Mordor - The Depths of Dejenol
Petr Zweistein Prokop
Win 3.1?
I used to play Demo and I really enjoyed it.
I searched internet now to find out if I can download it as abandonware - I
failed, it is nowehere.
Does anyone in this group have copy of this game? I'd apreciate if it
appeared on some web or ftp. (I'm sure that 7 years is enough to make it legal
to publich it as abandonware)
Will anyone help me?
Please?
.
.
.
Frank
"Petr Zweistein Prokop" <zwei....@worldonline.cz> schreef in bericht
news:2976c4a4.02042...@posting.google.com...
Knight37
Prokop) wrote:
> I'm sure that 7 years is enough to make it legal
> to publich it as abandonware)
That would be incorrect. Abandonware is never legal, or at least, not until
the copyrights expire (75 yrs?) or are specifically given away as freeware
by the company.
--
Knight37
"There are those who think that life
Has nothing left to chance
With a host of holy horrors
To direct our aimless dance"
-- Rush "Free Will"
Richard Wingrove
Knight37 <knig...@email.com> wrote in message
news:Xns91F872B29...@216.148.53.81...
> If I had a dollar for every time zwei....@worldonline.cz (Petr
Zweistein
> Prokop) wrote:
>
> > I'm sure that 7 years is enough to make it legal
> > to publich it as abandonware)
>
> That would be incorrect. Abandonware is never legal, or at least, not
until
> the copyrights expire (75 yrs?) or are specifically given away as freeware
> by the company.
>
putting it on a website are the oldwarez lot, and that's definitely still
illegal.
Oh, and I used to have the demo of Mordor on a CD somewhere, till I chucked
it out. It was good for a two-day session now and again, but I could never
get into it properly :)
Rich
James Garvin
>
> If I had a dollar for every time zwei....@worldonline.cz (Petr Zweistein
> Prokop) wrote:
>
> > I'm sure that 7 years is enough to make it legal
> > to publich it as abandonware)
>
> That would be incorrect. Abandonware is never legal, or at least, not until
> the copyrights expire (75 yrs?) or are specifically given away as freeware
> by the company.
True. Abandonware was just picked up as a term to give out old
software. Not that giving out some old software is a bad thing (or the
source for that matter), but I can see why a company might not want to
have its software in the "abandoware archives" (eg Office 95)
I will say that EA is ULTRA stingy when it comes to letting games go
(Ultima 1 law suit anyone?)...bastards...
--
James Garvin
bo...@nmt.edu
-----BEGIN BOOT'S GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS/B/H !d s+:+@ a-@ C++>++++ UL++ P+ L++>++++ E++ W--@ N++ o+ K---
w++
O- M-- V-- PS+ PE++ Y++ PGP++ t+(++) 5-- X++ R++>$ tv b+ DI+++ D++
G e+>+++ h--- r+++ y+++ A09 H+++>* P+++
------END BOOT'S GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Peter Olafson
http://www.ipc-software.com/FRP_Games/Mordor11.htm
"Petr Zweistein Prokop" <zwei....@worldonline.cz> wrote in message
news:2976c4a4.02042...@posting.google.com...
marcus
great price for that game
Dr. Thomas Jonathan Steven Vinge d'Amour, Ph.D
> > to publich it as abandonware)
>
> That would be incorrect. Abandonware is never legal, or at least, not
until
> the copyrights expire (75 yrs?) or are specifically given away as freeware
> by the company.
Incorrect legally, but not intuitively.
Congress was given the power "to promote the Progress of Science and
useful Arts, by securing for limited times to Authors and Inventors the
exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries".
What progress is promoted by protecting 20-year old software?
10-year old software? 5-year old software? After the profits
have been made and turned towards the creation of other, better
works, hasn't progress been made using the fruits of the original
labor? After 5 years, surely the coders, the managers and the
marketers have long ago cashed their salary checks. What
is the need for further protection at the expense of public
enrichment, which was what Congress was given this power
to protect (someone tell them!)?
As the successful author, co-author and contributing author of
more than 300 published works of software over the past few
decades, it amuses me greatly to know that, had I not released it
into the public domain in the 80s, "Cavern Adventures" for the
TRS-80 would not make it there until 2072 if I died today. Hello!
To whom would it be useful to then? Even nostalgics in the old-folks
homes wouldn't care - they'll be reminiscing about GTA3 and Jedi
Outcast by then.
Current copyright and patent laws in the US are growing ever-
increasingly more insane, fueled by money from conglomerates
like the RIAA or MPAA who want to slyly make concrete the
neo-Stationers' Company monopolies they've established.
The power to manage copy rights was given to Congress by
the framers in order to protect the general public against the
kind of price-fixing and censorship that has stemmed from such
monopolies since the 1560s, right? Or am I mistaken, and it
was instead intended to encourage and perpetuate such
abusive cartels (the current interpretation)?
I respect the original intent of copyright law. I firmly believe that
artists should be paid for their labor. But long live abandonware.
While there may be no legal difference between downloading and
enjoying a copy of the new Spider-Man game and downloading
and enjoying a copy of Space Quest II: Vohaul's Revenge, IMO
there is a clear moral one.
(I've just now discovered two of the best games I ever created
on an abandonware site. I think I'll just bask in the joy of being
briefly remembered rather than draft up a DMCA complaint. Is
that wrong?)
someone
Dr. Thomas Jonathan Steven Vinge d'Amour, Ph.D wrote:
> 5-year old software? After the profits
> have been made and turned towards the creation of other, better
> works, hasn't progress been made using the fruits of the original
> labor? After 5 years, surely the coders, the managers and the
> marketers have long ago cashed their salary checks. What
> is the need for further protection at the expense of public
> enrichment, which was what Congress was given this power
> to protect (someone tell them!)?
Ok I will.
I just cashed royalty checks for shareware games written in 1995,
that are currently still being distributed world-wide and are still
generating income for me.
According to you, several years ago I should have given up my copyright
(and distribution control) so that the public could PROFIT from my
work instead of me. Perhaps, I should just send you any future checks
I get for royalties on these games. If you will just post your real
name and address, I'll see what I can do.
James Garvin
someone wrote:
>
> I just cashed royalty checks for shareware games written in 1995,
> that are currently still being distributed world-wide and are still
> generating income for me.
Agreed 5 years is too soon. However, holding tight control forever is
also stupid. I think there is an ending time period, but I'm not sure
exactly where that point is (7 to 10 years IMHO)
> According to you, several years ago I should have given up my copyright
> (and distribution control) so that the public could PROFIT from my
> work instead of me. Perhaps, I should just send you any future checks
> I get for royalties on these games. If you will just post your real
> name and address, I'll see what I can do.
I don't think anyone should have to give up their copyright, but I think
that some companies hold on to it for the wrong reason...
You as a small time author need to have strict control. However,
companies like EA need to give up control of Ultima I (at least open
source it for the fans)...Some things are dead, but some live on...
BTW more power to authors like Bruce Webster and Wayne Holder and the
Starflight guys!! More power to you too...we need shareware guys out
there....
Slartibartfast
john...@lowgenius.com says...
> Well ya know somethin' Dr. Thomas Jonathan Steven Vinge d'Amour, Ph.D...
>
> > As the successful author, co-author and contributing author of
> > more than 300 published works of software over the past few
> > decades, it amuses me greatly to know that, had I not released it
> > into the public domain in the 80s, "Cavern Adventures" for the
> > TRS-80 would not make it there until 2072 if I died today.
>
> happened to Scott Adams?
>
>
Ken Rice
>Well ya know somethin' Dr. Thomas Jonathan Steven Vinge d'Amour, Ph.D...
>> As the successful author, co-author and contributing author of
>> more than 300 published works of software over the past few
>> decades, it amuses me greatly to know that, had I not released it
>> into the public domain in the 80s, "Cavern Adventures" for the
>> TRS-80 would not make it there until 2072 if I died today.
>LMAO you wrote 'Cavern Adventures?' That's pretty cool. Wonder whatever
>happened to Scott Adams?
Scott Adams is still around. He has recenntly released a new game, ?Return To
Pirate Island 2."
--
Ken Rice -=:=- kennrice (AT) erols (DOT) com
http://users.erols.com/kennrice
Civil War Round Table of DC & Concentration Camp made of LEGO bricks
http://members.tripod.com/~kennrice
Maps of Ultima 7 Parts 1 & 2, Prophecy of the Shadow, Savage Empire,
Crusaders of Dark Savant & Others.
Ken Rice
says...
>> > I'm sure that 7 years is enough to make it legal
>> > to publich it as abandonware)
>> That would be incorrect. Abandonware is never legal, or at least, not
>> until the copyrights expire (75 yrs?) or are specifically given away as
>> freeware by the company.
>clip
>(I've just now discovered two of the best games I ever created
>on an abandonware site. I think I'll just bask in the joy of being
>briefly remembered rather than draft up a DMCA complaint. Is
>that wrong?)
And the two games are?
Leo
d'Amour, Ph.D" <lucidsp...@yahoo.com> contributed to the great
MarketPlace of Ideas, w/the following:
>
>Congress was given the power "to promote the Progress of Science and
>useful Arts, by securing for limited times to Authors and Inventors the
>exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries".
>
>I respect the original intent of copyright law. I firmly believe that
>artists should be paid for their labor. But long live abandonware.
>While there may be no legal difference between downloading and
>enjoying a copy of the new Spider-Man game and downloading
>and enjoying a copy of Space Quest II: Vohaul's Revenge, IMO
>there is a clear moral one.
I agree, been saying such for years, and things are definitely
taking a turn for the worse. I think people underestimate the
advantage a more open IP legal system gives to a country
technologically, and we are gonna lose a lot of our technological edge
if we go too far in the direction we're going (in the U.S. I mean).
Leo
James Garvin
Ken Rice wrote:
>
> And the two games are?
Good question...there is a very fine line between warez (games that are
still sold or that can still be found ala Sam and Max) and abandoware
(games that are almost impossible to find ala Ultima I)
Anyway, it is wise to own the "abandonware" game (at least at one
point)...your moral compass should tell you if you are right or wrong
James Garvin
Leo wrote:
>
> I agree, been saying such for years, and things are definitely
> taking a turn for the worse. I think people underestimate the
> advantage a more open IP legal system gives to a country
> technologically, and we are gonna lose a lot of our technological edge
> if we go too far in the direction we're going (in the U.S. I mean).
> Leo
I gotta agree here. There is a point where software "dies" and can no
longer be sold to make a profit. I think this point hits between 5 and
10 years (depending on the software and the application of said
software). The major problem is companies like EA abuse their holdings
(eg Ultima) and squash even fan "mods" if they look like they are going
to make something
Dr. Thomas Jonathan Steven Vinge d'Amour, Ph.D
news:3CC4AE21...@anywhere.com...
That was hyperbole, used in demonstration of a point which you ignored
in order to specifically address the exaggeration. Congrats?
Anyway, you've taken the cartel's (and now the law's, granted) view
of copy rights, which is that "distribution control" of published
information is
an unconditional right.
My point - which you conveniently managed not to quote -
is that the conditions of copy-right control, which were once severe
as intended by the framers of the Constitution, are NOT unlimited,
despite the best efforts of Jack Valenti and Michael Eisner, and are
in fact an artifice designed to benefit the public (this is explicitly
stated) rather than a protective tool to generate perpetual personal
profit. Thomas Jefferson* himself, in five of his letters to Adams, says
that very thing, in reference to the English printing-press cartels that
did precisely the same thing their modern counterparts are doing.
His reasons? Ceding the power to own and control pure
information to individuals will always be a dangerous thing, because
those individuals can pool their resources, leverage them and then
act as a coercive monopoly, acting solely for the benefit of the
poolers and the interests of the authority which acts to secure their
power. No, he wasn't talking about MPAA/RIAA strongarming,
he was talking about 16th century printing press cartels that did
the exact same thing their modern counterparts are trying to do,
using the crown's letters as licenses to locate, seize and destroy
all unauthorized printings of books listed in their letters, both to
maintain their book monopoly and to serve the interests of the
crown, which in exchange for such enforcement had the power
to set and control authorization requirements (ie they censored
what they didn't like).
* Jefferson thought that controlling information was an asinine
idea to start with: "the absurdity [...] that ideas, concepts,
and free thoughts [...] could be enfettered by the gyves of
property, is against reason", (Letters, to Roger Weightman
of Monticello, June 1824)
Axolotl
>Congress was given the power "to promote the Progress of Science and
>useful Arts, by securing for limited times to Authors and Inventors the
>exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries".
>
>What progress is promoted by protecting 20-year old software?
>10-year old software? 5-year old software? After the profits
>have been made and turned towards the creation of other, better
>works, hasn't progress been made using the fruits of the original
>labor? After 5 years, surely the coders, the managers and the
>marketers have long ago cashed their salary checks. What
>is the need for further protection at the expense of public
>enrichment, which was what Congress was given this power
>to protect (someone tell them!)?
I think it should be up to the author(s) when their original creation
should be freed from copyright law or given away for free. It is,
after all, a result of their own effort and toil...
Personally I give my original crap away from the start, but people say
I'm crazy. I guess it all depends on your motives and objectives. Some
people are driven by the desire for monetary profit. For other people
the enjoyment of the creation process is enough. Ah but I digress...
Gerry Quinn
>My point - which you conveniently managed not to quote -
>is that the conditions of copy-right control, which were once severe
>as intended by the framers of the Constitution, are NOT unlimited,
>despite the best efforts of Jack Valenti and Michael Eisner, and are
>in fact an artifice designed to benefit the public (this is explicitly
>stated) rather than a protective tool to generate perpetual personal
>profit.
There's a difference between copyrights and patents.
Patents need to expire because they typically constitute a bottleneck on
technology, i.e. there are a relatively small number of ways to achieve
something.
This doesn't apply to art, whether music, literature, or games. Current
original art is not impeded in any significant way by not being able to
clone past works.
Most of the benefit to the public from patents comes from the ability of
everyone to use the methodology after the patent expires. In the case
of copyrighted works, nearly all the benefit to the public accrues
DURING the copyright period, when the artists and their publishers are
encouraged to make the product available, and it remains fashionable.
Patents and copyrights are quite different, and should not be confused.
