Copyright

Here is a good summary of many popular licenses in use today and how the copyright and license relate to one another.

How to copyright your software and choose a license
by Bruce Perens, Open Source Initiative

http://www.linuxworld.com/linuxworld/expo/lw-thursday-copyright.html

hehe no worries Ope. Please know that while the idea behind my comment was serious, it was spoken in jest The world would be a really dull place if everyone agreed wth me and I really enjoy a good debate. I tend to state my opinions strongly so just know there isn't any disrespect there, just some good thought provoking disagreement <g>. The really great thing about this kind of discussion is that it forces you to evaluate your own beliefs and why you believe them, and that's always a healthy thing.

Let me see if I can shed a bit more light on the issue of proving your work. What I do to protect myself (and I find it sad that I have to do this) is watermark each approval image I submit to a client with a bit "approval image" stamp. They don't get a clean copy that's suitable for printing or displaying until they've met the terms of the contract (usually this means they've paid for at least 2/3 or the job).

But let's take that a bit farther down the road. This happened to someone I know from another forum... he was contracted to produce an image to be used as part of a trade show display and the fee negotiated was based on that limited usage. However he didn't protect himself or the copyright of the image and once he turned it over to them he could make no claim to it again. Most of the time that's not a big issue because these things tend to have a short lifespan. This piece though was very beautiful and the company went on to use it as the cover image for a coffee table book. So that company was selling the image he created and profiting from it and he wasn't compensated in any way. Ethically that's reprehensible. Without his work there would have been no coffee table book to sell. Copyright law is designed to protect artists from things like that. The mistake he made was that the details of copyright ownership were not spelled out in the contract he had them sign.

==================================================================================
"the one thing that a skilled worker owns and brings to the table is their skill. you can't take their skill away from them. if all information after being made public was then free to use for everyone, there would be no way to abuse the 'selling' of the little guys idea by anyone else. a typical transaction would involve the proof dilemma outlined above. assuming that a deal can then be reached, and a price negotiated, the little guy now has work. but no one will own his idea after he has released it and so no one else could make money off of it. this seems a lot more honest to me. but maybe i'm missing something...."
===================================================================================

Well here's one reason why what you describe couldn't work. Take an author for example. No one pays him to write the novel. He/She gets paid only when that novel is sold. If the completed work is public property simply because it now exists in a tangible form then there's no way for that author to be paid for his labor. If the publisher can't charge people for it because everyone owns it already by default then they have no incentive to buy the novel from the author in the first place. Do you have any idea how much time it takes to write a novel? Not many people can do it just in their spare time. Artists and writers and musicians have to be paid for what they do or they simply can't do it. If you love art, or music, or literature then you can understand that it would diminish our world to not have it, or to have very little of it.

In my line of work, for every hour that I spend working on something I can bill a client for, I've probably spent 10-20 hours developing the skills I needed to be able to bill for that hour. That's on a continual basis. You can't go take a class and come out at the end knowing everying you need to know to make your living for the rest of time. Digital art tools and animation software are constantly evolving, as are the expectations of audiences. If you can't constantly keep up with the kinds of things that other people are doing you won't survive. No one pays me to develop those skills. That's why people pay a premium for the kind of work I do. I don't mean that to sound like "wow, look at how great I am." It's just a simple fact of what's required to compete in a very competitive field. If the finished product was something that in itself had no value then I'd have no way to earn a living doing what I do. I'd never have the time to invest to maintain the skills I needed to do it in the first place. I'd be at my factory job instead.

Does that help you understand the dilemma a little better? And BTW... you make a fine devil's advocate! hehe

"i know this idea of free information is kinda out there. but, information physically is free. "

Ope, you have said this a few times now, but you also said:

"The desire to be rewarded for intellectual work, though, makes sense. Why else would I try to come up with something clever?"

I think at some point, if you want to challenge the way things have been done for a few hundred years you need to come up with an alternative. Again, pointing out a flaw or two with the current system is not justification for throwing it out. Discussing it here without any specific alternatives is rather pointless too.

I supposed you have seen lifelong criminals interviewed at some point. They quite frequently justify their crimes by saying thing like: "I don't believe in private property, so I have as much right to drive your car as you do."

