Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #16227 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2012-01-25 12:53 -0800 |
| Last post | 2012-02-06 11:23 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 93 — 26 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
Reasonably priced C11 standard? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-01-25 12:53 -0800
Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-01-25 12:54 -0800
Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-01-26 23:53 +0100
Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? paolo <pc8875@nospam.mail.com.br> - 2012-02-02 20:03 +0000
Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-02-02 15:22 -0500
Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201202.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2012-02-03 11:35 +0100
Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2012-02-03 08:24 -0500
Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-02-03 12:39 -0800
Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2012-02-06 11:14 +0100
Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-02-06 06:16 -0500
Copyright Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-02-06 12:13 +0000
Re: Copyright Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2012-02-06 10:06 -0500
Re: Copyright Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-02-06 15:51 +0000
Re: Copyright Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2012-02-06 11:05 -0500
Re: Copyright Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-02-06 16:08 +0000
Re: Copyright Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2012-02-06 11:30 -0500
Re: Copyright Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2012-02-06 18:18 +0100
Re: Copyright Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2012-02-06 13:02 -0500
Re: Copyright Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-02-06 18:20 +0000
Re: Copyright Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? John Gordon <gordon@panix.com> - 2012-02-06 19:38 +0000
Re: Copyright Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-02-06 21:41 +0000
Re: Copyright Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? John Gordon <gordon@panix.com> - 2012-02-06 21:56 +0000
Re: Copyright Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-02-06 22:07 +0000
Re: Copyright Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-02-06 22:09 +0000
Re: Copyright Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? John Gordon <gordon@panix.com> - 2012-02-06 22:24 +0000
Re: Copyright Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-02-06 22:00 +0000
Re: Copyright Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-02-12 23:46 +0200
Re: Copyright Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2012-02-06 19:02 -0500
Re: Copyright Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-02-07 11:14 +0000
Re: Copyright Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2012-02-06 12:17 -0600
Re: Copyright Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> - 2012-02-06 12:52 -0800
Re: Copyright Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-02-13 03:35 -0800
Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2012-02-06 13:22 +0100
Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-02-06 08:18 -0500
Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2012-02-06 15:20 +0100
Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2012-02-06 10:50 -0500
Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-02-06 16:02 +0000
Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2012-02-06 19:56 -0800
Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> - 2012-02-06 20:38 -0800
Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? William Ahern <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> - 2012-02-06 21:44 -0800
Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> - 2012-02-07 14:22 -0800
Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? William Ahern <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> - 2012-02-07 16:33 -0800
Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> - 2012-02-07 19:35 -0800
Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2012-02-08 00:27 -0500
Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> - 2012-02-08 10:01 -0800
Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2012-02-08 14:43 -0500
Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? "osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2012-02-07 08:48 -0600
Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? William Ahern <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> - 2012-02-06 21:32 -0800
Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-02-06 11:16 -0500
Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-02-06 14:35 +0000
Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201202.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2012-02-06 15:28 +0100
Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2012-02-06 10:56 -0500
Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> - 2012-02-06 18:29 +0000
Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-02-06 14:12 -0500
Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2012-02-08 18:06 +0100
Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2012-02-08 15:15 -0500
Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-02-09 09:23 +1300
Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-02-13 04:58 -0800
Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-02-13 12:19 -0500
Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-02-13 12:47 -0800
Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2012-02-13 22:01 +0000
Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-02-08 15:04 -0800
Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2012-02-09 06:46 -0500
Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-02-13 04:59 -0800
Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-02-13 12:50 -0800
Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-02-06 11:51 -0800
Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2012-02-06 19:19 -0500
Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-02-07 00:35 +0000
Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2012-02-06 20:31 -0500
Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2012-02-07 09:19 +0100
Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-02-13 04:08 -0800
Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-02-13 07:16 -0500
Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201202.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2012-02-13 17:27 +0100
Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-02-13 12:25 -0500
Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-02-13 23:52 +0000
Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> - 2012-02-13 09:42 -0800
Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201202.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2012-02-13 23:33 +0100
Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-02-13 03:32 -0800
Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-02-04 13:36 +0000
Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Rich Webb <bbew.ar@mapson.nozirev.ten> - 2012-02-02 16:27 -0500
Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-02-03 01:48 +0100
Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2012-02-03 11:45 -0500
Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? blp@cs.stanford.edu (Ben Pfaff) - 2012-02-03 09:27 -0800
Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2012-02-03 15:58 -0500
Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? William Ahern <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> - 2012-02-03 13:06 -0800
Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2012-02-04 15:52 -0500
Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-02-04 13:58 -0800
Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-02-05 11:37 +0000
Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2012-02-07 10:53 -0500
Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-02-07 14:25 -0800
Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2012-02-07 23:07 -0500
Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-02-07 21:07 -0800
Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? William Ahern <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> - 2012-02-06 11:23 -0800
Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
| From | Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-02-06 21:41 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Copyright Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? |
| Message-ID | <jgphdh$b3r$2@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #16771 |
John Gordon wrote: > In <jgp5lp$dvq$1@speranza.aioe.org> Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> > writes: > >> No one loses a red cent if someone copies any copyrighted work. > > You seem to be assuming that the infringer is completely unwilling to > purchase a legitimate copy of the work. Surely that is not true in > all such cases. > > Or are you not counting missed sales as "loss"? How do you count a missed sale? Rui Maciel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gordon <gordon@panix.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-02-06 21:56 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Copyright Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? |
| Message-ID | <jgpib5$skf$1@reader1.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #16776 |
In <jgphdh$b3r$2@speranza.aioe.org> Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> writes:
> >> No one loses a red cent if someone copies any copyrighted work.