- Gerry Quinn
jmfb...@aol.com
he really did. He didn't write adventure. He may have
copied it to the PC but he didn't write the code. Be
careful when these idiots say "write" when using computer
lingo.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
ptsc
>This doesn't apply to art, whether music, literature, or games. Current
>original art is not impeded in any significant way by not being able to
>clone past works.
Tell it to Negativland.
Better yet, read the Campbell v. Acuff-Rose case.
ptsc
someone
Dr. Thomas Jonathan Steven Vinge d'Amour, Ph.D wrote:
> someone <som...@anywhere.com> wrote in message
> news:3CC4AE21...@anywhere.com...
>
>>
>>Dr. Thomas Jonathan Steven Vinge d'Amour, Ph.D wrote:
>>
>>
>>>5-year old software? After the profits
>>>have been made and turned towards the creation of other, better
>>>works, hasn't progress been made using the fruits of the original
>>>labor? After 5 years, surely the coders, the managers and the
>>>marketers have long ago cashed their salary checks. What
>>>is the need for further protection at the expense of public
>>>enrichment, which was what Congress was given this power
>>>to protect (someone tell them!)?
>>>
>>Ok I will.
>>
>>I just cashed royalty checks for shareware games written in 1995,
>>that are currently still being distributed world-wide and are still
>>generating income for me.
>>
>>According to you, several years ago I should have given up my copyright
>>(and distribution control) so that the public could PROFIT from my
>>work instead of me. Perhaps, I should just send you any future checks
>>I get for royalties on these games. If you will just post your real
>>name and address, I'll see what I can do.
>>
>
> That was hyperbole, used in demonstration of a point which you ignored
> in order to specifically address the exaggeration. Congrats?
But of course, you would be happy to have some clown advocate
that you should not be paid for work you did? You do work and
earn a living don't you?
>
> Anyway, you've taken the cartel's (and now the law's, granted) view
> of copy rights, which is that "distribution control" of published
> information is
> an unconditional right.
Gee, I support the law. What a novel concept? "unconditional"?
Now who is engaging in exaggeration and hyperbole? If the law
was changed so that one retained copyright but lost distribution
control, then it would no longer be "unconditional" now would it?
>
> My point - which you conveniently managed not to quote -
Your point appears to be you don't want people who develop expressions
to have the chance to be paid for their work. Instead, it appears
you want to decide when they have received enough compensation, as
opposed to allowing lawmakers to decide.
> is that the conditions of copy-right control, which were once severe
> as intended by the framers of the Constitution, are NOT unlimited,
Read the law, of course the rights of the copyright holder are not
unlimited.
[snipped pontifications]
someone
James Garvin wrote:
>
> someone wrote:
>
>>I just cashed royalty checks for shareware games written in 1995,
>>that are currently still being distributed world-wide and are still
>>generating income for me.
>>
>
> Agreed 5 years is too soon. However, holding tight control forever is
> also stupid. I think there is an ending time period, but I'm not sure
> exactly where that point is (7 to 10 years IMHO)
>
Its now 7 years. So in your opinion, I'm on the edge of no longer
being entitled to receive income on those works? How about I should
be entilted to receive income from those games, as long as they
generate income?
>
>>According to you, several years ago I should have given up my copyright
>>(and distribution control) so that the public could PROFIT from my
>>work instead of me. Perhaps, I should just send you any future checks
>>I get for royalties on these games. If you will just post your real
>>name and address, I'll see what I can do.
>>
>
> I don't think anyone should have to give up their copyright, but I think
> that some companies hold on to it for the wrong reason...
That may be. Are you one of said companies? Can you cite exactly
what their reasons are, or are you just opining?
>
> You as a small time author need to have strict control. However,
> companies like EA need to give up control of Ultima I (at least open
> source it for the fans)...Some things are dead, but some live on...
Why should EA be forced to open source Ultima I if they perceive
some value to it? What "right" do the fans possess that would
entitle them to that code?
>
> BTW more power to authors like Bruce Webster and Wayne Holder and the
> Starflight guys!! More power to you too...we need shareware guys out
> there....
And then on the other hand, you support us "little" guys? I get it,
you just don't like anyone that has been "too" successful?
Sad. Very, very sad.
Knight37
> rofl, $29.99 and $10.00 for shipping?
>
> great price for that game
What does that got to do with anything? You want something you pay the
market price for it. If it's not worth $40 to you then don't play it or try
and find a used copy. It's not "abandonware" because it's old or because
it's expensive. It's currently available, not abandoned.
Wasn't this game shareware? Is there still a shareware version available to
try? Actually I just checked, you can download the shareware version here:
http://www.gamersinn.com/library/adventure/?199
So try before you buy, if it's not worth $40, you don't want it bad enough.
Or possibly you could find it used if you look hard enough.
--
Knight37
"We've taken care of everything
The words you hear the songs you sing
The pictures that give pleasure to your eyes
It's one for all and all for one
We work together common sons
Never need to wonder how or why" -- Rush "2112"
Ykalon Dragon
>
>
>James Garvin wrote:
>
>>
>> someone wrote:
>>
>>>I just cashed royalty checks for shareware games written in 1995,
>>>that are currently still being distributed world-wide and are still
>>>generating income for me.
>>>
>>
>> Agreed 5 years is too soon. However, holding tight control forever is
>> also stupid. I think there is an ending time period, but I'm not sure
>> exactly where that point is (7 to 10 years IMHO)
>>
>
>
>Its now 7 years. So in your opinion, I'm on the edge of no longer
>being entitled to receive income on those works? How about I should
>be entilted to receive income from those games, as long as they
>generate income?
I feel as long as the game is supported (I consider it supported if
you can still buy the game from stores like EB) it should be under
copyright. If the game is no longer available, the copyright should be
removed.
--
Reply to ykalon at subdimension dot com
James Garvin
>
> Its now 7 years. So in your opinion, I'm on the edge of no longer
> being entitled to receive income on those works? How about I should
> be entilted to receive income from those games, as long as they
> generate income?
Generally after 7 years:
A) The software has become "Legacy" and there is a need to move on
B) The software isn't built to handle the new "OS OF THE FUTURE" (TM),
thus it seems to be buggy and won't run properly
C) After 7 years the software has been rewritten to take advantage of
newer technology
As long as your games generate income doesn't mean that are viable. If
ONE person buys your game, then it has generated income, but does that
mean your game is still viable? Probably, not. However, you should be
allowed to hold onto your code for 7 years...after that it is probably
old hat, but you might have something in there that could advance some
paradigm of programming...
> That may be. Are you one of said companies? Can you cite exactly
> what their reasons are, or are you just opining?
I am not one of the companies. I can cite one biggy though. EA. They
hold everything to their shirt. Even games like Ultima I (which are
LONG dead) still have a fan base. These fans want to write Ultima 1
taking advantage of new technology or maybe "porting" it to a new
engine. EA generally stops them (even though the people I'm thinking of
were giving it away for free). Let us not forget the Wing Commander
fiasco...
> Why should EA be forced to open source Ultima I if they perceive
> some value to it? What "right" do the fans possess that would
> entitle them to that code?
There is no value to the code of Ultima I anymore. It is all old hat.
The paradigms have changed and fans want to bring a game for the other
fans...usually for free. Why are they entiled to that code? Scientific
advancement? Fun? It is so old that EA could never hope to make a dime
from U1 again?
> And then on the other hand, you support us "little" guys? I get it,
> you just don't like anyone that has been "too" successful?
Not the case at all. The little guys support their fans. Bruce and
Wayne are supporting the Sundog community by bringing it back and
allowing the fans to produce Sundog in a new and modern environment.
The little guy generally has a small fan base and they can cater to
it....The big guy is all about $$$$ and cares nothing for the fans...
Before jumping to concusions you should relax a little...
> Sad. Very, very sad.
That companies screw the fans and sue those that wish to produce free
works...yes it is.
Greg Campbell
> Knight37 wrote:
> >
> > If I had a dollar for every time zwei....@worldonline.cz (Petr Zweistein
> > Prokop) wrote:
> >
> > > I'm sure that 7 years is enough to make it legal
> > > to publich it as abandonware)
> >
> > That would be incorrect. Abandonware is never legal, or at least, not until
> > the copyrights expire (75 yrs?) or are specifically given away as freeware
> > by the company.
>
> True. Abandonware was just picked up as a term to give out old
> software. Not that giving out some old software is a bad thing (or the
> source for that matter), but I can see why a company might not want to
> have its software in the "abandoware archives" (eg Office 95)
>
> I will say that EA is ULTRA stingy when it comes to letting games go
> (Ultima 1 law suit anyone?)...bastards...
Most of the more "reputable" abandonware sites will only post games
which are unavailable for purchase from any other source - hence,
"abandoned". I think that this, while illegal, isn't particularly
immoral. If the software is still available, though, I don't see any
real difference between abandonware and l33t 0-day war3z.
Eric VanHeest
> Most of the more "reputable" abandonware sites will only post games
> which are unavailable for purchase from any other source - hence,
> "abandoned". I think that this, while illegal, isn't particularly
> immoral. If the software is still available, though, I don't see any
> real difference between abandonware and l33t 0-day war3z.
Except that some of the l33t 0-day war3z aren't available for purchase :)
Hong Ooi
>In article <Xns91F8CC39DF7joh...@130.133.1.4>,
>john...@lowgenius.com says...
>
>>Well ya know somethin' Dr. Thomas Jonathan Steven Vinge d'Amour, Ph.D...
>
>>> As the successful author, co-author and contributing author of
>>> more than 300 published works of software over the past few
>>> decades, it amuses me greatly to know that, had I not released it
>>> into the public domain in the 80s, "Cavern Adventures" for the
>>> TRS-80 would not make it there until 2072 if I died today.
>
>>LMAO you wrote 'Cavern Adventures?' That's pretty cool. Wonder whatever
>>happened to Scott Adams?
>
>Scott Adams is still around. He has recenntly released a new game, ?Return To
>Pirate Island 2."
>
>http://www.msadams.com/
It's just amazing how he manages to do that _and_ draw Dilbert all at the
same time.
Damn shame how he's got a bee in his bonnet about Pi = 3, though.
--
Hong Ooi | "Still others say the Hong doesn't really
hong...@maths.anu.edu.au | mean anything at all."
http://www.zip.com.au/~hong | -- K37
Canberra, Australia |
Dr. Thomas Jonathan Steven Vinge d'Amour, Ph.D
>
>
> >
> > Anyway, you've taken the cartel's (and now the law's, granted) view
> > of copy rights, which is that "distribution control" of published
> > information is
> > an unconditional right.
>
>
>
> Gee, I support the law. What a novel concept?
Follow the shepherds all you like. The DMCA was proposed
by the RIAA, and it's only taken 4 years to get from a passed and
signed DMCA to a proposed CBDTPA from the MPAA. The
Stationers' Company is alive and well in the 21st century.
> "unconditional"?
Yes. The state of copy rights which Jack Valenti and his cohorts
are seeking to achieve.
> Now who is engaging in exaggeration and hyperbole?
Actually, I was saying that you picked out a piece of *my*
hyperbole and chose to reply specifically to that, disregarding
the rest.
> > My point - which you conveniently managed not to quote -
>
>
> Your point appears to be you don't want people who develop expressions
> to have the chance to be paid for their work. Instead, it appears
> you want to decide when they have received enough compensation, as
> opposed to allowing lawmakers to decide.
The words I wanted to say on the subject are already in the thread.
No need for you to paraphrase or make additions in my name, thanks.
There are many ways for artists to receive compensation for their
work without being granted a special "crown's letter" of phantom
'ownership' of published information, by the way: Obfuscation,
added value, commission, etc. It's how artists make money
*now* in the face of the black market, and how they used to
make money before the introduction of the unquestionable
corporate teat.
> > is that the conditions of copy-right control, which were once severe
> > as intended by the framers of the Constitution, are NOT unlimited,
>
>
> Read the law, of course the rights of the copyright holder are not
> unlimited.
How about you read the law as it was in 1997, then read the 1998
Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, then read the DMCA,
then read the proposed SSSCA and then read its update, the
proposed CBDTPA. The rights are (were) obviously not unlimited;
good luck convincing the ones who keep expanding those rights
of that.
> [snipped pontifications]
>
Of course.
Dr. Thomas Jonathan Steven Vinge d'Amour, Ph.D
news:mu8acuoqvmi00brv3...@4ax.com...
>
> >Congress was given the power "to promote the Progress of Science and
> >useful Arts, by securing for limited times to Authors and Inventors the
> >exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries".
> >
> >What progress is promoted by protecting 20-year old software?
> >10-year old software? 5-year old software? After the profits
> >have been made and turned towards the creation of other, better
> >works, hasn't progress been made using the fruits of the original
> >labor? After 5 years, surely the coders, the managers and the
> >marketers have long ago cashed their salary checks. What
> >is the need for further protection at the expense of public
> >enrichment, which was what Congress was given this power
> >to protect (someone tell them!)?
>
> I think it should be up to the author(s) when their original creation
> should be freed from copyright law or given away for free. It is,
> after all, a result of their own effort and toil...
And I think the audience should have the freedom to perceive,
store and retrieve information as they see fit. Tape recorders,
VCRs and PCs are really only enhancements to aid imperfect
human memory. You can fit a 10GB hard disk drive on a
keychain these days, what's going to happen when we can
fit one inside a wrist instead? What if, Valenti forbid, study of
the human genome lets us improve memory to the point where
consistent, near-perfect recall is possible? Will the MPAA
use its Congressmen to legislate away our right to remember
things, because we'll remember too well and thus deny the
original information-authors their perpetual profit? The hole's
already been started... how deep are we going to allow it to
be dug?
>
> Personally I give my original crap away from the start, but people say
> I'm crazy. I guess it all depends on your motives and objectives. Some
> people are driven by the desire for monetary profit. For other people
> the enjoyment of the creation process is enough. Ah but I digress...
>
> Ax
> http://members.optusnet.com.au/~sraffa
>
I think it's natural for people to want to profit from their labor, and
I see nothing wrong with it. I don't think it's natural for people to
lay claim to control of information that's been published. Ideas,
words, concepts and methods don't work that way; they are not
material goods.
