Re: How to stop Piracy?

[Ken Taylor]

Hearing any bleats by Gates about piracy makes me want to dredge up
reports of old law-suits, but what the heck, it's lunch-time.....

Repost:

"[...] a thread was started about Bill Gates' famous "open
letter" calling all hobbyists "thieves" because we were all stealing
"his" software.

This led into a discussion of why Mr. Gates was "asked to resign" from
Harvard. Someone pointed out the whole story was located on the "Boston
Globe's" website. [ To those outside of the U.S., the Globe is to Boston
what the Times is to London...not prone to hyperbole. ]

So I checked out the website & found that Mr Gates & Mr. Allen had used
Mr. Gates' account on Harvard's DEC-10 to write M.I.T.S. 8080 & 6800
BASICs [Microsoft's _only_ software products at that time.][Bill Gates
& Paul Allen were Microsoft's only employees at the time also.]

The "powers that be" at Harvard learned of this & were ready to expell
Mr. Gates because "all students at Harvard sign a form making all
software developed on the University's computers public domain." In
order to keep from being expelled from Harvard and to be allowed to
resign, Mr. Gates signed over all rights to Microsoft's products to the
public domain.

After leaving Harvard, Mr. Gates seemed to forget this & continued to
market both the 6800 & 8080 BASICs. Unfortunately [for him] it is all
a matter of public record.[...]"

I didn't even know that one, but now can add it to the list of things I
forget about him.

MS has been involved in all manner of 'acquisition' of interesting
add-ons for their crappy software suite.

Cheers.

Ken

 

[Zak]

Ehhhh? ANYTHING can be copyrighted, but common usage words have been
adjudicated out (for the most part).

Well, you can probably copyright anything, but that does not mean that
the copyright is valid.

I remember a business delivering a text to someone who converted tags
into html by using a script.

Later, the business went elsewhere with their site and took the
generated html with them. The original converter claimed copyright, but
this was ruled against for lack of creative content.

Another limitation is independent creation. If I would write the text
"best quality in town - come today for best offer" that could be
construed as creative. However, if someone else wrote the same text it
could likely be an independent creation and him using that text would
not be a copyright violation.

Which doesn't mean you can't sue, but that's another thing.



Thomas

 

[Zak]

That's pretty much my position - it becomes a "Bad" thing when companies
think they can use pirated software though, even on an 'unofficial
trial' basis.

The 'trial' thing is not that bad. One of the reasons open source is
doing well is that there is no need to go through purchasing and lawyers
to try it.

Software vendors have traditionally been ignoring unauthorized copying
whenever they felt it was best for their business - for example student
or private use.

I'd add that there's no indication that innovation or profits have
suffered due to piracy. Piracy has been going on since the industry
started - I seem to recall some people have written some new software,
done some new things, made a bit of money......

It seems clothing designs only have very limited protection in Europe -
changing a number of details (5 or 8?) is enough to have a new creation.
This doesn't seem to harm industry creativity at all...

The same would apply to look-and-feel copyrights on software. What
happened to those? Those were a license to print money, not a stimulus
for creativity...


Thomas

 

[Zak]

Supposedly Autodesk has greatly profited from this "free trial"
distribution. As long as most companies of any size pay, they are
rolling in the money. Thus, they aggressively go after corporations
they think might not have a (or enough) license(s).

Autodesk probably likes you to use this at home for free. The more
people can use the software the more they can sell. And really no-one
would buy this privately at full price, so there is no money lost to
them (though they could sell training).

Which makes your explanation likely. Of course they could produce a
(limited) student edition...


Thomas

 

[Jasen Betts]

["Followup-To:" header set to alt.electronics.]

if it were the police would be going after copyright infringers.

Taking something written by someone else and using it without the
author's permission is theft.

no it's not.

 

[Jasen Betts]

not by any legal definition ("dishonest apropriation of another's property
with the intent to deprive him of it permanently"), and it's not a crime
in the free world.

It's a civil matter between the holder and the infringer

Bye.
Jasen

 

[John Fields]

not by any legal definition ("dishonest apropriation of another's property
with the intent to deprive him of it permanently"), and it's not a crime
in the free world.