> >
> > You seem to be assuming that the infringer is completely unwilling to
> > purchase a legitimate copy of the work. Surely that is not true in
> > all such cases.
> >
> > Or are you not counting missed sales as "loss"?
> How do you count a missed sale?
I don't know how to calculate an exact number of lost sales. But surely
it's more than zero, which made me curious about your claim that no money
is lost.
--
John Gordon A is for Amy, who fell down the stairs
gordon@panix.com B is for Basil, assaulted by bears
-- Edward Gorey, "The Gashlycrumb Tinies"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-02-06 22:07 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Copyright Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? |
| Message-ID | <20120206225953.286@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #16777 |
On 2012-02-06, John Gordon <gordon@panix.com> wrote: > In <jgphdh$b3r$2@speranza.aioe.org> Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> writes: > >> >> No one loses a red cent if someone copies any copyrighted work. >> > >> > You seem to be assuming that the infringer is completely unwilling to >> > purchase a legitimate copy of the work. Surely that is not true in >> > all such cases. >> > >> > Or are you not counting missed sales as "loss"? > >> How do you count a missed sale? > > I don't know how to calculate an exact number of lost sales. But surely > it's more than zero, which made me curious about your claim that no money > is lost. Also, you should count all the women that wouldn't go out with you! That's some nonzero quantity of romance there that is worth regretting.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-02-06 22:09 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Copyright Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? |
| Message-ID | <jgpj2o$fc3$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #16777 |
John Gordon wrote: > I don't know how to calculate an exact number of lost sales. But surely > it's more than zero, which made me curious about your claim that no money > is lost. If you account for hypothetical lost sales, do you also account for any gained sale? Rui Maciel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gordon <gordon@panix.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-02-06 22:24 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Copyright Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? |
| Message-ID | <jgpjvc$9tq$1@reader1.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #16780 |
In <jgpj2o$fc3$1@speranza.aioe.org> Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> writes:
> John Gordon wrote:
> > I don't know how to calculate an exact number of lost sales. But surely
> > it's more than zero, which made me curious about your claim that no money
> > is lost.
> If you account for hypothetical lost sales, do you also account for any
> gained sale?
You mean how an infringed copy might act as advertising, generating
additional legitimate sales? No, I'm not accounting for that.
--
John Gordon A is for Amy, who fell down the stairs
gordon@panix.com B is for Basil, assaulted by bears
-- Edward Gorey, "The Gashlycrumb Tinies"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-02-06 22:00 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Copyright Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? |
| Message-ID | <20120206225918.631@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #16776 |
On 2012-02-06, Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> wrote: > How do you count a missed sale? sales = sales++; // works for me
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-02-12 23:46 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Copyright Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? |
| Message-ID | <87wr7ru3lo.fsf@bazspaz.fatphil.org> |
| In reply to | #16778 |
Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> writes: > On 2012-02-06, Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> wrote: > > How do you count a missed sale? > > sales = sales++; // works for me Best post of this subthread - thanks Kaz! Phil -- Unix is simple. It just takes a genius to understand its simplicity -- Dennis Ritchie (1941-2011), Unix Co-Creator
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-02-06 19:02 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Copyright Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? |
| Message-ID | <4F3069FE.853D0657@bytecraft.com> |
| In reply to | #16776 |
Rui Maciel wrote: > John Gordon wrote: > > > You seem to be assuming that the infringer is completely unwilling to > > purchase a legitimate copy of the work. Surely that is not true in > > all such cases. > > > > Or are you not counting missed sales as "loss"? > > How do you count a missed sale? When the call my company looking for support. w..