Gerry Quinn
>Well ya know somethin' Willie Taster & Betty Duzz...
>
>> On 23 Apr 2002 19:09:13 GMT, "The Low Genius, JHD"
>> <john...@lowgenius.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Well ya know somethin' ptsc...
>>
>>
>> How did this shit get cross posted into alt.tasteless?
>
>Someone added ";alt.tasteless" to the newsgroups line.
How tasteless of them....
- Gerry Quinn
someone
Ykalon Dragon wrote:
My shareware games have never been in EB. So, does that mean in your
opinion that I was NEVER entitled to a copyright?
Ken Rice
hong...@maths.anu.edu.au says...
>On Tue, 23 Apr 2002 01:32:35 GMT, n...@email.ads (Ken Rice) wrote:
>>In article <Xns91F8CC39DF7joh...@130.133.1.4>,
>>john...@lowgenius.com says...
>>>Well ya know somethin' Dr. Thomas Jonathan Steven Vinge d'Amour, Ph.D...
>>>> As the successful author, co-author and contributing author of
>>>> more than 300 published works of software over the past few
>>>> decades, it amuses me greatly to know that, had I not released it
>>>> into the public domain in the 80s, "Cavern Adventures" for the
>>>> TRS-80 would not make it there until 2072 if I died today.
>>>LMAO you wrote 'Cavern Adventures?' That's pretty cool. Wonder whatever
>>>happened to Scott Adams?
>>Scott Adams is still around. He has recenntly released a new game, ?Return To
>>Pirate Island 2."
>It's just amazing how he manages to do that _and_ draw Dilbert all at the
>same time.
>Damn shame how he's got a bee in his bonnet about Pi = 3, though.
Those are two different Scott Adams. The adventure game Scott Adams is not the
Dilbert Scott Adams.
someone
James Garvin wrote:
> someone wrote:
>
>>Its now 7 years. So in your opinion, I'm on the edge of no longer
>>being entitled to receive income on those works? How about I should
>>be entilted to receive income from those games, as long as they
>>generate income?
>>
>
> Generally after 7 years:
>
> A) The software has become "Legacy" and there is a need to move on
Says who? People are still paying for that "Legacy" software.
> B) The software isn't built to handle the new "OS OF THE FUTURE" (TM),
> thus it seems to be buggy and won't run properly
Heard no complaints about that. If I get any, I will be sure
to send out a patch.
> C) After 7 years the software has been rewritten to take advantage of
> newer technology
Why? The games play as intended. What is the point to rewriting them?
>
> As long as your games generate income doesn't mean that are viable. If
> ONE person buys your game, then it has generated income, but does that
> mean your game is still viable? Probably, not. However, you should be
> allowed to hold onto your code for 7 years...after that it is probably
> old hat, but you might have something in there that could advance some
> paradigm of programming...
My goal was never to "advance some paradigm of programming". It
was to entertain the people who played my games, and generate income
for me to live on.
According to you, I have all the wrong goals.
I find that distastfull, communistic and plain bullshit.
"You" have no right to my code after any number of years!
>
>
>>That may be. Are you one of said companies? Can you cite exactly
>>what their reasons are, or are you just opining?
>>
>
> I am not one of the companies. I can cite one biggy though. EA. They
> hold everything to their shirt. Even games like Ultima I (which are
> LONG dead) still have a fan base. These fans want to write Ultima 1
> taking advantage of new technology or maybe "porting" it to a new
> engine. EA generally stops them (even though the people I'm thinking of
> were giving it away for free). Let us not forget the Wing Commander
> fiasco...
'Tis EA's right to do so. They own the copyright. They "owe"
the fan base of Ultima I nothing as far as I am concerned.
>
>
>>Why should EA be forced to open source Ultima I if they perceive
>>some value to it? What "right" do the fans possess that would
>>entitle them to that code?
>>
>
> There is no value to the code of Ultima I anymore. It is all old hat.
That is your opinion. It obviously has some value otherwise why
would EA want to protect it, and why would you (and the fan base)
want to have it (if it had no value)?
> The paradigms have changed and fans want to bring a game for the other
> fans...usually for free. Why are they entiled to that code? Scientific
> advancement? Fun? It is so old that EA could never hope to make a dime
> from U1 again?
Maybe, just maybe, they see other values in it? Its irrelevent as
far as I am concerned because they put out the money to own the
copyright (did you? or the fans?) and so they have every right in
the world to do what they want to do with it.
>
>
>>And then on the other hand, you support us "little" guys? I get it,
>>you just don't like anyone that has been "too" successful?
>>
>
> Not the case at all.
You talk out of both sides of your face?
> The little guys support their fans. Bruce and
> Wayne are supporting the Sundog community by bringing it back and
> allowing the fans to produce Sundog in a new and modern environment.
That is their choice, because .... <gasp> they own the copyright to it!
> The little guy generally has a small fan base and they can cater to
> it....The big guy is all about $$$$ and cares nothing for the fans...
Irrelevent! Small fan bases vs big fan bases are not mentioned in
any copyright law I've read. Neither is "caring about fans".
>
> Before jumping to concusions you should relax a little...
>
Maybe you should quit advocating that people with intellectual property
should just "give it up" because you want it?
>
>>Sad. Very, very sad.
>>
>
> That companies screw the fans and sue those that wish to produce free
> works...yes it is.
>
And people who seem to want to profit off the work of others.
someone
Dr. Thomas Jonathan Steven Vinge d'Amour, Ph.D wrote:
>
> I think it's natural for people to want to profit from their labor, and
> I see nothing wrong with it. I don't think it's natural for people to
> lay claim to control of information that's been published. Ideas,
> words, concepts and methods don't work that way; they are not
> material goods.
>
Ok Doc, then you would not mind placing all the source code
to every game or remotely useful computer software you have
authored, onto a public access FTP site and make it available
to all us "people" to use as we deem fit?
Thanks o'le buddy, you da champ!
Semolina Pilchard
<john...@lowgenius.com> wrote:
>Well ya know somethin' Dr. Thomas Jonathan Steven Vinge d'Amour, Ph.D...
>
Perhaps, if you could spare a moment from playing with your software
penis (I can only assume it's the only one you've got) you might
explain in considerable detail why you are posting this unutterbly
boring dross to alt.tasteless.
I doubt if someone who cannot appropriately trim their headers has
ever written a program. Not that it matters: programmers are the
mouth-breathing stoop-labour of the present generation. If you have
games worthy of presentation, get on with it. In the extremely,
indeed diminishing likelihood that you have real programs to present
to us, do so.
Genius, in your case, and in that of your fellow serfs wasting our
bandwidth, your nym is a misuse of of six perfectly good letters. You
are certainly low, you guttersnipe. Don't force me to take an
interest in you. Miles of pain lie that way. Just fuck off, and
save yourselves the violence.
Now die, in pain.
--
S. Pilchard, Esq.
Dr. Thomas Jonathan Steven Vinge d'Amour, Ph.D
I have no problem whatsoever with artists using obfuscation,
commission, added value or whatever they like to control access
to and profit from their work. Would you care to attempt to
construct another flamboyant reply?
Dr. Thomas Jonathan Steven Vinge d'Amour, Ph.D
news:Xns91F9CA742DAB1jo...@130.133.1.4...
> Well ya know somethin' Dr. Thomas Jonathan Steven Vinge d'Amour, Ph.D...
> valuable as the song itself. This is not the case.
I don't see the fallacy.
You aren't paying for a live poetry reading or theater performance,
or concert, when you buy a book, movie or CD. You're paying for
an edited recording of such.
Most human minds, unaided, can perceive, process, store and retrieve
this information, but in the process it is either distorted, eventually
degraded, or both. Not many people can fully, consistently recall
every detail of a book, song or movie - otherwise, there'd be no need
to acquire them in a semi-permanent format.
However, technology has progressed to a point where individuals
can externally augment their memory, processing, storage
and retrieval wet-ware, with hardware. The cartels have been
frightened of this happening for decades now - witness the panic
and propaganda after the advent of tape recorders and VCRs,
even the Xerox machine.
When technology advances to a point where augmentations become
internal, or where organic storage/processing/retrieval is optimized to
the point where device-based augmentation is no longer necessary in
order to record, store and process information as perfectly as a digital
device, what then? Will we have to check the contents of our brains
at the ticket-booth of a theater before entering or exiting? It all comes
down to information - once it's been publicized, it can be controlled
about as well as a rumor... unless the controllers have at their disposal
proprietary means of protecting it, or the crown's troops to raid and
destroy unauthorized copies. The former is what I would consider
the proper method, while the latter is the approach being taken by
the cartels.
> As a musician, I find
> that the existing copyright laws both protect my right to be compensated
> for the distribution and creation of this original intellectual work. If
> not for me, this work simply would not exist
No dispute with the last sentence above.
>, and therefore, I am due a
> certain measure of recompense when you make use of that work.
Artists deserve to be compensated, but once the cat's out of the
bag there's no stuffing it back in.
> This compensation is accomplished through licensing fees, publishing
> rights, and royalties. As an author of published works, I should think
> that you already know this.
Sure, but I think it's an aging, ailing system that has relied primarily on
obfuscation to this point to grow its participants' wealth. And that's
being rendered increasingly more ineffective by the continued progress
of technology, which is enabling individual "consumers" (cartel lingo) to
do what formerly took hundreds of thousands of dollars of equipment,
with a thousand dollars worth of equipment. And because the cartels
rely so heavily on inter-member standardization in order to maximize
profits and effectively price-fix, they're trying to legislate 'copyright'
way outside of its original intent, and redefine it, to the eventual
harm of everyone (even those outside the "consumer/producer
dichotomy" bullshit), rather than change standards to keep pace with
the times. And now, they're trying to legislate the progress of
technology (!), so that nobody can manufacture any device that could
possibly be used to compete with their monopoly on the production
of physical media, directly or indirectly. I don't think this is a problem
that can be addressed by just pointing fingers at the cartels, even
though they're the instigators. They're just getting away with what
they can get away with, in the grand tradition of humankind.
The finger has to be pointed at the core issue, which is the one of
copy rights, their validity, explicit legal definition and from whence
they derive, and the role of government in protecting them. Instead
of redefining and/or expanding copy rights every three years to keep
the cartels' profits high and force-maintain the status quo, maybe
the entire concept of IP should be re-examined - how valid can it
be if it requires patching every time new technology hits the market
(and if it requires regulation of technology to maintain its viability,
wouldn't you think it's just broken to begin with?)
[snipped things]
> > I think it's natural for people to want to profit from their labor, and
> > I see nothing wrong with it. I don't think it's natural for people to
> > lay claim to control of information that's been published. Ideas,
> > words, concepts and methods don't work that way; they are not
> > material goods.
>
> Then you wouldn't mind me telling everyone I wrote a few of "your" games?
I would mind. I would think it dishonest. If you deceived others through
course of sale this way, it would probably be considered fraud. But other-
wise, I don't see any necessary involvement of law.
Uncle Caine
"ptsc" <ptsc AT nym DOT cryptofortress DOT com> wrote in message
news:j4lacu00iaatdggfm...@4ax.com...
> Tell it to Negativland.
ObNegativland: Anyone seen the weirdo Christian gore film 'If The Footmen
Tire What Will The Horses Do'? Totally way-out portrayal of the Yoo Ess Aye
under godless Communism made for Estus Pirkle's Baptist circuit by
born-again goremeisters the Ormond family. Scenes include parishioners
gunned down by Communist troops outside their church, children getting their
ears speared with bamboo spikes so they 'cannot hear the word of God', and
the original brainwashing phrase of "Christianity is stupid . . . Communism
is good!" that Negativland jacked. Man, that's a fucking funny movie.
Uncle Caine
--
Always do sober what you said you'd do drunk. That will teach you
to keep your mouth shut.--Ernest Hemingway
Falkentyne
enlightened us by scribbling this gem of wisdom:
>The Devil made "marcus" <a...@spam.net> write:
>
>> rofl, $29.99 and $10.00 for shipping?
>>
>> great price for that game
>
>What does that got to do with anything? You want something you pay the
>market price for it. If it's not worth $40 to you then don't play it or try
>and find a used copy. It's not "abandonware" because it's old or because
>it's expensive. It's currently available, not abandoned.
Knight37, you are mad. Madder than Tarjan.
$10 dollars shipping for a $30 game that was made in 1993? Uh....
Hurt me some more up the butt, please?
I'll just go back to my downloading and let you nazi cops froth at the
mouth like crazed fools, and scream bloody murder. Oh no, I hear a
car analogy coming .... dear God, spare me ! Not another car
analogy.....
I could find that game *LOCALLY* for $10, at a computer show, brand
new.
I seriously doubt David Allen is making money from Mordor anymore.
Especially since the company doesn't exist anymore--DA has gone on to
a new company (even Artifact Entertainment, which helped produce
Demise didn't produce Mordor...I believe it was VB Designs, but I am
not sure..)
And there's NO ONE who would pay $40 for Mordor 1, when all other
games that old can be bought for $5-$10, in the shovelware pile, and
Devil, I surely hope you aren't dumb enough to waste $40 when you can
get it for $10 :/
Devil, if you really want Mordor 1, I'll email it to you, as it's only
a few MB, IIRC. Don't pay $40 for it because some stuck up rich
aristocrat says that's what the market will bear....
just to make Knight angry....
BTW, you can find that game for $5-$10.
>Wasn't this game shareware? Is there still a shareware version available to
>try? Actually I just checked, you can download the shareware version here:
>
>http://www.gamersinn.com/library/adventure/?199
>
>So try before you buy, if it's not worth $40, you don't want it bad enough.
>Or possibly you could find it used if you look hard enough.
Damn, you really are nuts....
Remind me never to go to YOUR little store.
With that mentality, you'd fucking charge $500 for toilet paper so
that others can wipe their asses, because there's no other store in
town...and "everyone needs toilet paper".... if you don't like it,
wipe your ass with a pine cone ". Capitalist mentality to the
extreme....That's why there are rules and laws to protect customers.
"If I don't want to spend $500 on toilet paper, I don't want it bad
enough".--great thinking. I'll remember that. You're probably one of
the type of people who think homeless people should be rounded up and
executed "to get their unproductive behinds off the street, since they
aren't putting money in my pocket".