---
Don't hand me that "legal definition" crap, Jasen, you're not even
remotely close to being a lawyer.

1. Since, by the act of ifringement, any income which the owner of
the copyrighted work would have enjoyed had the work not been
infringed, will not be forthcoming, the effect is the same as if the
infringer stole that income from the author.

2. I think theft is looked upon as a crime universally.
---

 

[[email protected]]

---
True, but if the pattern of dots isn't of your own making, then
copying them without the permission of the person who organized them
is stealing. Same a Xeroxing a book or counterfeiting cash is
stealing.
---

Neither is "stealing". Once information is in the public domain, it's
in the public domain.
Of course, the fiat currency issue could start whole new thread..

Rightfully yours my ass. Unless you are referring to your right to pay
an armed group to ensure a monopoly enterprise.

The permission came when the information was released to the public
domain.

 

[John Fields]

Neither is "stealing". Once information is in the public domain, it's
in the public domain.

---
Your confusion seems to stem from the fact that you don't know the
difference between a public market and the public domain. I suggest
that instead of considering the difference as far as a copyright is
concerned, you think of it in terms of a patent where, when a patent
expires, the invention passes into the public domain. When that
happens all the prior restrictions encumbering its use fall away and
it becomes freely available to the public to use in any way it sees
fit.

Of necessity, any invention or copyrighted work intended for public
dissemination _has_ to be presented for sale to the public, but that
doesn't mean that the author's or inventor's exclusive rights to the
works are abridged in any way.
---

Of course, the fiat currency issue could start whole new thread..

Rightfully yours my ass. Unless you are referring to your right to pay
an armed group to ensure a monopoly enterprise.

---
That "armed group" you refer to is the government and it does exist
for, among other reasons, to assure that my monopoly enterprise will
be protected for the term of the patent or copyright.
---

The permission came when the information was released to the public
domain.

---
Yes, but if the material wasn't _specifically_ relaesed ito the
public domain then it remains the property of the author.

Get informed; read this:

http://www.copyright.gov/

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

---
Your confusion seems to stem from the fact that you don't know the
difference between a public market and the public domain. I suggest
that instead of considering the difference as far as a copyright is
concerned, you think of it in terms of a patent where, when a patent
expires, the invention passes into the public domain. When that
happens all the prior restrictions encumbering its use fall away and
it becomes freely available to the public to use in any way it sees
fit.

Of necessity, any invention or copyrighted work intended for public
dissemination _has_ to be presented for sale to the public, but that
doesn't mean that the author's or inventor's exclusive rights to the
works are abridged in any way.
---


---
That "armed group" you refer to is the government and it does exist
for, among other reasons, to assure that my monopoly enterprise will
be protected for the term of the patent or copyright.
---


---
Yes, but if the material wasn't _specifically_ relaesed ito the
public domain then it remains the property of the author.

Get informed; read this:

http://www.copyright.gov/

John, its no wonder he doesn't understand. He's post from a IP
assigned to Switzerland


inetnum: 130.92.0.0 - 130.92.255.255
netname: UNIBE
descr: University of Berne
descr: Berne, Switzerland
country: CH
admin-c: FB61
tech-c: FB61
tech-c: CH791-RIPE
status: ASSIGNED PI
mnt-by: SWITCH-MNT
source: RIPE # Filtered
person: Fritz Buetikofer
address: University of Berne
address: Computer Services Department
address: Gesellschaftsstrasse 6
address: CH-3012 Berne
address: Switzerland
phone: +41 31 631 3843
fax-no: +41 31 631 3865
e-mail: [email protected]
nic-hdl: FB61
source: RIPE # Filtered
person: Christian Heim
address: University of Berne
address: Computer Services Department
address: Gesellschaftsstrasse 6
address: CH-3012 Berne
address: Switzerland
phone: +41 31 631 3872
fax-no: +41 31 631 3865
e-mail: [email protected]
nic-hdl: CH791-RIPE
source: RIPE # Filtered


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

 

[Jasen Betts]

["Followup-To:" header set to sci.electronics.misc.]

It's not crap. it came out of a dictionary verbatim. if you think I'm wrong
correct me. Insults are a sign that you fear that you are losing the argument.

