Lindens, give us a public domain!

In real life, copyrights expire. It is like this everywhere. After the author has been dead for some time, their work is automatically released into the public domain, meaning no one retains any rights on the expired work. This is there for a reason. Creativity builds upon the past. This is why the world evolves.
SL is a world in constant, rapid flux. People come and go at a surprising rate, and it often happens that you need this or that made by a certain person... who is no longer in the game, or MIA, and more often than not we have no way of contacting them.
I have two proposals.
When someone leaves the game, after 60 days of their account expiring, which IIRC is right before their account gets wiped:

1) Objects, scripts, textures made by them have all "Next Owner" permissions turned on. This enables us to, for instance, tweak clothes, objects, textures, scripts made by someone who isnt there anymore to tweak them for us.

2) Objects, scripts, whatever that person made, is made available at a "Library of Congress" site, which could be a simple default textured box at the Stillmann bazaar, bearing that person's name, and containing their creations, textures and sounds they may have uploaded etc.
This enables us to build upon the past. It is especially handy for scripters, since there's a few very complex things that can be made with scripting, which require a great deal of effort and prior RL knowledge to replicate.

This would also enable people to get all their stuff back should they return to the game. Which doesnt happen that often anyway :|

Not if you're the RIAA. (sorry, couldn't resist)

Or the MPAA (couldn't resist either)

Ah but you are both wrong. Copyrights do expire for the RIAA and the MPAA.

They don't expire for Disney.

Or U. S. Games

Each country has its own laws that govern when copyrights expire. LL cannot arbitrarily change this. They might be able to write into the TOS something about abandoned intellectual property, but I'm certain they want to keep it as simple as possible. Hate for LL to enable IP to become public, than get sued by some jerk out for a quick buck.

Besides; Eggy, aren't you the "if someone offers to sell it, I can give it to you free" guy?

As has been mentioned, no longer true in the United States..... copyright can now be extended indefinitely. This is what happens when people elect a marginally talented singer with close ties to the recording industry and megacorporations like Disney to the Senate.

But of course downloading is theft, right? But destroying the public domain isn't. War is Peace, Ignorance is Strength.

It's theft if I created it and don't wish anyone else to have it unless it's according to my terms. You're absolutely correct that we stupidly give mega-corps far too much power and reach, but the rights they abuse are the same rights that protect individuals. Take away copyrights and you make every creator a slave to the collective, unable to prosper from the fruits of their efforts. No thanks. If you want that, move to China. What right do you as a member of the public have to the products of my mind and effort? None at all unless I grant them. Just as it should be. I'll take individualism over forced collectivism every time, even if it means I have to put up with the Disneys of the world. If they want to be hyper-protective of the things they created and own, that's their right to do so. The day that right gets taken away from them is the day it also gets taken away from you.

Ah, but your product is based on the work of those who came before you. This is why the original copyright terms spelled out by the Founders, (primarily Jefferson) were much more limited.

I'm not saying get rid of copyright.... I'm saying that IP law as it stands in this country is obscenely messed up. A situation that protects the rights of producers for a limited time, after which their product goes back into the public domain where others can be inspired by it is good. A situation where a corporate entity that doesn't actually produce much of anything can hold some intangible rights to a work that someone else did for an indefinite time after the author's own death isn't good.

It's a messed up situation when downloading music is labelled as theft, (it isn't.... and no law in the world recognizes it as such) but eliminating the public domain isn't considered theft. But all hail the **AA.... copying is theft but taking 95 years or more from the public isn't.

Dusty, most people out there who are selling things are freeloading bottom feeders who mostly exploit noobs (or equally clueless people) and lack any sort of talent.
This is why I can usually offer the same thing as them, free of charge. Because its usually so simple that I can build or code the same while you wait.
There are of course exceptions. Xylor has a superb mastery of what is to me insanely complex geometry. His rezzors are unparalleled. Madox Kobayashi, for instance had an automatic maze rezzor, but he is MIA.

I think it's a bad idea since you can sell objects/scripts etc. for real money. It wouldn't be fair if you stop playing the game and other people can claim your objects/scripts and sell them for real money...

We're not wrong Ama, there may be an expiration date or something but they will always be extended!

Horray lawyers+politicians+scum with money!

Copyrights weren't always like this, but not only that...corporations used to be NOTHING like they are now. Corps probably have more rights than individuals now, and I believe when they were first "invented" (to give an idea of the limitations), they could only last 20 years. (Maybe 10, whatever.) I don't think that should still be the case, but this shows exactly how far they've managed to come.

Apparently corporations = individuals now...(or corporations > individ.)

