obsolete.

OHHHHH SCORE!

You're just mad because every time I point it out it makes you look like you spend too much time with your mommy and daddy.

One thing to keep in mind is old videogames still being sold in some form or other (things like "classic game" collections, Live Arcade, etc).

That's true, but it's a fairly small percentage of them, and it's such a small corner of the market that it wouldn't exactly take away a companies incentive to make software in the first place.

I like how everyone is contributing something of substance to the thread except one person, as usual.

Well then why did you post if you weren't going to contribute anything with substance?

explain ur sig plz.

mr stafford is getting funny

I would never classify video games as a "tool" despite being software. Video games aren't much different than any other form of entertainment like movies and comics with the only difference being the presence of interactivity. I would consider video games to be an "art", not a "tool", therefore be copyright-able. Limiting the copyright duration to 15 years wouldn't make a difference since the copyright holder (which, btw, doesn't necessarily mean the developers of the game) can just renew it for another 15 years.

To make you feel like less of a loner.

Wow, this thread went downhill fast. They should be handing out some bans.



Why should they release the source code? It's theirs.

I DEMAND THE PORN INDUSTRY RELEASE ALL THEIR VIDEOS THAT ARE OVER 25 YEARS TO THE PUBLIC DOMAIN! THE MODELS ARE OLD AND WRINKLY AND ARE NO LONGER MAKING MONEY SO WE THE PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE FREE ACCESS TO THEIR WORK WHEN THEY WERE IN THEIR PRIME! WE ALSO DEMAND WE GAIN FREE ACCESS TO THEIR VIDEO EQUIPMENT, PROPS, AND STAGE SETS SO WE CAN MAKE OUR OWN FILMS WITH THEIR STUFF!

Eww.

Who would want to watch 25 year old porn?

It's better than 12 year old porn.

haha.

Hey guys, I think hard work, regardless of artistic merit, should suddenly become free after a period of time. What do you think? Think of the profit we could take from companies that have enough money already!? Imagine the ripoffs and cheapening of the franchise we'd be endorsing! Yay for devaluing the work of a programmer! Huhah Under appreciation!

All software is art.


Software patents are bad because there are a finite number of ways to approach any computer science problem. Most of the software patents that are issued (such as almost all of Microsoft's, IBM's, Apple's) are obvious to anybody with a passing skill in the art. Software patents prevent advancement in the field and do not offer any protection for software companies other than a last-ditch Cold War style legal standoff. Patents do not protect against physical duplication of the end product, they simply prevent other people from reimplementing or improving upon existing algorithms and methods.

Software is not a "tool." It is not something you can hold in your hands or use to violently murder stupid people who have bad ideas. It is data, which can be trivially copied. Patents do not provide any protection against duplication, only third-party production and profit. So patents won't do what you want.

Software is precisely the kind of thing that copyrights were designed to protect. It's information. You own a license to use that data, and not a license to use the patented materials within that product. It is precisely like a novel, or a book, or a song. To believe the contrary requires a fundamental misunderstanding of what software is.

I agree that copyright length is too long, though. It very recently used to be as short as 18 years, but Disney has spent the last century lobbying to have it continually extended in order to retain copyrights over their works.

So, in short, Obi_Kwiet doesn't really understand what copyright, patents and software are.

I'm glad I missed this post earlier but sad that I ended up accidentally reading it anyway. What the hell is the matter with you?

Patents have a time limit because, once a company has milked the patent to make a profit on their R&D investment, the design for the object enters the public domain so other companies can improve on the technology. Copyrights have a time limit because, once a company has milked the copyrighted work to make a profit on their time investment, the copyrighted material enters the public domain so our culture can be preserved.


Let's say copyrights never expire. One day, George Lucas wakes up all red-faced because he realized that he wasted 40 years of his life hyping a series of childrens' movies as a culturally-relevant space opera. He decides that Star Wars will never, ever be seen again. So Star Wars is never reproduced. It's never sold. The people who already own copies can't duplicate them for friends and future generations because the copyright never, ever expires. Star Wars is a part of our culture and a stupid idea like yours could bury it forever.

What if the same thing happened with Moby Dick? Great Expectations? Hamlet? None of these works would ever be seen again. Well, they would, but not legally.


See, just like Obi_Kwiet, you, kirby, don't know the difference between a patent, a copyright or a trademark. Star Wars might one day enter the public domain, but that doesn't mean anybody will be able to create any kind of halfassed derivative work they want. The characters will still be trademarks of Lucasfilm. Actors own the rights to their likenesses.

Hopefully we can get rid of the aggrivatingly stupid and incomprehensible gibberish about copyright law before someone starts to believe any of this crap. Stop listening to Disney, people.

So... looks like Antony's graph was pretty spot-on after all.

i am on the fence about patents, which don't take away liberty and definitely were effective in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries but are making less sense in today's world where complex mechanisms exist and are copied virtually, effortlessly and indefinitely

copyright is pure evil and an abridgement of free speech and is a detriment to the people by allowing the media to manipulate the people as an apparatus of the near-fascist saudi-bank-military-industrial complex controlled federal government. And, bookstores. What the hell is a book? Books were supposed to have died by know. It's made out of tree for god's sake!

You can't say this about patents in a broad sense.

Patents are still really really important for invention purposes. Companies invest a ridiculous amount of money into research and development and other companies shouldn't be allowed to reap the benefits without dropping the bling. Without patents, it'd be difficult to conduct legitimate (and costly) research because other companies would snipe the work.

Obvious patents are the problem. The patent office doesn't hire enough technically proficient people in order to properly screen these patents. That's why you end up with patents on, for instance, the marching cubes algorithm which is a hilariously obvious method of representing an isosurface in 3D. But the government issued the patent anyway, and as a result it was basically impossible to use any isosurface effect (including metaballs) in a realtime simulation from 1987 until this year. Marching cubes involved absolutely zero research, zero innovation and zero brains, but they were awarded a patent anyway. And they never even used the patent for anything other than stopping companies from doing obvious things with an obvious solution to an obvious problem. Marching cubes is iconic of why the patent system is a miserable failure.

But patents are still important for people who use them legitimately, even though the people who set up and run the system have a collective IQ of 6.



Copyright is what's keeping Microsoft from releasing Linux .NET for $200 a license. It goes both ways.

And copyright isn't what's keeping books around. For some odd reason most people don't want to put an 8 pound 120 degree laptop on their groin when they want to read The DaVinci Code. E-paper just isn't good enough yet, give it another 10 years (and another 20 for the troglodytes to die off)

I'm with Kirb and Antony's graph.

jon, i think you are right that the patent system can be fixed to work in the modern world