1. Since, by the act of ifringement, any income which the owner of
the copyrighted work would have enjoyed had the work not been
infringed, will not be forthcoming, the effect is the same as if the
infringer stole that income from the author.

that's not neccesarily true, there are two ways to not infringe copyright
one is to purchase the licence the other is to not use the work. most people
choose the latter.

2. I think theft is looked upon as a crime universally.
---

definately...

[copyright infringement]

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#506

ok, yeah, there are exceptions, like when it's being done for commercial gain.

 

[John Fields]

John, its no wonder he doesn't understand. He's post from a IP
assigned to Switzerland


inetnum: 130.92.0.0 - 130.92.255.255
netname: UNIBE
descr: University of Berne
descr: Berne, Switzerland
country: CH
admin-c: FB61
tech-c: FB61
tech-c: CH791-RIPE
status: ASSIGNED PI
mnt-by: SWITCH-MNT
source: RIPE # Filtered
person: Fritz Buetikofer
address: University of Berne
address: Computer Services Department
address: Gesellschaftsstrasse 6
address: CH-3012 Berne
address: Switzerland
phone: +41 31 631 3843
fax-no: +41 31 631 3865
e-mail: [email protected]
nic-hdl: FB61
source: RIPE # Filtered
person: Christian Heim
address: University of Berne
address: Computer Services Department
address: Gesellschaftsstrasse 6
address: CH-3012 Berne
address: Switzerland
phone: +41 31 631 3872
fax-no: +41 31 631 3865
e-mail: [email protected]
nic-hdl: CH791-RIPE
source: RIPE # Filtered

I don't think it's as much a question of determining where they're
from as it is determining where they're coming from.

If, indeed, he's an academic, then we have among us one who rails
against private ownership of intellectual property and feels that
fertilization of the egg should be agreed upon by committee.

 

[[email protected]]

Pretty much correct. Or rather, I don't think there should be a
difference. My apologies for the fishing here, as I look for debate on
IP laws. As you may have gathered, I'm against them.

I suggest
that instead of considering the difference as far as a copyright is
concerned, you think of it in terms of a patent where, when a patent
expires, the invention passes into the public domain. When that
happens all the prior restrictions encumbering its use fall away and
it becomes freely available to the public to use in any way it sees
fit.

Of course in reality, the idea is available to the public as soon as
they see it. The only problem is, the patent law forbids them from
using it for innovation, business, health, scientific research, etc.

Of necessity, any invention or copyrighted work intended for public
dissemination _has_ to be presented for sale to the public, but that
doesn't mean that the author's or inventor's exclusive rights to the
works are abridged in any way.

You may want "exclusive rights" to some information, but the reality is
that once somebody else knows that information you no longer are the
exclusive holder of the information.

---


---
That "armed group" you refer to is the government and it does exist
for, among other reasons, to assure that my monopoly enterprise will
be protected for the term of the patent or copyright.
---

True. I would prefer a capitalist or free market system, and I think
it may come sooner rather than later. Of course until then we must
live within the current system to avoid the consequences.

If you don't want anyone to know something, you shouldn't publish it.

Get informed; read this:

http://www.copyright.gov/

That's what I'm complaining about!

Cheers - shevek

 

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 17:53:25 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell"

[snip]

I don't think it's as much a question of determining where they're
from as it is determining where they're coming from.

If, indeed, he's an academic, then we have among us one who rails
against private ownership of intellectual property and feels that
fertilization of the egg should be agreed upon by committee.

Now I'm curious.. are you talking about reproduction a la "Brave New
World"?

And where is the connection? Are Intellectual property laws are a step
in that direction?

 

[Jim Thompson]

On 20 Apr 2006 07:07:35 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
[snip]

If you don't want anyone to know something, you shouldn't publish it.
[snip]

Cheers - shevek

Publishing something so that books can be sold and read is wholly
different from you turning around and copying said material for your
own profit.

I find that those against IP laws are generally those who aren't "IP",
intellectually prolific, you're just a common thief.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

Old Latin teachers never die...they just decline

 

[John Fields]

Pretty much correct. Or rather, I don't think there should be a
difference.