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-02-07 11:14 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Copyright Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? |
| Message-ID | <jgritj$u9h$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #16784 |
Walter Banks wrote: > When the call my company looking for support. How do you know that those who called your company looking for support would have purchased your product if they hadn't got their hands on an unauthorized copy? The supply and demand model shouldn't be ignored for convenience. And does your company provide free support for users of unauthorized copies or does it charge for support? Rui Maciel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-02-06 12:17 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Copyright Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? |
| Message-ID | <r150j7llet8fkmd04qph51u25kqf0ui040@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #16754 |
On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 11:05:17 -0500, Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> wrote: > > >Rui Maciel wrote: > >> Walter Banks wrote: >> >> > >> > >> > Rui Maciel wrote: >> > >> >> Notice that being supportive of unauthorized distribution of copyrighted >> >> works exclusively for personal use does not mean that one fails to >> >> "understand the value of having copyrights". >> >> >> > >> > There are many copyrights for works with a personal use only audience. >> > >> > This issue more than any other impacts the how innovation risk is >> > evaluated in going forward with new idea's. Thirty years ago before >> > this was anywhere the kind of issue it is now we were willing to >> > develop an idea that had an 80% chance of not creating enough >> > revenue to break even. The acceptable risk is now less than 20%. >> > The difference is 30 years ago those that did succeed produced >> > the revenue needed to sustain innovation funding. >> > >> > IP protection helps everyone and protects the very employment >> > of most on this news group. >> >> This "we need totalitarian control over copyrighted works to make a profit" >> argument has already been thoroughly refuted. It has already been >> demonstrated that totalitarian control of a copyrighted work does not have a >> meaningful effect on sales, and it has also been demonstrated that the >> unauthorized distribution of copyrighted works has a positive influence on >> sales. > >> >> The only influence that totalitarian control over copyrighted work has on >> the commercialization of copyrighted works is that it provides distributors, >> and not authors, with a tool to regain complete control over distribution >> channels, and therefore monopolize the access to education, culture and >> entertainment. > >If authors want to put material into the public domain let them do so (many do). > >This is not about rights of education, culture and entertainment. > >What I develop privately should be distributed in a way I authorize >under my terms. Any other way violates my IP rights. Unfortunately actually putting something into the public domain is darn near impossible in most jurisdictions. In the US, the copyright owners retain a right to revoke any purported transfer into the public domain (or other ownership) for 35 years. Surely the legal issues of that could be cleaned up fairly easily, but for whatever reason they haven't been. But the problem is stuff that you no longer care about - you're hardly going to make an effort to put it into the public domain. I favor a scheme using something akin to the old 28 year initial term, with a inexpensive and easy, but not free (perhaps $20, less if you demonstrate hardship) or automatic, renewal for as many (say) 20 year periods (one at a time) you like. An actual filing would be required for the first renewal, but the automatic approach of the current system would remain for the first term (and of course you could file early as well, which might have the advantage of the Copyright office sending you a notice when it's about to expire). This covers the 99.9% of the stuff that falls of anyone's care list in a quarter century, and allows IP holders to hold onto those rare things that have a longer life.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-02-06 12:52 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Copyright Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? |
| Message-ID | <86zkcvu1kj.fsf@zipcon.net> |
| In reply to | #16764 |
Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> writes: > On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 11:05:17 -0500, Walter Banks > <walter@bytecraft.com> wrote: > >> >> >>Rui Maciel wrote: >> >>> Walter Banks wrote: >>> >>> > >>> > >>> > Rui Maciel wrote: >>> > >>> >> Notice that being supportive of unauthorized distribution of copyrighted >>> >> works exclusively for personal use does not mean that one fails to >>> >> "understand the value of having copyrights". >>> >> >>> > >>> > There are many copyrights for works with a personal use only audience. >>> > >>> > This issue more than any other impacts the how innovation risk is >>> > evaluated in going forward with new idea's. Thirty years ago before >>> > this was anywhere the kind of issue it is now we were willing to >>> > develop an idea that had an 80% chance of not creating enough >>> > revenue to break even. The acceptable risk is now less than 20%. >>> > The difference is 30 years ago those that did succeed produced >>> > the revenue needed to sustain innovation funding. >>> > >>> > IP protection helps everyone and protects the very employment >>> > of most on this news group. >>> >>> This "we need totalitarian control over copyrighted works to make a profit" >>> argument