There is also a system of thought, known as Solipsism, that says since you cannot prove the existence of anything outside your own thought processes that you may be the only being in the universe and everything else is just a figment of your imagination. Such "reasoning" has been used by mass murderers to justify their crimes.

I picked two examples that I hope you will agree are outrageous examples of taking a simple "philosophical" concept and turning into permission from the universe to do harm to others. I'm sure this is not what you intend by the statement that "information is free".

The laws we have now, and the concepts they are based on were developed over thousands of years. They continue to evolve. The laws are complex, and can't be summarized adequately in this forum. They cover a lot of cases that you might not think they cover:

1. As has been mentioned, you can't copyright simple facts such as 2+2=4. Furthermore, you can't copyright (or patent) something that has been in common use before you claimed your right, even if you didn't know about the existing use (known as prior art).

2. There are means to deal with situations where two or more people try to copyright (or patent) the same idea independently at the same time.

3. Most copyright infringement litigation involves not just the attempt to make USE of another persons work, but to, in addition PROFIT from that use. (Keep in mind that "profit" may be in forms other than money though.)

It's as if someone were to say to you: "Stuff should be free, so I took your car", and then followed that by saying, "I needed some money for groceries, so I sold the car I took from you." The "information is free" notion sounds a lot like this to me. It basically says that we all have the right to take ideas from others where we can, but we also have the right to sell those ideas to third parties, or proclaim our own creativity to others where we can.

People have devoted their lives to curing a particular disease, solving a particular societal problem, or producing a work of art that enriches our lives. To concoct a system that has us accept those ideas or works and tells the originator "thanks, now go away", seems incredibly self centered to me. My hope is that this is not what you mean when you say "Information is free".

Unless you can produce some specific counter examples, I don't see much point in "debating" something that most people consider a basis for civilization. The original post that started this thread was a simple inquiry as to whether Linden Labs intended to act as enforcer of the laws, I don't think the intent was to question the validity of the laws, or the reasoning behind them.

Ah, yes. anyone who makes money solely off selling copies of a work would obviously be affected. this would include fictional writers and most in the entertainment business including the gaming industry, which i can't live without.

one thing that should be noted is that live entertainment would still be worth money. so any live entertainers wouldn't be affected. a live show has value because it is not a copy of some work. it provides a unique uncopyable element for the customer. this is also why movie going should not die out soon, because we still want to see movies on a big screen with surround sound. although eventually i can see it dying, as home entertainment becomes cheaper.

video games also would have to provide a unique element for the customer in order to be sellable. this is where online games have an advantage. the servers are unique. you can't play without them. SL will survive and i'm optimistic that there is enough creative drive in the community, especially the mod community, that there will always be plenty to experience in games.

so again, the only ones who will be most affected by freedom to share information would be those who rely solely on selling copies of a work. to them i have a tough-luck attitude. find a way to make your work unique/personalized and it will be valuable. this group unless i'm missing something else again, would only consist of authors. this wouldn't mean that non-fictional (factual) writing would be stifled. businesses would drive this area, and they are driven by demand. but the nature of fictional writing would change. i'm sure they'll still be plenty of fiction around. who's gonna write the scripts for the live entertainers? storytelling will not die. but it won't be a big industry.

besides i've felt that entertainment should be a side job type of thing. it doesn't provide any real valuable good or service. it should just be done for fun. thats what it is right?

of course this is all just my musings on a perfect world
thanks for playing along

Mac, when I wrote:

"The desire to be rewarded for intellectual work, though, makes sense. Why else would I try to come up with something clever?"

i was trying to explain my understanding of the common point of view. if you read the rest of that post you'll see that in it i state my belief that we have a natural drive to create. we are rewarded naturally for creating.

and the philosophy that i believe in is based on the golden rule. i feel that an action is right if it ultimately leads to the greater good of all. the collective good. and an action is wrong if it ultimately leads to the opposite. life is a non-zero sum game. we either all win or we all lose.

and anyway who cares if i went off topic. as if every thread stays on topic all the time. i'm just messing around. having fun. is there something wrong with that?

gad you all write too much



The person who left the fruit there has no legal leg to stand on or should not at least (I'm not gonna touch shrink wrap liscenses here). What it is really like is if you had a tree with fruit on it and a stand out in front selling the fruit for $20 each. Your tree, your fruit, you can do that. Meanwhile behind you people keep comming up and stealing the fruit.