---
Why not? Say you generate a killer app which your university pays
you to design and puts into the public domain. Kudos to you, but no
financial gain other than your salary.

OTOH, you quit the the university and do it all yourself and sell
what comes out of your brain.

Big difference, no?
---

My apologies for the fishing here, as I look for debate on
IP laws. As you may have gathered, I'm against them.

---
Apologies accepted, as long as they'll keep you subservient...

Why would you be against IP legislation which rules in favor of the
inventor?

Aren't you one of us?

Don't you want to want your clever ideas to be attributed to you and
for you to be able to profit from them?

 

[[email protected]]

---
Why not? Say you generate a killer app which your university pays
you to design and puts into the public domain. Kudos to you, but no
financial gain other than your salary.

OTOH, you quit the the university and do it all yourself and sell
what comes out of your brain.

Big difference, no?
---

Yes, but neither scenario requires intellectual property protectionism.
Quit the university, start the company that produces the design, and
keep the company competitive. You don't need to sue copyright
violators to do good business.

---
Apologies accepted, as long as they'll keep you subservient...

Why would you be against IP legislation which rules in favor of the
inventor?

Aren't you one of us?

Don't you want to want your clever ideas to be attributed to you and
for you to be able to profit from them?

Thanks for humoring me I suppose my ideas now will become..
property of google?

Why would you be against IP legislation which rules in favor of the
inventor?

Good question. How could I suggest that my favorite artists and
inventors not be compensated for the excellent work? Yes, a perfect IP
legislation rules in favor of a past inventor, with the expense born by
consumers. However I think most of the artists and inventors would
still be very well compensated, as many have, without "paying for
protection". And many inventors have not made out well for themselves
financially, despite their patents.

In practice, a huge chunk of the money goes to middle men and patent
lawyers. The artists and inventors recieve but a small fraction of the
money siphoned with high prices and suing any competition.

Still worse is what the system has done to pharmaceutical industry or
agribusiness. And do you really think it's helped the arts?

Actually, I'm a fan of the patent office. It's a great library of
diagrams and designs.

cheers - shevek

 

[Zak]

Good question. How could I suggest that my favorite artists and
inventors not be compensated for the excellent work? Yes, a perfect IP
legislation rules in favor of a past inventor, with the expense born by
consumers. However I think most of the artists and inventors would
still be very well compensated, as many have, without "paying for
protection". And many inventors have not made out well for themselves
financially, despite their patents.

Look what it costs to pursue a patent issue. Out of reach for most
inventors - only accessible to large business. And even those form a
cartel to limit costs within - but it gives them leverage to kick out
those nasty startups.

In practice, a huge chunk of the money goes to middle men and patent
lawyers. The artists and inventors recieve but a small fraction of the
money siphoned with high prices and suing any competition.

In software, an 'patentable invention' seems to be very easy to create -
except for the lawyerese.

Now whenever you write software you got to check all those patents to
see if you are infringing. If done correctly this would make software
costs be 99.9 % legal and 0.1 % engineering. I can't think that is good
for innovation.

Actually, I'm a fan of the patent office. It's a great library of
diagrams and designs.

That's why it is there - for protection you have got to publish.

Still I wonder why one would accept patents - which are laws forbidding
to produce something for profit - seeing that they are written as
vaguely as possible and not checked by a representative process.
In a time when the number of inventors was very limited (because tools
were not generally available) and innovation was slow, the patent system
worked fine. A limited number of patents, and inventors generally being
inside a business, made sure the resources needed were not too great.

But nowadays - Joe Random can afford to file his patent for whatever
voice recognition algorithm he has figured out. Getting his income from
it is something different - it needs huge investment in legal costs.

As far as the level of inventions: a recent application was for a TV
that disallows chaning channels while in a commercial. It IS new, I
agree, but is it a technical invention, or merely so stupid as not to
have been published before? Still it may bit someone someday whenever
teh principle is applied to something useful.


Thomas

 

[John Fields]

Yes, but neither scenario requires intellectual property protectionism.
Quit the university, start the company that produces the design, and
keep the company competitive. You don't need to sue copyright
violators to do good business.