How about I walk into your store with my shit smeared on my ass, and
point out to you how lovely your prices are on $500 toilet paper.
Maybe then you would get the hint, if you can handle the smell of
fresh feces. maybe when you pass out, and I smear some of my crap on
your toilet paper and run around like a chicken, then run away,
leaving your store to stink, you might get the message...
And, since people can't wipe their asses, when there is a huge
breakout of poisoning, and YOU get violently ill and die, maybe then
you will realize the error of your ways...but it will be too late.
(and get the feds on YOUR behind for price gouging)
Somebody set up us the bomb
All your base are belong to us
-Falkentyne Dragon
Gerry Quinn
>
>ObNegativland: Anyone seen the weirdo Christian gore film 'If The Footmen
>Tire What Will The Horses Do'? Totally way-out portrayal of the Yoo Ess Aye
>under godless Communism made for Estus Pirkle's Baptist circuit by
>born-again goremeisters the Ormond family. Scenes include parishioners
>gunned down by Communist troops outside their church, children getting their
>ears speared with bamboo spikes so they 'cannot hear the word of God', and
>the original brainwashing phrase of "Christianity is stupid . . . Communism
>is good!" that Negativland jacked. Man, that's a fucking funny movie.
Sounds like fun. (If you enjoyed it, there's also a Falun Gong version,
showing today at labour camps in China.)
- Gerry Quinn
someone
Are you just naturally pedantic? Or did you just learn that?
BTW, I noticed you did not name the site where you provided the
"people" with all your source code? Guess that makes you somewhat
hypocritical too?
Bob
"Dr. Thomas Jonathan Steven Vinge d'Amour, Ph.D" wrote:
> The Low Genius, JHD <john...@lowgenius.com> wrote in message
Gentlemen. Please remove rec.arts.movies.current-films from your cross-posting
list. I do believe your discussion is a bit OT from our perspective.
Thank you
Bob
James Garvin
>
> > Generally after 7 years:
> >
> > A) The software has become "Legacy" and there is a need to move on
>
> Says who? People are still paying for that "Legacy" software.
Maybe so, but generally legacy software isn't being used as much because
there is newer "better" stuff out there. I'm not just talking
games...I'm talking about applications too. I mean how many people are
still BUYING MS Office 95? 7 years old right? We are 3 (4?) iterations
down the road and people want the newer stuff.
People may still be paying for *your* legacy software, but in general
that doesn't hold true. (Like I said shareware is a very different
animal)
> > B) The software isn't built to handle the new "OS OF THE FUTURE" (TM),
> > thus it seems to be buggy and won't run properly
>
> Heard no complaints about that. If I get any, I will be sure
> to send out a patch.
Again...you aren't looking at the broad picture.
> > C) After 7 years the software has been rewritten to take advantage of
> > newer technology
>
> Why? The games play as intended. What is the point to rewriting them?
That may be so, but most people like to get the extra features and eye
candy that comes with new software...not to mention that it is usually
complied to take advantage of the newer OSs and processors. The point
of rewritting software is to keep your product fresh and insert features
that may not have been possible in the earlier versions. Not to mention
technology can change, so software must meet that technology.
> My goal was never to "advance some paradigm of programming". It
> was to entertain the people who played my games, and generate income
> for me to live on.
Great. But let me ask, how many business apps do you think would make
it if they just kept selling the same software year after year...That is
why it doesn't happen...that is why it is almost impossible to find a
copy of Ultima 1 or Windows 3.1 anymore.
> According to you, I have all the wrong goals.
No...your goals are find...
> I find that distastfull, communistic and plain bullshit.
Godwin's knocking, but he can't come it...
> "You" have no right to my code after any number of years!
So you hold your code to your shirt, even though you may have solved the
P = NP problem (never mind the million dollars you get for solving it).
Software isn't the same as a book or as a movie...I don't know why you
are treating it is as such.
> 'Tis EA's right to do so. They own the copyright. They "owe"
> the fan base of Ultima I nothing as far as I am concerned.
Should they sue them for an obsolete game?
> That is your opinion. It obviously has some value otherwise why
> would EA want to protect it, and why would you (and the fan base)
> want to have it (if it had no value)?
But generally giving something away for free implies that it has little
to no value other then to those that made it. Why would EA sue someone
for doing this?
> Maybe, just maybe, they see other values in it? Its irrelevent as
> far as I am concerned because they put out the money to own the
> copyright (did you? or the fans?) and so they have every right in
> the world to do what they want to do with it.
I disagree. Sueing fans not only is morally corrupt, but stupid. My
biggest beef is the fact that U1 "mod" was going to be given away for
free. EA may have the copywrite, but they will never do anything with
it (it isn't good business)...so why not let the fans have it?
> You talk out of both sides of your face?
You are an asshole? Shareware is a different thing all together.
Apples and oranges.
> That is their choice, because .... <gasp> they own the copyright to it!
<gasp> So? After it expires in 80 million years then I can play with
it? Why not 7 or 10 years? Does open source piss you off too?
> Irrelevent! Small fan bases vs big fan bases are not mentioned in
> any copyright law I've read. Neither is "caring about fans".
That wasn't the point...you missed it.
> Maybe you should quit advocating that people with intellectual property
> should just "give it up" because you want it?
After seven years...yes. It isn't that I want it, but that knowledge
should be shared. When you don't share knowledge you end up with people
like you who don't understand why we should.
> > That companies screw the fans and sue those that wish to produce free
> > works...yes it is.
>
> And people who seem to want to profit off the work of others.
How do you profit from something being free and a work of love?
James Garvin
Shareware is a totally different animal...apples and oranges so to
speak.
James Garvin
I'm sure I wouldn't. Most of my code is available anyway...The stuff
that isn't on the web is either trivial (old school programs) or not
working...and that stuff can be found in my open directory.
James Garvin
>
> "ptsc" <ptsc AT nym DOT cryptofortress DOT com> wrote in message
> news:j4lacu00iaatdggfm...@4ax.com...
> > Tell it to Negativland.
>
> ObNegativland: Anyone seen the weirdo Christian gore film 'If The Footmen
> Tire What Will The Horses Do'? Totally way-out portrayal of the Yoo Ess Aye
> under godless Communism made for Estus Pirkle's Baptist circuit by
> born-again goremeisters the Ormond family. Scenes include parishioners
> gunned down by Communist troops outside their church, children getting their
> ears speared with bamboo spikes so they 'cannot hear the word of God', and
> the original brainwashing phrase of "Christianity is stupid . . . Communism
> is good!" that Negativland jacked. Man, that's a fucking funny movie.
Right on...where can I find this movie...I MUST HAVE IT...Oh yes it will
be mine...oh yes.
James Garvin
>
> Well ya know somethin' James Garvin...
>
> Just out of curiousity, how's Precious these days?
My uncle Bilbo is holding on to it...
Kevin S. Wilson
>
>Those are two different Scott Adams. The adventure game Scott Adams is not the
>Dilbert Scott Adams.
>
Huh? Isn't that a bit like saying that George Foreman isn't the same
person as Norman George Foreman? Two different names, so it's likely
they refer to two different people.
My name is Kevin Wilson. Would you be equally confused if you knew me
but then heard of someone named Jeff Kevin Wilson?
TRUE FACT: George Foreman has five children, all boys, all named
George Foreman, Jr.
--
Kevin S. Wilson
Tech Writer at a University Somewhere in Idaho
Dark Wombat
>
> Knight37, you are mad. Madder than Tarjan.
>
(SNIP commentary about how Mordor I is overpriced.)
> Damn, you really are nuts....
> Remind me never to go to YOUR little store.
> With that mentality, you'd fucking charge $500 for toilet paper so
> that others can wipe their asses, because there's no other store in
> town...and "everyone needs toilet paper".... if you don't like it,
> wipe your ass with a pine cone ". Capitalist mentality to the
> extreme....That's why there are rules and laws to protect customers.
> "If I don't want to spend $500 on toilet paper, I don't want it bad
> enough".--great thinking. I'll remember that. You're probably one of
> the type of people who think homeless people should be rounded up and
> executed "to get their unproductive behinds off the street, since they
> aren't putting money in my pocket".
OK, THIS is definitely one of the more unusual and less pleasant
analogies I've run across in USENET for a while . . .
>
> How about I walk into your store with my shit smeared on my ass, and
> point out to you how lovely your prices are on $500 toilet paper.
> Maybe then you would get the hint, if you can handle the smell of
> fresh feces. maybe when you pass out, and I smear some of my crap on
> your toilet paper and run around like a chicken, then run away,
> leaving your store to stink, you might get the message...
> And, since people can't wipe their asses, when there is a huge
> breakout of poisoning, and YOU get violently ill and die, maybe then
> you will realize the error of your ways...but it will be too late.
>
> (and get the feds on YOUR behind for price gouging)
Uh . . . What the hell?! Falkentyne, you are scaring me, man.
Livid Dragon
> I am not one of the companies. I can cite one biggy though. EA. They
> hold everything to their shirt. Even games like Ultima I (which are
> LONG dead) still have a fan base. These fans want to write Ultima 1
> taking advantage of new technology or maybe "porting" it to a new
> engine. EA generally stops them (even though the people I'm thinking of
> were giving it away for free). Let us not forget the Wing Commander
> fiasco...
There is more to Ultima and Wing Commander than just the code, though.
Both are pretty heavy-weight "franchises" and are well-known among most
gamers. EA letting someone rewrite one of the Ultima games is akin to
me deciding to re-film the original Star Wars with updated effects and
then give it away. Lucas would *never* let that happen, and EA, who own
the rights to the Ultima franchise, are well within their rights to do
the same. Not that I agree with the stance, nor the f'd up (IMHO) IP
laws that demand active protection of copyrights and trademarks.
> There is no value to the code of Ultima I anymore. It is all old hat.
> The paradigms have changed and fans want to bring a game for the other
> fans...usually for free. Why are they entiled to that code? Scientific
> advancement? Fun? It is so old that EA could never hope to make a dime
> from U1 again?
The value isn't in the code, it's in the "world". I doubt they would
object to some fan creating a U1-"like" game, but a clone that uses
characters, places, and storylines (as thin as they were) from their
franchise is strictly at EA's discretion. It's not the *code*. It's
the *content*. Remember, Ultima Online is still an active concern -
they are still profiting from the Ultima franchise and have a huge stake
in protecting it.
> Not the case at all. The little guys support their fans. Bruce and
> Wayne are supporting the Sundog community by bringing it back and
> allowing the fans to produce Sundog in a new and modern environment.
> The little guy generally has a small fan base and they can cater to
> it....The big guy is all about $$$$ and cares nothing for the fans...
And that's their right. They control the "Sundog" universe, as it were,
and it's wonderful that they are willing to cede a little bit of control
to "give something back". You're right on the money (ugh, bad pun,
bad!) with regards to EA's motives. They see the Ultima world
(excluding UO) as an asset to be filed away on a shelf in the basement.
It's painful to see it happen - my earliest days of computing coincide
with Ultima II and I have fond memories, but it probably isn't going to
change anytime soon.
Livid Dragon
> Damn, you really are nuts....
> Remind me never to go to YOUR little store.
> With that mentality, you'd fucking charge $500 for toilet paper so
> that others can wipe their asses, because there's no other store in
> town...and "everyone needs toilet paper".... if you don't like it,
> wipe your ass with a pine cone ". Capitalist mentality to the
*ROFLMAO* - what an *inane* analogy. It's not like he's going to *die*
if he can't get his hands on Mordor. Nuclear holocaust if I have to
spend more than $10 on *entertainment*! Fer Chrissakes, it's a *game*,
life will go on without it. Next thing you'll be calling shareware
authors "monopolies", as they are the sole source for the software they
create.
> (and get the feds on YOUR behind for price gouging)
Here's a clue - it isn't price gouging. The author of Mordor might be
pricing himself out of the market, but he isn't inflating prices to take
advantage of a shortage or the perceived potention of a shortage.
John Gilmer
> Shareware is a totally different animal...apples and oranges so to
> speak.
No it's not!
It is a good test of whatever "pie in the sky" rules folks want to put on
copyrighting software.
But one thing that is forgotten in all this was the the intent of the
copyright and patent laws was full DISCLOSURE.
Micro$oft should be free to copyright with reasonable limits (includeing
decades of copy protection) but they should have an obligation to send a
copy of the SOURCE code to the Library of Congress and/or the Patent office.
Ykalon Dragon
No. Selling direct to customers is even better actually. I just meant
that just because a game is available on E-Bay it shouldn't
necessarily still be under copyright if that is the ONLY way to get it
other than abandonware sites. In the end if a game is sold used or
downloaded from an abandonware site doesn't matter since you won't get
any money from either of them.
So what I mean is that as long as you get revenue from the game it
should be under copyright no matter how old the game.
--
Reply to ykalon at subdimension dot com
Gerry Quinn
>
>But one thing that is forgotten in all this was the the intent of the
>copyright and patent laws was full DISCLOSURE.
No, it was the furtherance of arts and sciences.
>Micro$oft should be free to copyright with reasonable limits (includeing
>decades of copy protection) but they should have an obligation to send a
>copy of the SOURCE code to the Library of Congress and/or the Patent office
That would not contribute to the profitability of creating operating
systems.
- Gerry Quinn
James Garvin
Livid Dragon wrote:
>
> There is more to Ultima and Wing Commander than just the code, though.
> Both are pretty heavy-weight "franchises" and are well-known among most
> gamers. EA letting someone rewrite one of the Ultima games is akin to
> me deciding to re-film the original Star Wars with updated effects and
> then give it away. Lucas would *never* let that happen, and EA, who own
> the rights to the Ultima franchise, are well within their rights to do
> the same.
I agree mostly with this. But if someone takes the franchise (which
IMHO is dead...killed by EA) and runs with it and makes a fan mod of U1
(updated graphics, updated engine, etc)...and give it away for free, I
don't see it hurting the franchise at all...
> Not that I agree with the stance, nor the f'd up (IMHO) IP
> laws that demand active protection of copyrights and trademarks.
100% agree.