has already been thoroughly refuted. It has already been >>> demonstrated that totalitarian control of a copyrighted work does not have a >>> meaningful effect on sales, and it has also been demonstrated that the >>> unauthorized distribution of copyrighted works has a positive influence on >>> sales. >> >>> >>> The only influence that totalitarian control over copyrighted work has on >>> the commercialization of copyrighted works is that it provides distributors, >>> and not authors, with a tool to regain complete control over distribution >>> channels, and therefore monopolize the access to education, culture and >>> entertainment. >> >>If authors want to put material into the public domain let them do so >> (many do). >> >>This is not about rights of education, culture and entertainment. >> >>What I develop privately should be distributed in a way I authorize >>under my terms. Any other way violates my IP rights. > > > Unfortunately actually putting something into the public domain is > darn near impossible in most jurisdictions. In the US, the copyright > owners retain a right to revoke any purported transfer into the public > domain (or other ownership) for 35 years. Surely the legal issues of > that could be cleaned up fairly easily, but for whatever reason they > haven't been. > > But the problem is stuff that you no longer care about - you're hardly > going to make an effort to put it into the public domain. > > I favor a scheme using something akin to the old 28 year initial term, > with a inexpensive and easy, but not free (perhaps $20, less if you > demonstrate hardship) or automatic, renewal for as many (say) 20 year > periods (one at a time) you like. An actual filing would be required > for the first renewal, but the automatic approach of the current > system would remain for the first term (and of course you could file > early as well, which might have the advantage of the Copyright office > sending you a notice when it's about to expire). > > This covers the 99.9% of the stuff that falls of anyone's care list in > a quarter century, and allows IP holders to hold onto those rare > things that have a longer life. That would be a good system. I'd add that the renewals should get more expensive with each renewal. Say, $10 for initial copyright, $100 for the first renewal, $1000 for the second. No problem for Mickey or Al Jolson, but will let most works go into the public domain sooner rather than later. Also, the copyright fees should support a better job of copyright searching for the general public. Did you know the Copyright Office online records only go back to 1978? Previous copyright records were published in books, and a few generous people have scanned some of the books and put them on the web. But not all the volumes, for instance play copyrights were listed in different Copyright Office publications and no one has bothered to scan them. Make it easy to find out who currently owns a copyright and how to contact them, and it might even lead to some money for the copyright owner. As it is, it might be a day of detective work which even then might not find current contact information. -- Patrick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-02-13 03:35 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Copyright Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? |
| Message-ID | <fc978547-4bab-4979-a471-3c277964924d@k10g2000yqk.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #16744 |
On Feb 6, 12:13 pm, Rui Maciel <rui.mac...@gmail.com> wrote: > James Kuyper wrote: > >> Some of you (mostly anglophones) have been brain-washed by "big media"(*) > >> and are waaay too docile when it comes to copyright. > > > Some of us can use our own brains to understand the value of having > > copyrights (and reasonable enforcement of same). > > Notice that being supportive of unauthorized distribution of copyrighted > works exclusively for personal use does not mean that one fails to > "understand the value of having copyrights". does that "personal use" clause apply to music and films? > Moreover, supporting the totalitarian control of copyrighted works as it is > demanded by distributors does by no mean implies that one "understands the > value of having copyrights". he said "reasonable enforcement" > In fact, it demonstrates an appalling lack of > understanding on the role of copyright in a developed society, that only > benefits distributors and no one else. And this includes the very same > people who actually produce copyrighted works. Hence, the appropriate > "brain-washed" reference. opinion masquerading as fact.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Noob <root@127.0.0.1> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-02-06 13:22 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <jgogl6$k76$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #16743 |
James Kuyper wrote: > Noob wrote: > >> In France, it is legal to provide a copy of a work protected by copyright >> to anyone in one's "close circle" (as defined by case law) for personal use. > > It's hard for me to believe that a perfect stranger whose only > connection to you is that he downloaded something that you made > available over the internet, could qualify as being in your "close > circle". If such a person did qualify, it would render copyright > meaningless. I didn't mean to imply that one is free to download anything from "the Internets" and then claim it was given to him by someone in his "close circle". What I did mean to imply is: one might ask one's "close circle" (family, friends, co-workers) for a copy of a work protected by copyright, instead of purchasing it. That IS legal in some jurisdictions. >> Some of you (mostly anglophones) have been brain-washed by "big media"(*) >> and are waaay too docile when it comes to copyright. > > Some of us can use our own brains to understand the value of having > copyrights (and reasonable enforcement of same). I don't know what planet you come from, but there is no such thing as "reasonable enforcement of copy right", only an over-reaching legal arsenal that makes "napalm to kill a fly" look tame. Regards.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-02-06 08:18 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <jgojv6$4pd$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #16745 |