The people stealing the fruit are in the wrong. plain and simple. period. IF they don't like you, your fruit, how much you charge for the fruit or your fruit business practices then they won't buy your fruit, and they may work hard and convincing others they shouldn't buy your fruit either. But in no case does that give them any right to your fruit.

Your example would be equivalant to me downloading a movie trailor and later the MPAA sending me a letter charging me for it. That isn't happening. What is happening is that they are creating and selling a movie, and then people are stealing and distributing it. And those people have no right to do so.

I meant to say earlier that I read this book (and all of her others!) in high school and they had a great impact on my thinking. There is no doubt about which side of this argument she would take!

Well, if you were smart and signed a contract with them to create the designs... Even without a written contract, as long as they had a verbal agreement with you, you should be able to get your money. Without copyright, they would basically not be paying you for the images, but for the work that goes into making the images.



I think you could disagree with me more than you do, at least I hope so. Are you trying to say that a person and his heirs should have exclusive rights to their intellectual creations in perpetuity? So I should not be able to copy or base new works on Homer's "The Odyssey" without tracking down and getting permission from his heirs? Do you think that the "fair use" doctrine should be done away with? Do you think I should not be able to hum the latest hit song in the shower without paying a royalty fee?

Once you express your ideas to me, I possess them. There's no way around that, it's your fault for expressing your ideas to me. They become part of my consciousness. I can't erase my memories, and you should have no reason to want that. You seem to have taken an extreme stance on this issue, do you even believe in the public domain? Almost everything we create is based in one way or another on something we have seen that someone else had created. I love Zebulon's quote from Thomas Jefferson:


Now could I use characters and settings from "The Lord of the Rings" and create my own, original story? The answer is no. Tolkien created this fabulous work (in his spare time I might add), probably mostly for his own enjoyment. He had been working on stories of Middle Earth since he was a child. Now he is dead and he will not be creating any more stories or books. However, his heirs will possess the copyright on his works into the foreseeable future, probably until after I am dead myself. Is this right? People that didn't even create the intellectual property are now in charge of it and no one else may use it.

I just think this type of thing is absurd. I do believe that copyrights are necessary, but I believe even more strongly that it should be for a limited time. As soon as you express your ideas to someone as art, song, poetry, or whatever, you cease your exclusive ownership of them. Copyright does not grant you rights to works as "property", it grants you the exclusive right to use what you have created. And the purpose of that is to allow the creator to make money as an incentive to create. We need that incentive so that people will still create, but we also need to remember the limited time so that people's creations can benefit the public good, which used to be the whole point of copyright in America.

Jason

Yeah, I agree that life is not a zero sum game. One of the strongest arguments for capitalism is that the process by which some people get rich does not necessarily impoverish those around them, but instead "lifts all boats".

But if you abolish all forms of ownership, how would you go about giving a gift?

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." loses much of it's meaning when laws control every aspect of our behavior. Communism and extreme versions of Socialism have as a goal eliminate all private property. Everyone essentially becomes a "renter" of all the things they use in their daily lives. But no implementation of these has ever succeeded in doing anything other than making a small group of "haves" and a large group of "have nots".

Nothing wrong with going off-topic, especially in a section dedicated to off-toppic discussions. I'm just not sure we are covering new ground any more. Seems like we have all pretty much said everything we have to say on the subject.

People need to understand that there is a big difference between intellectual property and physical property. I agree that the idea of intellectual property is necessary, but I don't think it should be called property. You don't really "own" it, you have the exclusive right to use it or decide how and when others can use it.

Take your example of the fruit tree. The tree is your property and what it produces (oranges let's say) are your property as well. Let's say that one year it produces 100 oranges and you decide to sell them for $20 each (personally I think you'd have a hard time finding a buyer). If 90 people come and steal one orange each when you're not looking, you are left with only 10 oranges. That's 90 fewer oranges to sell, or eat, or do whatever you want with. They were your property and now they are gone. Let's say the fair market value of an orange is $20. You started out with $2000 worth of oranges and ended up with $200 worth. Let's say you had decided to eat 90 of those oranges over the course of the summer instead of them being stolen, you'd still have just $200. You would have gotten the nourishment and enjoyment of eating them yourself, but they'd still be gone.