> The value isn't in the code, it's in the "world". I doubt they would
> object to some fan creating a U1-"like" game, but a clone that uses
> characters, places, and storylines (as thin as they were) from their
> franchise is strictly at EA's discretion. It's not the *code*. It's
> the *content*. Remember, Ultima Online is still an active concern -
> they are still profiting from the Ultima franchise and have a huge stake
> in protecting it.
True, but UO is a far cry from U1. The content is key. My biggest beef
is that EA seems to take the shotgun approach. Shoot at one moder and
then some unrelated moder and there you go...Problem solved. There is
little discretion in what they target.
EG: If I was to make a Wing Commander mod I may or may not face a law
suit...but if I make the mod so that I update the engine, but everything
else stays the same...I'm screwed.
> And that's their right. They control the "Sundog" universe, as it were,
> and it's wonderful that they are willing to cede a little bit of control
> to "give something back". You're right on the money (ugh, bad pun,
> bad!) with regards to EA's motives. They see the Ultima world
> (excluding UO) as an asset to be filed away on a shelf in the basement.
> It's painful to see it happen - my earliest days of computing coincide
> with Ultima II and I have fond memories, but it probably isn't going to
> change anytime soon.
True. I think my biggest problem with the whole mess is how the law
(concerning software) is so haphazard. There isn't any rhyme or reason
to it...I'm hoping with slightly more tech savvy lawyers we'll see stuff
get straightened out. Personally I think mods and such should be like
parody...It's ok to do it. And I really feel that most software after 7
years has lived its life and should go open source. Then again, I'm a
huge open source fan....
Ykalon Dragon
Ken Rice
>On Wed, 24 Apr 2002 00:31:17 GMT, n...@email.ads (Ken Rice) wrote:
>>Those are two different Scott Adams. The adventure game Scott Adams is not
>>the Dilbert Scott Adams.
>Huh? Isn't that a bit like saying that George Foreman isn't the same
>person as Norman George Foreman? Two different names, so it's likely
>they refer to two different people.
>My name is Kevin Wilson. Would you be equally confused if you knew me
>but then heard of someone named Jeff Kevin Wilson?
>TRUE FACT: George Foreman has five children, all boys, all named
>George Foreman, Jr.
Perhaps a better way of stating the obvious is: Scott Adams, the writer of
adventure games, is not the same Scott Adams that draws the Dilbert comic.
Zixia
> In article <3cc6d2f5...@news.micron.net>, res...@spro.net
> says...
>
>>On Wed, 24 Apr 2002 00:31:17 GMT, n...@email.ads (Ken Rice) wrote:
>
>>>Those are two different Scott Adams. The adventure game Scott
>>>Adams is not the Dilbert Scott Adams.
>
>>Huh? Isn't that a bit like saying that George Foreman isn't the
>>same person as Norman George Foreman? Two different names, so it's
>>likely they refer to two different people.
>
>>My name is Kevin Wilson. Would you be equally confused if you knew
>>me but then heard of someone named Jeff Kevin Wilson?
>
>>TRUE FACT: George Foreman has five children, all boys, all named
>>George Foreman, Jr.
>
> Perhaps a better way of stating the obvious is: Scott Adams, the
> writer of adventure games, is not the same Scott Adams that draws
> the Dilbert comic.
That's because Scott Adams, the writer, only writes the Dilbert
cartoon. He gets some other guy to draw it. So I think you'll find
that they are the same person, and you are just getting yourself
confused.
You should check your facts before posting nonsense to this group. I
always do!
--
@+------------+@
_o)| I am |(o_
/\\| Stealthy |//\
_\_V|____________|V_/_ http://www.clu.org.uk/
Kevin S. Wilson
>Ken Rice devised a cunning plan:
>
>> In article <3cc6d2f5...@news.micron.net>, res...@spro.net
>> says...
>>
>>>On Wed, 24 Apr 2002 00:31:17 GMT, n...@email.ads (Ken Rice) wrote:
>>
>>>>Those are two different Scott Adams. The adventure game Scott
>>>>Adams is not the Dilbert Scott Adams.
>>
>>>Huh? Isn't that a bit like saying that George Foreman isn't the
>>>same person as Norman George Foreman? Two different names, so it's
>>>likely they refer to two different people.
>>
>>>My name is Kevin Wilson. Would you be equally confused if you knew
>>>me but then heard of someone named Jeff Kevin Wilson?
>>
>>>TRUE FACT: George Foreman has five children, all boys, all named
>>>George Foreman, Jr.
>>
>> Perhaps a better way of stating the obvious is: Scott Adams, the
>> writer of adventure games, is not the same Scott Adams that draws
>> the Dilbert comic.
>
>That's because Scott Adams, the writer, only writes the Dilbert
>cartoon. He gets some other guy to draw it. So I think you'll find
>that they are the same person, and you are just getting yourself
>confused.
It doesn't help that characters from the adventure games have a funny
way of appearing in cameo roles in "Dilbert." Talk about meta-insider
commentary! You need a scorecard just to keep the players straight,
much less the shifting roles of S. Adams.
>You should check your facts before posting nonsense to this group. I
>always do!
I'm as guilty as he is. I could've spared myself some embarrasment in
this thread if I had checked my facts before posting nonsense to the
USENET. Turns out that George Foreman's sons aren't all named George
Foreman, Jr. Only one is.
DUH! Even a washed-up boxer would be smart enough not to name each of
his five kids George.
Falkentyne
enlightened us by scribbling this gem of wisdom:
>Falkentyne <falke...@NOSPAMbigmailbox.net> wrote in message news:<5idccuo00of6k3kp7...@4ax.com>...
>>
>> Knight37, you are mad. Madder than Tarjan.
>>
>
>(SNIP commentary about how Mordor I is overpriced.)
>
>> Damn, you really are nuts....
>> Remind me never to go to YOUR little store.
>> With that mentality, you'd fucking charge $500 for toilet paper so
>> that others can wipe their asses, because there's no other store in
>> town...and "everyone needs toilet paper".... if you don't like it,
>> wipe your ass with a pine cone ". Capitalist mentality to the
>> extreme....That's why there are rules and laws to protect customers.
>> "If I don't want to spend $500 on toilet paper, I don't want it bad
>> enough".--great thinking. I'll remember that. You're probably one of
>> the type of people who think homeless people should be rounded up and
>> executed "to get their unproductive behinds off the street, since they
>> aren't putting money in my pocket".
>
>OK, THIS is definitely one of the more unusual and less pleasant
>analogies I've run across in USENET for a while . . .
Hey, morrowind is gold :O
>
>Uh . . . What the hell?! Falkentyne, you are scaring me, man.
I was trolling :)
I just found the poster's claim rediculous, that's all.
Falkentyne
<li...@spam.banal.collective> enlightened us by scribbling this gem of
wisdom:
>The collective assimilated the following data from Falkentyne:
>> Damn, you really are nuts....
>> Remind me never to go to YOUR little store.
>> With that mentality, you'd fucking charge $500 for toilet paper so
>> that others can wipe their asses, because there's no other store in
>> town...and "everyone needs toilet paper".... if you don't like it,
>> wipe your ass with a pine cone ". Capitalist mentality to the
>
>*ROFLMAO* - what an *inane* analogy. It's not like he's going to *die*
>if he can't get his hands on Mordor. Nuclear holocaust if I have to
>spend more than $10 on *entertainment*! Fer Chrissakes, it's a *game*,
>life will go on without it. Next thing you'll be calling shareware
>authors "monopolies", as they are the sole source for the software they
>create.
Come on..... I was trolling, but trying to make a point behind all
that mess.
Why would anyone pay $40 for a 8 year old game, that can be had for
$5-$10 in an old bargain bin? And Mordor wasn't even THAT great of a
game, although it had a few nice features...unlike Mordor II (the
limited edition betas), combat was pretty rediculous with a party.....
>> (and get the feds on YOUR behind for price gouging)
>
>Here's a clue - it isn't price gouging. The author of Mordor might be
>pricing himself out of the market, but he isn't inflating prices to take
>advantage of a shortage or the perceived potention of a shortage.
The author of Mordor (D.A.) isn't even setting such a price. He
doesn't even have the source for M1 anymore. That was pretty much
left behind years ago. M1 had a niche audience, much like the early
M2 did, before it became Demise.
If I wanted to sell some unopened copies of Eye of the Beholder II for
$40 each, did Westwood/SSI make me set the price? I probably found
them at some shovelware bin and raised the price to to make a huge
profit from people (reselling something you bought is legal, though
there are some restrictions on being a vendor....)
Ken Rice
Indeed you do.
Therefore you checked the FAQ at http://www.msadams.com/ and read:
*****
Who is Scott Adams?
Scott was the first person to put an Adventure game (also known as Interactive
Fiction) on a personal computer. This was in 1978 and the computer was a 16k
Radio Shack TRS-80 model I. Scott went on to write over a dozen different
adventure games for the personal computers of the 1980s. Many people have
written Scott and explained how his early games help led them into a career in
computers today. Scott is 48 years old now and living in Wisconsin. He is
married and has 5 children.
*****
Then you checked http://www.dilbert.com/ clicked on "News and History" then
clicked on "About Scott Adams" and read:
*****
Early Years
I was born 6/8/57 and raised in Windham, New York, in the Catskill mountains. I
graduated high school as valedictorian because the other 39 people in my class
couldn't spell "valedictorian."
I moved to Northern California in 1979 after college and have lived in the San
Francisco Bay Area since.
*****
So, since you checked your facts, answer these questions about Scott Adams?
How old is he? 45 or 48?
Where does he live? California or Wisconsin?
Where does neither biography mention his other achievement?
Why don't the photos of Scott Adams on the two sites look like the same guy?
Curious minds want to know.
someone
James Garvin wrote:
> someone wrote:
>
>>Ykalon Dragon wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On 23 Apr 2002 12:55:09 GMT, someone <som...@anywhere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Its now 7 years. So in your opinion, I'm on the edge of no longer
>>>>being entitled to receive income on those works? How about I should
>>>>be entilted to receive income from those games, as long as they
>>>>generate income?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>I feel as long as the game is supported (I consider it supported if
>>>you can still buy the game from stores like EB) it should be under
>>>copyright. If the game is no longer available, the copyright should be
>>>removed.
>>>
>>>
>>My shareware games have never been in EB. So, does that mean in your
>>opinion that I was NEVER entitled to a copyright?
>>
>
> Shareware is a totally different animal...apples and oranges so to
> speak.
>
>
Ever heard of LCR (Low Cost Retail). Much shareware is marketed
as LCR as well as as shareware. As LCR, it is sold from web sites,
catalogs and even off the rack. Most of the revenue I receive from
my "shareware" products is via LCR and distribution relationships.
Not so different is it?
Regardless of the marketing approach taken (that is what shareware
is after all) it is still intellectual property protected under the
copyright law that you apparently want to dilute. Therefore, any
attack you make on the copyright law, is an attack on my rights as
the copyright holder of my intellectual property.
So, my question stands unanswered. Just because my games have never
been in EB, should I no longer be entitled to a copyright on them?
someone
James Garvin wrote:
> someone wrote:
>
>>>Generally after 7 years:
>>>
>>>A) The software has become "Legacy" and there is a need to move on
>>>
>>Says who? People are still paying for that "Legacy" software.
>>
>
> Maybe so, but generally legacy software isn't being used as much because
> there is newer "better" stuff out there. I'm not just talking
> games...I'm talking about applications too. I mean how many people are
> still BUYING MS Office 95? 7 years old right? We are 3 (4?) iterations
> down the road and people want the newer stuff.
>
> People may still be paying for *your* legacy software, but in general
> that doesn't hold true. (Like I said shareware is a very different
> animal)
As I said in another response, it is not.
The point that you are missing, is that "legacy" has nothing to do
with it. The copyright should not be diluted simply because "you"
think that the application has grown stale.
>
>
>>>B) The software isn't built to handle the new "OS OF THE FUTURE" (TM),
>>>thus it seems to be buggy and won't run properly
>>>
>>Heard no complaints about that. If I get any, I will be sure
>>to send out a patch.
>>
>
> Again...you aren't looking at the broad picture.
>
On the contrary, that _is_ what I am doing, but from the perspective
of the person who poured sweat and blood into producing a product of
intellectual property that people like you are saying I should no longer
possess a copyright to.
>
>>>C) After 7 years the software has been rewritten to take advantage of
>>>newer technology
>>>
>>Why? The games play as intended. What is the point to rewriting them?
>>
>
> That may be so, but most people like to get the extra features and eye
> candy that comes with new software...
Fine. Those people don't have to buy my games.
> not to mention that it is usually
> complied to take advantage of the newer OSs and processors.
As pointed out above, the games play as intended without trying
to take any advantage of new OSs.
> The point
> of rewritting software is to keep your product fresh and insert features
> that may not have been possible in the earlier versions. Not to mention
> technology can change, so software must meet that technology.
Maybe, but then the market should make that decision, not someone
that wants to dilute the copyright law for their own purposes.
>
>
>>My goal was never to "advance some paradigm of programming". It
>>was to entertain the people who played my games, and generate income
>>for me to live on.
>>
>
> Great. But let me ask, how many business apps do you think would make
> it if they just kept selling the same software year after year...That is
> why it doesn't happen...that is why it is almost impossible to find a
> copy of Ultima 1 or Windows 3.1 anymore.
Irrelevent. If a developer is not gaining the sales that developer is
interested in, then it is up to that developer to make (or not make)
changes to their products. It is their decision, not yours. If it
impacts you, then you have the right to complain and to not buy their
software, but you have no right to demand they give you ownership of
their intellectual property just because you disagree with their idea
of marketing and support.
>
>
>>According to you, I have all the wrong goals.
>>
>
> No...your goals are find...
>
Find? Fine?
>
>>I find that distastfull, communistic and plain bullshit.
>>
>
> Godwin's knocking, but he can't come it...
>
Naz*!
>
>>"You" have no right to my code after any number of years!
>>
>
> So you hold your code to your shirt, even though you may have solved the
> P = NP problem (never mind the million dollars you get for solving it).
'Tis my right as the copyright holder. Is that really such a difficult
concept for you to grasp?
> Software isn't the same as a book or as a movie...I don't know why you
> are treating it is as such.
Ah, but it is. The same as a work of art, a poem or any other form
of expression. Not understanding that, may be what is leading you
to the dark side.