On 02/06/2012 07:22 AM, Noob wrote: > James Kuyper wrote: > >> Noob wrote: ... >>> Some of you (mostly anglophones) have been brain-washed by "big media"(*) >>> and are waaay too docile when it comes to copyright. >> >> Some of us can use our own brains to understand the value of having >> copyrights (and reasonable enforcement of same). > > I don't know what planet you come from, ... Apparently not the same one you're living on. > ... but there is no such thing > as "reasonable enforcement of copy right", only an over-reaching > legal arsenal that makes "napalm to kill a fly" look tame. I've heard lots of complaints about excessive enforcement of copyright, but with a few exceptions most of the loudest complaints come mainly from people who have no sympathy with the concept of copyright at all. They're entitled to their opinion, even if I don't share it, but the only way to satisfy their complaints would be to remove copyright enforcement entirely. I've seen a few notorious cases where someone who actually believes in copyright has been unfairly targeted with a copyright enforcement action, but only a few. Unfair trademark enforcement seems a more common issue. -- James Kuyper
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Noob <root@127.0.0.1> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-02-06 15:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <jgonio$oft$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #16746 |
James Kuyper wrote: > Noob wrote: > >> I don't know what planet you come from, ... > > Apparently not the same one you're living on. Correct. I live on Utopia, you live on Dystopia :-) >> ... but there is no such thing >> as "reasonable enforcement of copy right", only an over-reaching >> legal arsenal that makes "napalm to kill a fly" look tame. > > I've heard lots of complaints about excessive enforcement of copyright, > but with a few exceptions most of the loudest complaints come mainly > from people who have no sympathy with the concept of copyright at all. The main problems with "copy-right" are 1) its excessive length and 2) the legal arsenal "rights holders" have obtained in the past 20 years. > They're entitled to their opinion, even if I don't share it, but the > only way to satisfy their complaints would be to remove copyright > enforcement entirely. Not necessarily. The concept has some value. > I've seen a few notorious cases where someone who actually believes in > copyright has been unfairly targeted with a copyright enforcement > action, but only a few. The current copy-right model is killing the cultural history of the "developed" world. How many computer games from the 70s, 80s, 90s are now forever lost because it is "forbidden" to copy ROMs? How many records from the 50s, 60s, 70s are forever lost (or impossible to find) because people are afraid to share them, even though the music labels are not interested in selling them, while distribution costs are plummeting towards 0? Same thing for old books. (Here, a residential fiber optics link costs 30 EUR/month -- 100 Mbit/s down + 50 Mbit/s up; a peer to peer network of these will share anything in a few seconds.) IMHO, the current model cannot be allowed to perpetuate. > Unfair trademark enforcement seems a more common issue. Errr... what?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-02-06 10:50 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <4F2FF6D9.AC9D99DD@bytecraft.com> |
| In reply to | #16747 |
Noob wrote: > > The main problems with "copy-right" are 1) its excessive length > and 2) the legal arsenal "rights holders" have obtained in the > past 20 years. 1) (excessive length) The length of copyright is an artifact of software industry losing the effectiveness of patent protection. The length of patent protection is about right for software protection to make most development economically viable. Copyright turned out to be the only protection with enough teeth to protect software. 2 (legal arsenal) The first time you wake up one morning to discover that you have paid the development costs for a handful of competing companies, starts with an upset stomach over breakfast a three martini lunch and tears in your beer that night. Right after the aspirin in the morning for the hangover the calls to legal start with, "Do something now!!!" When you are the victim or the preconceived victim it gets personal just thinking about all the mid-night to morning sessions that you will never be paid for. Independent of industry IP violation is a personal emotional response in creative people. All I have talked to expressed the view that it is like arriving home to find a burglar has has been there in your absence. Personally I would liked to have seen a respected software protection scheme closer to a patent and similar in implementation to a registered copyright. Something like 10-15 years duration, specific claims but costing closer to trademark costs. There is little or no chance that this could happen now. Regards Walter Banks Byte Craft Limited
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-02-06 16:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <jgothn$nka$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #16751 |
