Review of the Copyright Act 1994

Forums › ICT Policies and Regulation › Review of the Copyright Act 1994

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

5589 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2132918 23-Nov-2018 19:27

tdgeek:

Ideas are not part of the review. If you have an idea for King King type of movie, series, book, game, thats fine. If I write a book on that idea and you copy it and "improve it" i.e. plagiarising it, and sell it, thats not.

I couldn't disagree more..

Anyone should be free to copy it, share it, redistribute it, modify it, or use it any way they see fit so long as you are not deprived of your physical original.

I'm a geek, a gamer, a dad, a Quic user, and an IT Professional. I have a full rack home lab, size 15 feet, an epic beard and Asperger's. I'm a bit of a Cypherpunk, who believes information wants to be free and the Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it. If you use my Quic signup you can also use the code R570394EKGIZ8 for free setup.

solutionz

589 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#2132924 23-Nov-2018 19:49

tdgeek: What has open source software get to do with this thread?

An example of how complex things can still be developed essentially in absence of copyright and innovative supporting business models (commercial support, feature bounties, crowdsourcing/funding etc).

Handle9:
Natural justice carries with it the duty to act fairly and without bias.

You can not touch, feel or define an abstract idea. Copyright and IP doesn't deal with abstract ideas, it deals with specific product. It's not that complicated in principle but like all things can be manipulated or gamed.

It has served very well for hundreds of years and has only recently become a problem due to technology and the system being gamed.

Equating source software to an artistic work is pretty ludicrous and you have not addressed the fundamental question of what is fair?

This is exactly the issue as it's a fairly large leap in logic to take concepts of physical property and relate them to the abstract. And it's a bigger leap to say that its naturally fair that if I do someone first I now own that method. It's symantics to argue whether IP is abstract or not - as take a song for example you would currently own the ability to perform, distribute, licence etc not just any physical representation (pretty abstract).

Stealing a cow is in no way similar to "copying" how someone milks their cow (including the song they sing) as it does not deprive the owner of their physical property or in any ultimate tangible interest (i.e. company shares).

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79263 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#2132925 23-Nov-2018 19:49

Lias:

tdgeek:

Ideas are not part of the review. If you have an idea for King King type of movie, series, book, game, thats fine. If I write a book on that idea and you copy it and "improve it" i.e. plagiarising it, and sell it, thats not.

I couldn't disagree more..

Anyone should be free to copy it, share it, redistribute it, modify it, or use it any way they see fit so long as you are not deprived of your physical original.

So whomever came up with an idea and materialised the idea through work and investment has no rights to realise anything from it? Someone could just come along, clone it and make money off someone else's work?

How is that fair to the original author?

A singer record a new song and release an album. This singer promotes the album, pays recording fees but someone grab a cheap copy machine and start redistributing it... How is that fair to the artist?

solutionz

589 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#2132937 23-Nov-2018 20:12

freitasm:
A singer record a new song and release an album. This singer promotes the album, pays recording fees but someone grab a cheap copy machine and start redistributing it... How is that fair to the artist?

A) No one forced you to write the song.
B) You have almost certainly ripped off prior art to which the masses tastes have become accustomed to (including chord progressions etc).
C) You will be forced to choose innovative distribution channels Inc streaming etc which benefit our continuing technological development.
D) You'll have to add/maintain value to your customers through live performance, customer engagement etc.
E) Fans can support you directly on Patreon etc or you can crowdfund larger projects upfront.

There are plenty of ways humans can volunteerily apply their labours of which they should have no expectations of ownership of the intangible product.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79263 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#2132940 23-Nov-2018 20:14

Lost for words.

irongarment

280 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#2132941 23-Nov-2018 20:15

freitasm:
Lias:

tdgeek:

Ideas are not part of the review. If you have an idea for King King type of movie, series, book, game, thats fine. If I write a book on that idea and you copy it and "improve it" i.e. plagiarising it, and sell it, thats not.

I couldn't disagree more..

Anyone should be free to copy it, share it, redistribute it, modify it, or use it any way they see fit so long as you are not deprived of your physical original.

So whomever came up with an idea and materialised the idea through work and investment has no rights to realise anything from it? Someone could just come along, clone it and make money off someone else's work?

How is that fair to the original author?

A singer record a new song and release an album. This singer promotes the album, pays recording fees but someone grab a cheap copy machine and start redistributing it... How is that fair to the artist?

Answer: it's not.
Counterpoint: a programmer produces a useful program, pays rent or mortgage and other living expenses during development, then gives it away for free. Is that fair? Is it unfair?

solutionz

589 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#2132942 23-Nov-2018 20:27

irongarment: Counterpoint: a programmer produces a useful program, pays rent or mortgage and other living expenses during development, then gives it away for free. Is that fair? Is it unfair?

Again look at open source business models. Also no one's forcing you to "give it away for free". You're welcome to encrypt, DRM & key protect your software and retail (for money) in binary form if you wish. Others should be free to try reverse engineer that binary however like most OSS & proprietary many will be willing to pay for your genuine software & support rather than third party.