>
>
>>'Tis EA's right to do so. They own the copyright. They "owe"
>>the fan base of Ultima I nothing as far as I am concerned.
>>
>
> Should they sue them for an obsolete game?
>
Who is suing who? If someone is trying to steal Ultima I source
code, or violating the copyright EA holds on Ultima I, for whatever
reason, then I say sue the sh*t out of them.
>
>>That is your opinion. It obviously has some value otherwise why
>>would EA want to protect it, and why would you (and the fan base)
>>want to have it (if it had no value)?
>>
>
> But generally giving something away for free implies that it has little
> to no value other then to those that made it. Why would EA sue someone
> for doing this?
Dilution of the value of the property. If you copy my game and
give it away then you dilute the value of that game. This is
pretty clearly covered in many articles on copyright law.
>
>
>>Maybe, just maybe, they see other values in it? Its irrelevent as
>>far as I am concerned because they put out the money to own the
>>copyright (did you? or the fans?) and so they have every right in
>>the world to do what they want to do with it.
>>
>
> I disagree. Sueing fans not only is morally corrupt, but stupid.
Maybe it is. But it is their right. And exercising that right
is no excuse for someone else to violate their copyright.
> My
> biggest beef is the fact that U1 "mod" was going to be given away for
> free.
Irrelevent. See dilution above.
> EA may have the copywrite, but they will never do anything with
> it (it isn't good business)...so why not let the fans have it?
That is EA's choice. Not yours. Not the Ultima I fans. The sooner
people come to understand that and quit trying to violate the copyright
that people and companies own, then perhaps the sooner those same
people and companies might loosen up the distribution.
>
>
>>You talk out of both sides of your face?
>>
>
> You are an asshole? Shareware is a different thing all together.
> Apples and oranges.
Of course I am an asshole. Someone tries to rip me off and I get
pissed. That makes me an asshole. Of course, those others are
just thieves.
PS: Shareware is the same. Its intellectual property.
>
>
>>That is their choice, because .... <gasp> they own the copyright to it!
>>
>
> <gasp> So? After it expires in 80 million years then I can play with
> it?
Maybe? Have you been good? Are you advocating that EA lose its
copyright on it? Oops! Too bad. You must wait 80 million years.
>Why not 7 or 10 years? Does open source piss you off too?
If a developer of software voluntarily puts it out for open source
that totally cool by me. If someone like you tries to force a
developer to put his/her game source out for you to "play" (ie.
make a profit on) with then I'm against you.
>>Irrelevent! Small fan bases vs big fan bases are not mentioned in
>>any copyright law I've read. Neither is "caring about fans".
>>
>
> That wasn't the point...you missed it.
>
That is just it. Fans have nothing to do with copyright law.
>
>>Maybe you should quit advocating that people with intellectual property
>>should just "give it up" because you want it?
>>
>
> After seven years...yes. It isn't that I want it, but that knowledge
> should be shared. When you don't share knowledge you end up with people
> like you who don't understand why we should.
And people like you know that knowledge is ADVANTAGE and is worth
VALUE and when you see someone with it, and you can't (or won't take
the time to acquire it legitimately yourself) and so you advocate ways
to change the copyright laws to make it available to you without the
permission of the copyright holders.
>
>
>>>That companies screw the fans and sue those that wish to produce free
>>>works...yes it is.
>>>
>>And people who seem to want to profit off the work of others.
>>
>
> How do you profit from something being free and a work of love?
>
You are confused. If the copyright is removed, then anyone and
everyone could distribute for their own purposes, any and all
derivitive works. They can profit from them, and do so with an
overall lower investment than that of the copyright holders.
You don't seem to get the fact, that without the original game,
the mods (that you seem to think are the only thing distributed)
would never exist.
Excelsior
>And people like you know that knowledge is ADVANTAGE and is worth
>VALUE and when you see someone with it, and you can't (or won't take
>the time to acquire it legitimately yourself) and so you advocate ways
>to change the copyright laws to make it available to you without the
>permission of the copyright holders.
US Constitution -
The Congress shall have Power . . . To promote the Progress of Science
.
. . by securing for limited Times to Authors . . . the exclusive Right
to their . . . Writings . . .
-- U.S. Constitution, art. I, sec. 8, cl. 8
The Copyright Law -
TITLE 17, CHAP. 1, Sec. 102 (b)
In no case does copyright protection for an original work of
authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of
operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in
which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such
work
US Supreme Court -
The primary objective of copyright is not to reward the labor of
authors, but '[t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts.'
To this end, copyright assures authors the right to their original
expression, but encourages others to build freely upon the ideas and
information conveyed by a work. This result is neither unfair nor
unfortunate. It is the means by which copyright advances the progress
of science and art.
-- Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural
Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340, 349 (1991)
Knowledge IS not and CAN not be copyrighted.
John Gilmer
"Gerry Quinn" <ger...@indigo.ie> wrote in message
news:ChDx8.9878$e5.6...@news.indigo.ie...
> In article <3cc6fdab$0$20...@dingus.crosslink.net>, "John Gilmer"
<gil...@crosslink.net> wrote:
> >
> >But one thing that is forgotten in all this was the the intent of the
> >copyright and patent laws was full DISCLOSURE.
>
> No, it was the furtherance of arts and sciences.
That's right; but not "arts and sciences" held in secret by a few. The
idea was/is to let the public have access to these arts and sciences in
exchange the writer/inventor have monopoly control over the works for a
LIMITED time. That is the social contract. When that "limited" time
becomes FOREVER then that "social contract" is a little too one sided for my
taste.
>
> >Micro$oft should be free to copyright with reasonable limits (includeing
> >decades of copy protection) but they should have an obligation to send a
> >copy of the SOURCE code to the Library of Congress and/or the Patent
office
>
> That would not contribute to the profitability of creating operating
> systems.
So? Is Micro$oft short of Cash?
>
> - Gerry Quinn
>
Gerry Quinn
>
>"Gerry Quinn" <ger...@indigo.ie> wrote in message
>> >
>> >copyright and patent laws was full DISCLOSURE.
>>
>> No, it was the furtherance of arts and sciences.
>
>That's right; but not "arts and sciences" held in secret by a few. The
>idea was/is to let the public have access to these arts and sciences in
>exchange the writer/inventor have monopoly control over the works for a
>LIMITED time. That is the social contract. When that "limited" time
>becomes FOREVER then that "social contract" is a little too one sided for my
>taste.
The 'forever' bit is irrelevant here (I presume you ae creatively
interpreting recent extensions of the copyright period). But yes, the
copyright owner has copyright over the works for a limited time. And
the copyright works are fully disclosed (the object file) although, like
any author, the copyright holders are not required to divulge their
notes and creative methodologies (equivalent to source code).
Copyrights and patents are different for a number of reasons.
>> >Micro$oft should be free to copyright with reasonable limits (includeing
>> >decades of copy protection) but they should have an obligation to send a
>> >copy of the SOURCE code to the Library of Congress and/or the Patent
>office
>>
>> That would not contribute to the profitability of creating operating
>> systems.
>
>So? Is Micro$oft short of Cash?
Not as matters stand, but if a rule such as you suggest had been in
place, they wouldn't exist, let alone be rich. It would be
unprofitable to produce quality software under such a regime.
- Gerry Quinn
Disc Orde
Ken Rice <n...@email.ads> wrote in message news:VdHx8.40663$t65....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
: In article <Xns91FAE4B...@130.133.1.4>, ab...@clu.org.uk says...
42
: Where does he live? California or Wisconsin?
Wiscornia, I mean Califonsin
: Where does neither biography mention his other achievement?
In the dictionary.
: Why don't the photos of Scott Adams on the two sites look like the same guy?
Obviously they are impostors.
: Curious minds want to know.
Dull minds are content to watch Seinfeld reruns.
--
Disc Orde
~~~
=+__+=
\-/
Ross Ridge
"Ken Rice" <n...@email.ads> wrote
> So, since you checked your facts, answer these questions about Scott
Adams?
>
> How old is he? 45 or 48?
He's 67, but like most old people gives out inconsistant lies about his age.
> Where does he live? California or Wisconsin?
He commutes.
> Where does neither biography mention his other achievement?
Modesty.
> Why don't the photos of Scott Adams on the two sites look like the same
guy?
Photoshop.
Ross Ridge
Ross Ridge
"Knight37" <knig...@email.com> wrote:
> That would be incorrect. Abandonware is never legal, or at least, not
until
> the copyrights expire (75 yrs?) or are specifically given away as freeware
> by the company.
Except that it's not quite as simple as that. Copyright holders have little
recorse against non-commercial copying of no longer commercially distributed
software, if they don't even bother to ask major "abandonware" sites to stop
distributing their software.
Ross Ridge
Gerry Quinn
It is as simple as that. Copyrights, unlike trademarks, don't require
continuous prosecution of infringements to retain their validity.
- Gerry Quinn
Ross Ridge
> That would be incorrect. Abandonware is never legal, or at least, not
until
> the copyrights expire (75 yrs?) or are specifically given away as freeware
> by the company.
"Ross Ridge" <rri...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>Except that it's not quite as simple as that. Copyright holders have
little
>recorse against non-commercial copying of no longer commercially
distributed
>software, if they don't even bother to ask major "abandonware" sites to
stop
>distributing their software.
"Gerry Quinn" <ger...@indigo.ie> wrote:
> It is as simple as that.
Nope.
> Copyrights, unlike trademarks, don't require
> continuous prosecution of infringements to retain their validity.
I didn't say the copyright was invalidated, I said they had little recourse.
You can't ask for a court for an injunction if you haven't asked them to
stop yourself. You can't ask a for court damages if you haven't suffered
any damages. You can't ask a court for the profits made by the infringing
party if they didn't make any profits.
Copyrights, unlike patents, do require the owner to show some interest in
preventing infringement. If they don't take any effort to restrict
infringment they allow people to reasonably assume that they have permitted
the copying.
Ross Ridge
someone
Excelsior wrote:
But EXPRESSION can, and should be.
Ross Ridge
"John Gilmer" <gil...@crosslink.net> wrote:
> But one thing that is forgotten in all this was the the intent of the
> copyright and patent laws was full DISCLOSURE.
Copyright originated from attempts to censor and restrict the publishing of
books.
It also had disclosure, unlike with patents there's no requirement for
material under copyright to be made available to the public.
Ross Ridge
James Garvin
>
> Ever heard of LCR (Low Cost Retail). Much shareware is marketed
> as LCR as well as as shareware. As LCR, it is sold from web sites,
> catalogs and even off the rack. Most of the revenue I receive from
> my "shareware" products is via LCR and distribution relationships.
>
> Not so different is it?
Yes it is. You have a much lower overhead and you don't have to deal
with current corporate paradigms. LCR is a MUCH different animal then
say EA. With that said: Shareware (in general):
A) Doesn't sell off the rack in major outlets, thus they don't have to
"buy" shelf space
B) Don't need a meat world HQ to deal. Working from home is just fine.
C) Little to no capital expendatures.
> Regardless of the marketing approach taken (that is what shareware
> is after all) it is still intellectual property protected under the
> copyright law that you apparently want to dilute. Therefore, any
> attack you make on the copyright law, is an attack on my rights as
> the copyright holder of my intellectual property.
Can you be any more dramatic?
> So, my question stands unanswered. Just because my games have never
> been in EB, should I no longer be entitled to a copyright on them?
We've gone over this. You should be allowed a copywrite. However,
software has a much shorter life span (no matter what you say) then what
the copywrite was written for. Thus the software copywrite should be
shorter. End of story.
--
James Garvin
bo...@nmt.edu
-----BEGIN BOOT'S GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS/B/H !d s+:+@ a-@ C++>++++ UL++ P+ L++>++++ E++ W--@ N++ o+ K---
w++
O- M-- V-- PS+ PE++ Y++ PGP++ t+(++) 5-- X++ R++>$ tv b+ DI+++ D++
G e+>+++ h--- r+++ y+++ A09 H+++>* P+++
------END BOOT'S GEEK CODE BLOCK------
James Garvin
>
> But EXPRESSION can, and should be.
How can you tell the difference other then by some arbitrary process?
James Garvin
>
> The 'forever' bit is irrelevant here (I presume you ae creatively
> interpreting recent extensions of the copyright period). But yes, the
> copyright owner has copyright over the works for a limited time. And
> the copyright works are fully disclosed (the object file) although, like
> any author, the copyright holders are not required to divulge their
> notes and creative methodologies (equivalent to source code).
> Copyrights and patents are different for a number of reasons.
Which leads to bad copyrights ala the XOR mouse over.
> Not as matters stand, but if a rule such as you suggest had been in
> place, they wouldn't exist, let alone be rich. It would be
> unprofitable to produce quality software under such a regime.
How so? I'm not sure this is true. (Though the open source business
model does leave something to be desired.)
Kevin S. Wilson
wrote:
>
>Ken Rice <n...@email.ads> wrote in message news:VdHx8.40663$t65....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
>: In article <Xns91FAE4B...@130.133.1.4>, ab...@clu.org.uk says...
>:
>: Curious minds want to know.
Actually, the tag line is "Inquiring minds want to know," but I
understand why you changed it. No sense in inviting a
trademark-infringement lawsuit from the people at National Inquirer.
>Dull minds are content to watch Seinfeld reruns.
>
That's my favorite show!!!!
But sometimes I feel kind of creepy enjoying it as much as I do,
knowing that Jerry Seinfeld is married to a 14-year-old mail-order
bride. YECH!!!
Gerry Quinn
>Gerry Quinn wrote:
>>
>> The 'forever' bit is irrelevant here (I presume you ae creatively
>> interpreting recent extensions of the copyright period). But yes, the
>> copyright owner has copyright over the works for a limited time. And
>> the copyright works are fully disclosed (the object file) although, like
>> any author, the copyright holders are not required to divulge their
>> notes and creative methodologies (equivalent to source code).
>> Copyrights and patents are different for a number of reasons.
>
>Which leads to bad copyrights ala the XOR mouse over.
That's a patent.
>> Not as matters stand, but if a rule such as you suggest had been in
>> place, they wouldn't exist, let alone be rich. It would be
>> unprofitable to produce quality software under such a regime.