Walter Banks wrote: > > > Noob wrote: > >> >> The main problems with "copy-right" are 1) its excessive length >> and 2) the legal arsenal "rights holders" have obtained in the >> past 20 years. > > 1) (excessive length) The length of copyright is an artifact of software > industry losing the effectiveness of patent protection. Are you referring to which jurisdiction? If I'm not mistaken, the revision to the US code which brought over copyright terms that go over 100 years dates back to 1978, and I don't believe you can claim a link between that revision and any software industry. > > 2 (legal arsenal) The first time you wake up one morning to discover > that you have paid the development costs for a handful of competing > companies, starts with an upset stomach over breakfast a three > martini lunch and tears in your beer that night. Right after the aspirin > in the morning for the hangover the calls to legal start with, > "Do something now!!!" When you are the victim or the preconceived > victim it gets personal just thinking about all the mid-night to morning > sessions that you will never be paid for. How exactly do you go from having the right to access a copyrighted work for personal use without any authorization to pay "the development costs for a handful of competing companies"? > Independent of industry IP violation is a personal emotional response > in creative people. All I have talked to expressed the view that it is > like arriving home to find a burglar has has been there in your absence. Where exactly do you see a link between unauthorized distribution of copyrighted works for personal use and "arriving home to find a burglar"? Rui Maciel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-02-06 19:56 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6281j7hdotij3jljl9vbodlvm9d1bhpckq@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #16755 |
On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 16:02:01 +0000, Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> wrote: >Are you referring to which jurisdiction? If I'm not mistaken, the revision >to the US code which brought over copyright terms that go over 100 years >dates back to 1978, and I don't believe you can claim a link between that >revision and any software industry. Last time I looked, in the U.S., copyright protection lasts for the life of the author plus 50 years. I don't know what happens when the "author" is a corporate entity. With "renewals" the term could last indefinitely.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-02-06 20:38 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <86r4y7mf64.fsf@zipcon.net> |
| In reply to | #16790 |
Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> writes: > On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 16:02:01 +0000, Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>Are you referring to which jurisdiction? If I'm not mistaken, the revision >>to the US code which brought over copyright terms that go over 100 years >>dates back to 1978, and I don't believe you can claim a link between that >>revision and any software industry. > > Last time I looked, in the U.S., copyright protection lasts for the > life of the author plus 50 years. I don't know what happens when the > "author" is a corporate entity. With "renewals" the term could last > indefinitely. You haven't looked recently. In 1998, copyright terms in the U.S. were extended to life of the author plus 70 years. For corporate entities it's now 95 years after publication or 120 years after creation, whichever comes first. No renewal is required. Along with the sheer amount of time works are protected, the would-be licenser must determine whether authors are still alive and if not when they died and who their literary executors are. Again, trivial if it's Disney and probably easy if it's Al Jolson, but if you just want to make a legal copy of a borrowed book from a little-known author who was last in print in the 1920s, it's extremely difficult to determine. Most individuals would just make an illegal copy, but a library seeking to scan a brittle book and put it on the web for the greater convenience of its users can't do it. Maybe Google Books will end up making case law that overturns it, but most libraries are a lot more conservative legally than Google Books. -- Patrick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | William Ahern <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-02-06 21:44 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6bq609-dm3.ln1@wilbur.25thandClement.com> |
| In reply to | #16813 |
Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> wrote: <snip> > Along with the sheer amount of time works are protected, the would-be > licenser must determine whether authors are still alive and if not > when they died and who their literary executors are. Again, trivial if > it's Disney and probably easy if it's Al Jolson, but if you just want to > make a legal copy of a borrowed book from a little-known author who > was last in print in the 1920s, it's extremely difficult to determine. There's a short cut for such early works. Just check the Copyright Office for a renewal. If there was no renewal, the copyright lapsed. End of story. Though, I'm not a lawyer, so don't take my word for it if your bank account is on the line. But that's the way with all things, for better or worse. It's also worth point out that copyright in sound recordings is much more of a mess. They weren't protected federally until about 1974 or thereabouts, and there are many more wrinkles there. The early rise and dominance of radio (and the radio lobby) made sure that copyright in sound recordings was quite lax.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web