AliExpress

Shop now on AliExpress (affiliate link).

jarledb

Webhead
3255 posts

Uber Geek

Moderator

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2132946 23-Nov-2018 20:35

irongarment:

Counterpoint: a programmer produces a useful program, pays rent or mortgage and other living expenses during development, then gives it away for free. Is that fair? Is it unfair?

If I create a work of music/art/programming and choose to give it away, then its fine.

If I create a work of music/art/programming and do not choose to give it away, and its copied and redistributed by others, thats not ok.

For programmering there are licenses like GPL that makes it hard to maintain the rights to what you do if what you do is created on top of something that is GPL licensed, because the open license transfers over to all subsequent work.

But even then I think its fair to compensate the people that have used their time to create said programs.

Jarle Dahl Bergersen | Referral Links: Want $50 off when you join Octopus Energy? Use this referral code
Are you happy with what you get from Geekzone? Please consider supporting us by making a donation or subscribing.

solutionz

589 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#2132952 23-Nov-2018 20:47

freitasm: Lost for words.

Put it this way it's not copyright that's stopping people from ripping your site. It's a combination of you securing the source code on your server but mostly value added by your constant maintenance and the community which you can't just copy and paste.

Honestly without the corporate welfare protection of ideas/IP that (if worthwhile) would have been created by someone at some point anyway there would be more resource to commit to pursuits more useful to mankind. Kind of how Eric Ries talks about the epic waste of human talent he observed leading to The Lean Startup. Maybe we'll end up with more programmers and less pop stars??

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2132957 23-Nov-2018 20:51

solutionz:
freitasm: Lost for words.

Put it this way it's not copyright that's stopping people from ripping your site. It's a combination of you securing the source code on your server but mostly value added by your constant maintenance and the community which you can't just copy and paste.

Honestly without the corporate welfare protection of ideas/IP that (if worthwhile) would have been created by someone at some point anyway there would be more resource to commit to pursuits more useful to mankind. Kind of how Eric Ries talks about the epic waste of human talent he observed leading to The Lean Startup. Maybe we'll end up with more programmers and less pop stars??

A developer can choose to release their work as open source or proprietary , YOU do not have the right to make that decision for them.

solutionz

589 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#2132959 23-Nov-2018 20:55

MikeB4:
solutionz:
freitasm: Lost for words.

Put it this way it's not copyright that's stopping people from ripping your site. It's a combination of you securing the source code on your server but mostly value added by your constant maintenance and the community which you can't just copy and paste.

Honestly without the corporate welfare protection of ideas/IP that (if worthwhile) would have been created by someone at some point anyway there would be more resource to commit to pursuits more useful to mankind. Kind of how Eric Ries talks about the epic waste of human talent he observed leading to The Lean Startup. Maybe we'll end up with more programmers and less pop stars??

A developer can choose to release their work as open source or proprietary , YOU do not have the right to make that decision for them.

No one is arguing otherwise.

blakamin

4431 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2132960 23-Nov-2018 20:59

solutionz:
irongarment: Counterpoint: a programmer produces a useful program, pays rent or mortgage and other living expenses during development, then gives it away for free. Is that fair? Is it unfair?

Again look at open source business models.

There's an oxymoron....

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2132961 23-Nov-2018 20:59

solutionz:
MikeB4:

solutionz:
freitasm: Lost for words.

Put it this way it's not copyright that's stopping people from ripping your site. It's a combination of you securing the source code on your server but mostly value added by your constant maintenance and the community which you can't just copy and paste.

Honestly without the corporate welfare protection of ideas/IP that (if worthwhile) would have been created by someone at some point anyway there would be more resource to commit to pursuits more useful to mankind. Kind of how Eric Ries talks about the epic waste of human talent he observed leading to The Lean Startup. Maybe we'll end up with more programmers and less pop stars??

A developer can choose to release their work as open source or proprietary , YOU do not have the right to make that decision for them.

No one is arguing otherwise.

Really then what is this comment …… "Anyone should be free to copy it, share it, redistribute it, modify it, or use it any way they see fit"

Handle9

11386 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2132962 23-Nov-2018 21:00

solutionz:
MikeB4: A developer can choose to release their work as open source or proprietary , YOU do not have the right to make that decision for them.

No one is arguing otherwise.

Yes you are, that is your exact argument - that the developer should have no legal protections of their work.

solutionz

589 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#2132967 23-Nov-2018 21:18

Handle9:
solutionz:
MikeB4: A developer can choose to release their work as open source or proprietary , YOU do not have the right to make that decision for them.

No one is arguing otherwise.

Yes you are, that is your exact argument - that the developer should have no legal protections of their work.

Open source vs proprietary has no bearing on ability to charge a fee or as to whether the thing being distributed (code or binary blob) can be redistributed or not - it simply determines how difficult it is to modify.

As I explicitly stated developers are free to charge for their code and impliment any copy protection etc (including not distributing source) however that should have no bearing on whether a developer on the other side of the world is allow to reimpliment, reverse engineer or otherwise utilise whatever code they come into possession of - or happen across the identical method though no fault of their own.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6