>
>How so? I'm not sure this is true. (Though the open source business
>model does leave something to be desired.)
Too easy to pirate. Unless the source were horribly obfuscated, which
would rather defeat the point...
- Gerry Quinn
Livid Dragon
>
>
> Livid Dragon wrote:
>>
>> There is more to Ultima and Wing Commander than just the code, though.
>> Both are pretty heavy-weight "franchises" and are well-known among most
>> gamers. EA letting someone rewrite one of the Ultima games is akin to
>> me deciding to re-film the original Star Wars with updated effects and
>> then give it away. Lucas would *never* let that happen, and EA, who own
>> the rights to the Ultima franchise, are well within their rights to do
>> the same.
>
> I agree mostly with this. But if someone takes the franchise (which
> IMHO is dead...killed by EA) and runs with it and makes a fan mod of U1
> (updated graphics, updated engine, etc)...and give it away for free, I
> don't see it hurting the franchise at all...
I don't think it would hurt either, but last I checked, EA didn't ask my
opinion on their business and marketing decisions. They wouldn't like
what I had to say, anyway ;)
>> The value isn't in the code, it's in the "world". I doubt they would
>> object to some fan creating a U1-"like" game, but a clone that uses
>> characters, places, and storylines (as thin as they were) from their
>> franchise is strictly at EA's discretion. It's not the *code*. It's
>> the *content*. Remember, Ultima Online is still an active concern -
>> they are still profiting from the Ultima franchise and have a huge stake
>> in protecting it.
>
> True, but UO is a far cry from U1. The content is key. My biggest beef
> is that EA seems to take the shotgun approach. Shoot at one moder and
> then some unrelated moder and there you go...Problem solved. There is
> little discretion in what they target.
UO is a far cry, but it still draws on U1 directly - the 'shards' in UO
are in fact reflections of Sosaria/Britannia created when Mondain's gem
was smashed in U1. They recently had a return appearance of Minax from
U2 (IIRC, this lead to the "Renaissance" update and the no-PVP world).
Blackthorne (U5) is in the latest update. They may not be using the
franchise in the manner I'd like to see (more single-player games), but
they are using it.
> EG: If I was to make a Wing Commander mod I may or may not face a law
> suit...but if I make the mod so that I update the engine, but everything
> else stays the same...I'm screwed.
...because you're using the content they own. See the above analogy of
refilming Star Wars and trying to distribute it. If EA fails to defend
their property, they severely weaken their claim to it.
> True. I think my biggest problem with the whole mess is how the law
> (concerning software) is so haphazard. There isn't any rhyme or reason
> to it...I'm hoping with slightly more tech savvy lawyers we'll see stuff
> get straightened out. Personally I think mods and such should be like
> parody...It's ok to do it. And I really feel that most software after 7
> years has lived its life and should go open source. Then again, I'm a
> huge open source fan....
The problem is the existing IP laws, which make a bit more sense with
regard to "traditional" media - books, movies, music, visual arts, etc -
have been slapped on software without attempting to recognize that
software is different, but not that different. By the same token that
out-of-print-but-still-copywritten software should be made available,
either for sale or for free, so should out-of-print books, music, films,
etc. But how do you reconcile that with the author who no longer wants
his novel printed? Is that not his right? Is it okay for me to scan my
copy of the book and put it on the web?
It's a certainly a mess. It has always been a mess, but the digital age
has drawn several of the messiest issues to the surface in a very
public manner and now, rather than updating the underlying system, the
government and business is doing everything they can to patch the holes
and maintain profit margins. It won't work - we'll either end up
criminals for using CD-R media to back up data and exercise fair-use
rights, or the big media conglomerates (RIAA, MPAA, etc) will crumble
and a new model will rise in its place.
I sure hope the latter is what comes about. In the meantime, stock up
on CD-R media...
Gerald Belton
off-topic for alt.tasteless. Would y'all mind trimming us from the
headers from now on?
Otherwise, some tasteless folks might start posting messages in this
thread that ARE on-topic for alt.tasteless -- and believe me, you
don't want that!
Gerald
--
The TV business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway
where thieves and pimps run free and good men die like dogs. There's also a
negative side. -- Hunter Thompson
James Garvin
<snip because I pretty much agree with it>
> ...because you're using the content they own. See the above analogy of
> refilming Star Wars and trying to distribute it. If EA fails to defend
> their property, they severely weaken their claim to it.
I don't think so. If I gave away the mod for free (if I charged that
would be a different matter), but assume I give it away for free. How
does it hurt EA? Other then perhaps make the series stronger?
> The problem is the existing IP laws, which make a bit more sense with
> regard to "traditional" media - books, movies, music, visual arts, etc -
> have been slapped on software without attempting to recognize that
> software is different, but not that different. By the same token that
> out-of-print-but-still-copywritten software should be made available,
> either for sale or for free, so should out-of-print books, music, films,
> etc. But how do you reconcile that with the author who no longer wants
> his novel printed? Is that not his right? Is it okay for me to scan my
> copy of the book and put it on the web?
There is a huge question there. Personally, I feel like once it has
been printed, the author (just because it has been printed) has lost
control over how his work is distributed. As long as he is compensated
for his work (either through sales, flat payment, or whatever) he
accepts the good and the bad with something being absorbed by the
public.
Just like if I was to buy a CD and rip it to my laptop so I could listen
to it without having to lug the CD around....Is that illegal...no.
Moral, yes. The artist doesn't know what I'm doing with the CD I
bought, but he knows that since I bought the CD he has lost some control
over what I do with it...what if I buy it just to piss on it...You see
where I'm going?
> It's a certainly a mess. It has always been a mess, but the digital age
> has drawn several of the messiest issues to the surface in a very
> public manner and now, rather than updating the underlying system, the
> government and business is doing everything they can to patch the holes
> and maintain profit margins. It won't work - we'll either end up
> criminals for using CD-R media to back up data and exercise fair-use
> rights, or the big media conglomerates (RIAA, MPAA, etc) will crumble
> and a new model will rise in its place.
I think the RIAA is going to crumble eventually. How do you charge for
"audio" CDRW media and "data" CDRW media? How do you know what I am
burning (be it MP3s, backups, porn...whatever). I really don't see the
RIAA getting there hands in on this one (greedy bastards).
You are very correct in everything you said here...rather then build new
laws (which is what is need) and analyze what is going wrong in the
current laws...We are going to get screwed....
> I sure hope the latter is what comes about. In the meantime, stock up
> on CD-R media...
LOL...yup. I doubt the RIAA can do it though because so many
corporations depend on CDR (CDRW) media for daily life! I'm betting the
RIAA starts to fall apart (unless they can change) in the next couple of
years...they don't understand that the cat is out of the bag and there
is *no* putting him back in...
Zixia
> In article <Xns91FAE4B...@130.133.1.4>, ab...@clu.org.uk
> says...
>
>>Ken Rice devised a cunning plan:
>
Well, if you had actually READ the webbages, rather than just using
your wacky cut-n-paste skills, you would know that the one and only
Scott Adams is 48 (obviously) and lives in Wisconsin. Neither
biography mentions his other achievement because they are SEPARATE
projects, and he doesn't want to use his fame in one field to influence
people to follow him in the other. The two photos don't look the same,
because the one on the Dilbert site is of the main guy who DRAWS
Dilbert (not Scott Adams, remember?).
And, besides, the Dilbert website is hopelessly out of date, by about
three years, I would guess, judging by the age discrepancy. Oh sure,
they update the cartoon with some clever computery stuff every day, but
Adams is probably too busy with his other work to look at updating his
webbage all the time. I'm surprised you couldn't manage to work that
out for yourself, particularly considering the dates on each of the
pages. But thinking that Scott Adams is two people is a mistake that
many people make, and I believe he even wrote a cartoon about it for
his Dilbert side-project. Perhaps you've seen it?
Ken Rice
Try explaining away these facts:
*****
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Scott Adams (born 8 June 1957) is the creator of the Dilbert comic strip.
Scott Adams (born 10 July 1952) is the founder of Adventure International.
http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Scott+Adams
****
Scott Adams <http://www.msadams.com/> The homepage of the man himself. (The
author of the popular Dilbert comic, by the way, is a completely different
Scott Adams.)
From http://www.if-legends.org/~pdd/
*****
Scott Adams Adventures were among the first personal computer games, dating
back to the late 1970s. (No, their author <http://www.msadams.com> isn't the
Dilbert guy.)
From http://www.pcworld.com/downloads/file_description/0,fid,7886,00.asp
*****
Maybe these Scott Adams are also the Dilbert author:
A 20 year old Scott Adams.
http://www.happypineapple.com/scottspot/
A dead Scott Adams, born 1905, died 1982.
http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/essays/v6p197y1983.pdf
http://web.library.uiuc.edu/ahx/ala/alacard.asp?RG=97&SG=1&RS=32
A 27 year old Scott Adams.
http://www.james-taylor.com/fans/scott.shtml
Scott Adams the financial consultant:
http://www.baronkc.com/Baron_Partners/Scott_Adams/body_scott_adams.html
Scott Adams the lawyer.
http://www.mycounsel.com/spiders/profiles/profile_10257.html
*****
someone
James Garvin wrote:
> someone wrote:
>
>>But EXPRESSION can, and should be.
>>
>
> How can you tell the difference other then by some arbitrary process?
>
>
Expression is pretty straight forward. I just expressed a thought.
The thought that I expressed is not copyrightable, but the expression
most definitely is.
someone
James Garvin wrote:
> someone wrote:
>
>>Ever heard of LCR (Low Cost Retail). Much shareware is marketed
>>as LCR as well as as shareware. As LCR, it is sold from web sites,
>>catalogs and even off the rack. Most of the revenue I receive from
>>my "shareware" products is via LCR and distribution relationships.
>>
>>Not so different is it?
>>
>
> Yes it is. You have a much lower overhead and you don't have to deal
> with current corporate paradigms. LCR is a MUCH different animal then
> say EA. With that said: Shareware (in general):
>
> A) Doesn't sell off the rack in major outlets, thus they don't have to
> "buy" shelf space
> B) Don't need a meat world HQ to deal. Working from home is just fine.
> C) Little to no capital expendatures.
>
I don't see it. All you bring up are marketing techniques, the
quality of the production center and the amount of financing.
NONE of those considerations change the fact that a customer pays
money for the use of shareware, or commercial software or LCR or
any computer software product. And, that all of the said products
are copyrighted intellectual property.
You appear to be trying to change the rules just because of the
side (irrelevent) considerations.
>
>>Regardless of the marketing approach taken (that is what shareware
>>is after all) it is still intellectual property protected under the
>>copyright law that you apparently want to dilute. Therefore, any
>>attack you make on the copyright law, is an attack on my rights as
>>the copyright holder of my intellectual property.
>>
>
> Can you be any more dramatic?
>
Can you be more considerate of my rights as a copyright holder?
>
>>So, my question stands unanswered. Just because my games have never
>>been in EB, should I no longer be entitled to a copyright on them?
>>
>
> We've gone over this. You should be allowed a copywrite. However,
> software has a much shorter life span (no matter what you say) then what
> the copywrite was written for. Thus the software copywrite should be
> shorter. End of story.
>
So, because you want the copyright life span shorter, you want me
to give up my rights to you? And you wonder why I'm pissed.
I tell you what. Whatever it is you do for a living, right now
you lose 25% of your income and have no say in it. You just lost
your "copyright" to some of your "product". Live with it, like
you are asking guys like me to do.
David DeLaney
>>>>TRUE FACT: George Foreman has five children, all boys, all named
>>>>George Foreman, Jr.
>
>>always do!
>
>this thread if I had checked my facts before posting nonsense to the
>USENET. Turns out that George Foreman's sons aren't all named George
>Foreman, Jr. Only one is.
Well, at least another one's named George Leroi Tirebiter Jr.
>DUH! Even a washed-up boxer would be smart enough not to name each of
>his five kids George.
Dave "george jr; why, that's so common the -president's- named that, bah"
DeLaney
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Disc Orde
Kevin S. Wilson <res...@spro.net> wrote in message news:3cc81c9...@news.micron.net...
: On Thu, 25 Apr 2002 00:38:10 -0700, "Disc Orde" <zap...@vircom.net>
: wrote:
:
: >
: >Ken Rice <n...@email.ads> wrote in message news:VdHx8.40663$t65....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
: >: In article <Xns91FAE4B...@130.133.1.4>, ab...@clu.org.uk says...
: >:
: >: Curious minds want to know.
:
: Actually, the tag line is "Inquiring minds want to know," but I
: understand why you changed it. No sense in inviting a
: trademark-infringement lawsuit from the people at National Inquirer.
:
: >Dull minds are content to watch Seinfeld reruns.
: >
: That's my favorite show!!!!
I apologize for the specific reference to what is probably a fun
show. I have not owned a television since 1983. I don't watch
much that is broadcast via television. I am only vaguely familiar
with some titles and their status because some radio news people
seem to think infr0mation about these shows warrants news
coverage (unlike the events which actually fall into this category but
which are conveniently ignored). My intent was not to offend anyone
who enjoys potentially quality programming. Besides, though you
enjoy it, your presence here proves beyond any doubt that you
are not content to watch Seinfeld reruns.
: But sometimes I feel kind of creepy enjoying it as much as I do,
: knowing that Jerry Seinfeld is married to a 14-year-old mail-order
: bride. YECH!!!
Is this true??? I am creeped out as well.
Ross Ridge
> The 'forever' bit is irrelevant here (I presume you ae creatively
> interpreting recent extensions of the copyright period). But yes, the
> copyright owner has copyright over the works for a limited time. And
> the copyright works are fully disclosed (the object file) although, like
> any author, the copyright holders are not required to divulge their
> notes and creative methodologies (equivalent to source code).
> Copyrights and patents are different for a number of reasons.
"James Garvin" <bo...@nmt.edu> wrote:
> Which leads to bad copyrights ala the XOR mouse over.
That was covered by a patent.
Ross Ridge
jmfb...@aol.com
>someone wrote:
<snip>
>We've gone over this. You should be allowed a copywrite. However,
>software has a much shorter life span
You don't know that. There is software written decades ago that
is still around and getting used.
> .. (no matter what you say) then what
>the copywrite was written for. Thus the software copywrite should be
>shorter. End of story.