Intellectual property is completely different. Let's say you write a song and decide to charge people $20 to download the song. You have an INFINITE supply of songs by the very nature of intellectual property. 1, 10, or a million people could download your song and you should get money for each one, however you still have an INFINITE supply. In the case of the orange tree, after 100 people purchased oranges you would be out of luck and probably would plant more trees for next year. Let's say 1000 people illegally copy your song. You cannot turn around and see that half the supply that you worked hard to create is missing. You still have an INFINITE supply. Would those people have purchased a copy of your song if they couldn't have illegally duplicated it? Maybe, but still you have an INFINITE supply.

With physical property, the cost occurs for each unit created. If it is stolen, you lose the money it cost to create that particular item. With intellectual property, you only lose the potential to make another sale, not the cost incurred in creating that item.

If the orange tree worked like intellectual property, you couldn't take the orange you bought and plant the seeds to make your own tree. Also, one person would control the creation and distribution of oranges all over the world, and you couldn't legally give your friend a bite of your orange.

I am not saying we should do away with copyright, I just think that comparing intellectual property to physical property is invalid, they are two completely different things.

Zaphod Beach
[email]secondlifeforum@goemaat.com[/email]

oh yeah we've totally gone in circles. but hey it's a fun ride and if you keep your eyes on one spot you might not get dizzy.

anyway, i just wish we could get rid of intellectual ownership. not physical property ownership.

and if the golden rule loses its meaning with more laws, well, what if we get rid of one?

but i dunno i think laws are meant to enforce actions that fit the golden rule, not make it lose its meaning. so, uh, we should still get rid of one law

You didn't misunderstand me Zaphod. As I said in an earlier post, it wouldn't bother me at all if copyrights on creative works never expired. If it was Tolkein's wish for the ownership of his work to pass down to his heirs then he should have the right to do that. That should be his decision and his alone. Are *you* suggesting that we should live by mob rule, and we should be able to take his work simply because we want it?

As for your comment about verbal agreements being enough, well.... hehehehe... good luck <g>

The argument that every work is derivitive is a cop-out. Let's bring it back around to SL since that's where we started. Sure you can make your AV look like your favorite movie character or comic book hero, and frankly since you're not profiting from it I don't see any harm in that, but why? Why not try coming up with *your own* ideas instead?

I don't think my position is extreme. I think yours is. What I hear you and Ope saying is that somehow the world owes you something. It doesn't. It's the other way around. We each have an obligation to find a trade and to use it to provide for ourselves so that society doesn't have to support us. My trade is my art. And for the record, if anyone ever steals some of my work and claims it belongs to them, or attempts to profit from it without giving me due compensation, I will pursue them to the farthest extent that the law allows. If they had asked me for it there's a good chance I'd have given it. If they simply presume they have some right to have it, they'll learn the hard way that the world doesn't work that way. Nor should it.

And Mac... I've read all of Ayn Rand's books too and was also heavily influenced by them

Since I'm about running out of steam on this thread anyone who'd like to engage in some friendly debate about it in game, feel free to stop by my place in Freelon. The first beer's on me Thanks for all the good food for thought.

Ok Zaphod so you are saying that if my Orange tree produced an infiniate supply of oranges then it is ok for people to steal them? If it produces an infinite number of oranges no matter how many are stolen I still have an infinite amount. So that makes it ok?

And lets say we live in star trek or later times and there is a teleportation device to send physical items anywhere in the world as fast as downloading an MP3. It should always be ok for a person who bought my Orange to send it to a friend.

But what if they could also copy that orange - they send it to their friend but don't lose the one they have. All thats needed is the molecular data from the orange and a new identical one is created.

So because my orange tree has an infinite amount of oranges, and you can easily give as many oranges out as you want after buying one, then it is ok to give out my oranges for free? Or to charge your own price for them which I never see a cent of? Or to give out for free one that you got for free?

That means my wonderful tree I genetically engineered and spent my life working on because all you music thiefs killed em off in the late 22nd century, will grant me 1 sale before anyone who wants one can have a free one. Yeah theres a great use of my life.

Why should people create new ideas, concepts and art if they will get no benefit from it? Why waste their time?