---
The point isn't whether you can do good business or not with _your_
intellectual property, it's whether someone else has the right to
use it without your permission.

If you think they do, then we are fundamentally in disagreement and
the argument can't proceed until that disagreement is resolved.
---

Thanks for humoring me I suppose my ideas now will become..
property of google?


Good question. How could I suggest that my favorite artists and
inventors not be compensated for the excellent work? Yes, a perfect IP
legislation rules in favor of a past inventor, with the expense born by
consumers. However I think most of the artists and inventors would
still be very well compensated, as many have, without "paying for
protection". And many inventors have not made out well for themselves
financially, despite their patents.

---
Speaking of business, one of the things I've learned is that if
you're looking for investors for a start-up to build and sell a
widget of some kind, and they're honest, they won't even talk to you
until you've at least filed for a patent. That way, their
investment will be covered to the extent that the courts will
support. The reason that many inventors and artists _don't_ do well
isn't because of a failing in the system, (although, God knows, it's
not perfect) it's because they're lousy at business and let
themselves get talked into all kinds of really lousy deals, like the
one a lot of newbies get suckered into, taking the risk for "a
portion of the profits", LOL!
---

In practice, a huge chunk of the money goes to middle men and patent
lawyers. The artists and inventors recieve but a small fraction of the
money siphoned with high prices and suing any competition.

---
Patent lawyers aren't so bad, a good one'll cost about $10k, and if
you want to do it yourself it's just the government filing fees
you'll need to come up with, a couple of thousand, I think.
---

Still worse is what the system has done to pharmaceutical industry or
agribusiness.

---
It's not the system, it's how it's been allowed to be manipulated by
business that's the problem, I think, but what did you have in mind,
specifically?
---

And do you really think it's helped the arts?

---
Definitely. If others could steal your work by copying it, taking
credit for it by pretending it was theirs and selling it without
fear of retribution of any kind, what would be the incentive to
keep on producing other than the basic creative urge itself?
---

 

[[email protected]]

---
The point isn't whether you can do good business or not with _your_
intellectual property, it's whether someone else has the right to
use it without your permission.

If you think they do, then we are fundamentally in disagreement and
the argument can't proceed until that disagreement is resolved.
---

The disagreement may be more fundamental, as I arguing that this
"intellectual property" is a fiction that is hurting us all.

---
Speaking of business, one of the things I've learned is that if
you're looking for investors for a start-up to build and sell a
widget of some kind, and they're honest, they won't even talk to you
until you've at least filed for a patent. That way, their
investment will be covered to the extent that the courts will
support. The reason that many inventors and artists _don't_ do well
isn't because of a failing in the system, (although, God knows, it's
not perfect) it's because they're lousy at business and let
themselves get talked into all kinds of really lousy deals, like the
one a lot of newbies get suckered into, taking the risk for "a
portion of the profits", LOL!
---

Investors are generally looking for a business plan that will make them
money. Government protectionism has made a lot of investors rich, that
is true - but it doesn't make it right. Slavery also made a lot of
investors rich for example.

---
Patent lawyers aren't so bad, a good one'll cost about $10k, and if
you want to do it yourself it's just the government filing fees
you'll need to come up with, a couple of thousand, I think.
---

Maybe even less. However the lawsuits will cost a lot more.

---
It's not the system, it's how it's been allowed to be manipulated by
business that's the problem, I think, but what did you have in mind,
specifically?
---

"bio-piracy", the patenting of genes, e.g. used to sue farmers who
plant the same seeds they've used for generations. Keeping drugs at
elevated prices. Keeping research secret. For three..

---
Definitely. If others could steal your work by copying it, taking
credit for it by pretending it was theirs and selling it without
fear of retribution of any kind, what would be the incentive to
keep on producing other than the basic creative urge itself?
---

To sell concert seats. To sell the original paintings. To spread the
good word. Fame and fortune are still incentives without the
government protectionism. Instead we have artists trying to be the
next "one hit wonders".. I would argue that the arts have suffered
greatly from government protectionism.

It's all public domain. The public has access to it. Why not archive
inventions like that? A good idea.

Cheers - shevek