I don't know if it should be shorter. But you can't use your
reason since it's an incorrect assumption. Perhaps, we can
reexamine the assumption 50 years from now to see how long-lived
software really is. :-)
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
Kevin S. Wilson
wrote:
>
>: knowing that Jerry Seinfeld is married to a 14-year-old mail-order
>: bride. YECH!!!
>
>Is this true??? I am creeped out as well.
>
Vietnamese, I believe.
Livid Dragon
>
><snip because I pretty much agree with it>
>
>> ...because you're using the content they own. See the above analogy of
>> refilming Star Wars and trying to distribute it. If EA fails to defend
>> their property, they severely weaken their claim to it.
>
> I don't think so. If I gave away the mod for free (if I charged that
> would be a different matter), but assume I give it away for free. How
> does it hurt EA? Other then perhaps make the series stronger?
Define "mod". Rewriting the original U1, complete with story, using a
new engine isn't what I would consider a "mod". Taking the existing U1
engine and creating a new story with it is a "mod".
>> The problem is the existing IP laws, which make a bit more sense with
>> regard to "traditional" media - books, movies, music, visual arts, etc -
>> have been slapped on software without attempting to recognize that
>> software is different, but not that different. By the same token that
>> out-of-print-but-still-copywritten software should be made available,
>> either for sale or for free, so should out-of-print books, music, films,
>> etc. But how do you reconcile that with the author who no longer wants
>> his novel printed? Is that not his right? Is it okay for me to scan my
>> copy of the book and put it on the web?
>
> There is a huge question there. Personally, I feel like once it has
> been printed, the author (just because it has been printed) has lost
> control over how his work is distributed. As long as he is compensated
> for his work (either through sales, flat payment, or whatever) he
> accepts the good and the bad with something being absorbed by the
> public.
In many respects, an author does lose control once something is
published. But if there were no copyrights, why even bother selling?
It only takes one person to buy a published copy, scan/rip/crack it, and
put it on the internet. How do you guarantee the authors' compensation
without controlling distribution and copying?
> Just like if I was to buy a CD and rip it to my laptop so I could listen
> to it without having to lug the CD around....Is that illegal...no.
> Moral, yes. The artist doesn't know what I'm doing with the CD I
> bought, but he knows that since I bought the CD he has lost some control
> over what I do with it...what if I buy it just to piss on it...You see
> where I'm going?
You are free to do whatever you want with the CD. Rip it, tape it, burn
another copy, whatever. As far as I'm concerned, you should be able to
loan it to friends, who may or may not rip a track or two, play it at a
party for all your guests to hear, then take it out in the back yard and
use it for target practice. The instant you go into the business of
mass distribution, either through burning copies or file sharing, you've
crossed that fuzzy grey line. It doesn't help that the industry is
making an obscene margin on the CD that cost pennies to create in order
to cover the millions wasted on recording and marketing. With digital
technology, basement studios can sound as good as the $10k/hour studios
the big boys use.
And when the public doesn't buy the latest flavor of the month, it must
be those darned kids with their Em-Pee-Three's and CD burners.
Yessirree! To quote Mike Myers, "It's C-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-rap!".
>> It's a certainly a mess. It has always been a mess, but the digital age
>> has drawn several of the messiest issues to the surface in a very
>> public manner and now, rather than updating the underlying system, the
>> government and business is doing everything they can to patch the holes
>> and maintain profit margins. It won't work - we'll either end up
>> criminals for using CD-R media to back up data and exercise fair-use
>> rights, or the big media conglomerates (RIAA, MPAA, etc) will crumble
>> and a new model will rise in its place.
>
> I think the RIAA is going to crumble eventually. How do you charge for
> "audio" CDRW media and "data" CDRW media? How do you know what I am
> burning (be it MP3s, backups, porn...whatever). I really don't see the
> RIAA getting there hands in on this one (greedy bastards).
They don't care what you burn on it. We already pay a hidden "tax" on
tapes and CD media. Probably on DVD media, too. All to help prop up an
aging, leaning behemoth stuck in the 1960's. Look at it this way, the
US hasn't had a good, clean-cut dictatorship to prop up (excluding the
various oil barons in the middle east) for quite a while - I guess the
RIAA and MPAA will have to do for now.
> You are very correct in everything you said here...rather then build new
> laws (which is what is need) and analyze what is going wrong in the
> current laws...We are going to get screwed....
Getting screwed is a daily part of life here in America. I just paid
$30 in "convenience" charges for a pair of concert tickets. Would have
been $50, but I opted for "printable" tickets. I'm supposed to believe
that a completely automated, on-line transaction costs $30?! At least
my wife will be happy - I have a pretty good chance of getting a
positive response to the "Are you gonna go my way?" question tonight, if
you know what I mean ;)
>> I sure hope the latter is what comes about. In the meantime, stock up
>> on CD-R media...
>
> LOL...yup. I doubt the RIAA can do it though because so many
> corporations depend on CDR (CDRW) media for daily life! I'm betting the
> RIAA starts to fall apart (unless they can change) in the next couple of
> years...they don't understand that the cat is out of the bag and there
> is *no* putting him back in...
They already do, they already do. I'm not sure if they only tax the
"audio" CD-R media or not, but you can bet that you'll be paying on
*all* CD-R and DVD-R* media before all is said and done.
ObTopicDrift: How much longer before the gubmint starts "selling"
sponsorships, in effect making Sen. Ernest "Fritz" Hollings (D-Disney)
official? Great way to pad the budget.
James Garvin
>
> I don't see it. All you bring up are marketing techniques, the
> quality of the production center and the amount of financing.
*boggle* Yes...that is what business is...
> NONE of those considerations change the fact that a customer pays
> money for the use of shareware, or commercial software or LCR or
> any computer software product. And, that all of the said products
> are copyrighted intellectual property.
Yes. I'm not saying that isn't the case.
> You appear to be trying to change the rules just because of the
> side (irrelevent) considerations.
No...I just feel like software isn't the same as a book (it isn't) and
when you copyright something the the XOR mouse over, that is counter
productive.
> Can you be more considerate of my rights as a copyright holder?
I am. I don't Warez, nor do I "steal" software. I think we have to
look at the bigger picture here and that is: When does software become
legacy?
> So, because you want the copyright life span shorter, you want me
> to give up my rights to you? And you wonder why I'm pissed.
No you are giving up no rights. You have to understand that open source
doesn't mean "free." I think you are getting confused.
> I tell you what. Whatever it is you do for a living, right now
> you lose 25% of your income and have no say in it. You just lost
> your "copyright" to some of your "product". Live with it, like
> you are asking guys like me to do.
I'm a coder as well. I understand why you feel this way, but I think it
is because you don't understand how open source works. You are making
things up and WAY over reacting.
Knight37
> Devil, if you really want Mordor 1, I'll email it to you, as it's only
> a few MB, IIRC. Don't pay $40 for it because some stuck up rich
> aristocrat says that's what the market will bear....
> just to make Knight angry....
You are not making me angry, just filled with pitty that you have such low
moral fiber.
--
Knight37
You're not quite evil enough. You're semi-evil. You're quasi-evil. You're
the margarine of evil. You're the Diet Coke of evil, just one calorie, not
evil enough.
-- Dr. Evil to Scott, "Austin Powers 2"
Knight37
> Why would anyone pay $40 for a 8 year old game, that can be had for
> $5-$10 in an old bargain bin?
I haven't seen it for $10 in a bargain bin, but the actual PRICE of the
game isn't the issue here. It's whether or not the price, whatever it is,
justifies theft, which it NEVER does.
--
Knight37
"Dear Mother! Dear Father!
What is this hell you have put me through?
Believer! Deceiver!
Day in, day out, live my life through you!
Pushed onto me what's wrong or right!
Hidden from this thing that they call Life!"
-- Metallica "Dyers Eve"
Zixia
> In article <Xns91FBCEE...@130.133.1.4>, ab...@clu.org.uk
> says...
>
>>Ken Rice devised a cunning plan:
>
There is nothing to 'explain', as the facts speak for themselves. Let
us review.
> *****
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
>
> Scott Adams (born 8 June 1957) is the creator of the Dilbert comic
> strip. Scott Adams (born 10 July 1952) is the founder of Adventure
> International.
>
> http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Scott+Adams
A simple case of getting the birthdate wrong, probably on purpose.
Most of these encyclopeadia insert a few erroneous facts here and there
to spot plagiarists, should they steal material directly from the
resource.
Also, I think you should note that they explicitly list Scott Adams as
both the creator of the Dilbert strip AND the founder of Adventure
International, which is exactly the opposite of what you are arguing.
> ****
> Scott Adams <http://www.msadams.com/> The homepage of the man
> himself. (The author of the popular Dilbert comic, by the way, is
> a completely different Scott Adams.)
>
> From http://www.if-legends.org/~pdd/
> *****
> Scott Adams Adventures were among the first personal computer
> games, dating back to the late 1970s. (No, their author
> <http://www.msadams.com> isn't the Dilbert guy.)
I don't think it's fair to add your own comments to other people's
webbages that you have typed out, even if they are in parentheses.
That presents a skewed view to your argument, and is quite underhand.
If you could please provide URLs for each of these references I could
verify them myself for accuracy, without your additions.
> From
> http://www.pcworld.com/downloads/file_description/0,fid,7886,00.asp
I just get a 403: Site Not Found error whenever I try to 'click' on
this 'link'. Are you sure you've spelt everything correctly?
> *****
> Maybe these Scott Adams are also the Dilbert author:
>
> A 20 year old Scott Adams.
> http://www.happypineapple.com/scottspot/
>
> A dead Scott Adams, born 1905, died 1982.
> http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/essays/v6p197y1983.pdf
> http://web.library.uiuc.edu/ahx/ala/alacard.asp?RG=97&SG=1&RS=32
>
> A 27 year old Scott Adams.
> http://www.james-taylor.com/fans/scott.shtml
>
> Scott Adams the financial consultant:
> http://www.baronkc.com/Baron_Partners/Scott_Adams/body_scott_adams.
> html
>
> Scott Adams the lawyer.
> http://www.mycounsel.com/spiders/profiles/profile_10257.html
> *****
What have these people got to do with Scott Adams? You should
concentrate on the person we are discussing, otherwise you risk looking
a little foolish.
Hartmut Schmider
> : But sometimes I feel kind of creepy enjoying it as much as I do,
> : knowing that Jerry Seinfeld is married to a 14-year-old mail-order
> : bride. YECH!!!
>
> Is this true??? I am creeped out as well.
Jessica Sklar is a 28-year old PR exec for Tony Hilfiger. Hardly the type
of gal that comes in the mail.
Hartmut "whatever floats yer boat" Schmider
--
Hartmut Schmider | Morality is a venereal disease.
Queen's University | Its primary stage is called virtue;
-- | its secondary stage, boredom;
h...@post.queensu.ca | its tertiary stage, syphilis. (Karl Kraus)
Ken Rice
>
>Ken Rice devised a cunning plan:
>
>There is nothing to 'explain', as the facts speak for themselves. Let
>us review.
>> *****
>> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
>>
>> Scott Adams (born 8 June 1957) is the creator of the Dilbert comic
>> strip. Scott Adams (born 10 July 1952) is the founder of Adventure
>> International.
>> http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Scott+Adams
>A simple case of getting the birthdate wrong, probably on purpose.
>Most of these encyclopeadia insert a few erroneous facts here and there
>to spot plagiarists, should they steal material directly from the
>resource.
>Also, I think you should note that they explicitly list Scott Adams as
>both the creator of the Dilbert strip AND the founder of Adventure
>International, which is exactly the opposite of what you are arguing.
Perhaps you should inform them of their error.
>> ****
>> Scott Adams <http://www.msadams.com/> The homepage of the man
>> himself. (The author of the popular Dilbert comic, by the way, is
>> a completely different Scott Adams.)
>> From http://www.if-legends.org/~pdd/
>> *****
>> Scott Adams Adventures were among the first personal computer
>> games, dating back to the late 1970s. (No, their author
>> <http://www.msadams.com> isn't the Dilbert guy.)
>I don't think it's fair to add your own comments to other people's
>webbages that you have typed out, even if they are in parentheses.
>That presents a skewed view to your argument, and is quite underhand.
>If you could please provide URLs for each of these references I could
>verify them myself for accuracy, without your additions.
That is their comment, not mine. Read the site.
>> From
>> http://www.pcworld.com/downloads/file_description/0,fid,7886,00.asp
>I just get a 403: Site Not Found error whenever I try to 'click' on
>this 'link'. Are you sure you've spelt everything correctly?
Try it again. It works for me.
>> *****
>> Maybe these Scott Adams are also the Dilbert author:
>> A 20 year old Scott Adams.
>> http://www.happypineapple.com/scottspot/
>> A dead Scott Adams, born 1905, died 1982.
>> http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/essays/v6p197y1983.pdf
>> http://web.library.uiuc.edu/ahx/ala/alacard.asp?RG=97&SG=1&RS=32
>> A 27 year old Scott Adams.
>> http://www.james-taylor.com/fans/scott.shtml
>> Scott Adams the financial consultant:
>> http://www.baronkc.com/Baron_Partners/Scott_Adams/body_scott_adams.
>> html
>> Scott Adams the lawyer.
>> http://www.mycounsel.com/spiders/profiles/profile_10257.html
>> *****
>What have these people got to do with Scott Adams? You should
>concentrate on the person we are discussing, otherwise you risk looking
>a little foolish.
Moi? But they are all Scott Adams, who obviously a very versatile person.
Hey, are you a photographer? I found all theses pictures you took:
http://www.homestore.com/Decorate/Color/Ideas/SpecialEffects.asp
http://houseandhome.aol.homestore.com/Decorate/ByRoom/Kitchens/Lighting.asp
And you write poetry too!
http://cordite.org.au/06-07/harvey,odes111.asp
And you teach law.
http://www-camlaw.rutgers.edu/faculty/occasional/1-harvey.html
And physics too.
http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/people/phil.html
And you are the Academic Secretary at the University of Exeter
http://www.aua.ac.uk/pubs/keynoteB5.htm
I didn't realize I had such a worthy adversary.
(It's amazing what you can find in a newsgroup article header. <G>)