Which means they gain all the rights of an individual (and I'm sure they're lacking many of the responsibilities), bleh.

What pisses me off some times is the BROAD ended things that are alowed to be 'copyrighted' now. A few examples:

Magic the gathering is copyrighted in the basic sence. It's their game bla bla bla so thats fair. What isn't fair is that Wizards of the Coast didn't just copyright the game they copyrighted the STYLE of the game. Do you know they own Yugio and Pokemon now? They are the ONLY company who can make a card game that resembles magic's play style in any way shape or form. -They own a concept-

The Segway - The creators of the segway have copyrighted ANY 2 wheeled parralel left to right vehical that has any form of 'self' balancing. So even if somone came up with a completely different way of creating a self balancing vehical they couldn't use it due to segway's copyright. -They own a concept-

Coca Cola (as far as I understand it, more research needed) uses a very recognizable design for their logo and bottle. This design was created and is IP of some guy they had working on logos for them (But who had not signed any contract giving them instant rights to it) the company is using lawyers and leagle loop holes to keep from having to give the guy royalties for life due to using his design which he still owns the rights to (Can somone confirm this one for me please). -They dont own it-

Bose owns rights to using air tunels for music amplification. -They own a concept-

You see this kind of thing all the time now. Companies are getting rights to CONCEPTS and basic principals. Its like copyrighting the lightbulb or the candle.

There are supposed to be regulations which determine that something is too broad, general, obvious... to useful in many other forms to be locked like this. They arent working.

BTW, the Segway is covered by US Patent No. 5,971,091. This does not prevent anyone else from creating a similar device; it is very specific about the methodology used to create the Segway and prevents someone from using the same method to recreate the device.

Patents and copyrights are not the same thing, and have different laws governing them. How's that for doubling the confusion?

Eggy, my abject apologies. I didn't mean to imply that there is anything wrong with providing for free what others might be selling, any more than what Microsoft did with IE is wrong. Just saying that scripts should not automatically become public domain. If they are fairly simple, someone can easily recreate them. If they are complex, then it really isn't fair to claim the product of someone's hard work and ingenuity without compensation.

I do think the following:
a) there is a body of very common scripts that many people would like to use, such as: follow-me, simple vehicle motion, etc.
b) while many people could code these things in many different ways, some ways will be more efficient than others. Some ways might be horribly inefficient.
c) there should be (might already be) a repository somewhere of memory and processor efficient scripts for these very common behaviors.

Dusty

Look into it. I'm fairly sure the reason copyrights have been expanded at least a couple of times has been because Mickey Mouse's copyright was set to expire but Disney still makes a butt load of money off him. They send their $$ to a team of lawyers to take it to the courts arguing that the copyright terms are abviously too short because of how integral Mickey is to Disney and that copyrights are supposed to ensure profit from an idea goes to the creator (or his corporation). And since Mickey is still such an icon they must be right and the copyrights must be extended. And thus the public domain suffers.

While the RIAA and MPAA both violently oppose copyright violators, I can think of no cases in which they actually went to court to extend the copyright term. Most of their sales finish long before the term ends anyways (for most bands, not all).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonny_Bono_Copyright_Term_Extension_Act

Well, it's the entertainment industry in general that's causing these major problems. That includes RIAA, MPAA, Disney (which I think has it's own list of wrongdoings to begin with), etc.

Since the entertainment industry has now come up, I'd also like to take this opportunity to shamelessly bash a random celebrity that comes to mind....hmm...

NO, MADONNA, NO ONE CARES WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT US WORLD POLITICS. THIS IS A FACT. YOU ARE STUPID. NOW SHUT UP AND EITHER MAKE MORE LAME PORN FOR YOUR STUPID FANS OR GO AWAY.

Game rules cannot be copyrighted. They can, however, be patented. These are two very different things: copyrights are effectively unlimited in term, but cover only a very specific expression of an idea (for example, the art on the M:TG cards). Patents are limited to a term of 20 years from the date the patent is applied for, but cover a much wider range of ideas (for example, the M:TG rules, and any game with similar rules).


A patent, again. The idea behind patents is to give the inventor a short-term monopoly on an idea, but in exchange, they make the techniques covered by the patent available to the public. After 20 years, anyone can get the patent application for the Segway and use it to build their own two-wheeled self-balancing transportation device. (They just can't call it a Segway)


The Coca-Cola logo and bottle design wouldn't be a copyright. Instead, it would be a trademark, which is granted in perpetuity -- but only if the company that owns the trademark actively defends it, and can only be granted for things that are used to symbolize the company or its products -- you can't trademark a book, for example. What you're describing is a fairly straightforward contract dispute, and is not related to the nature of intellectual property.


Patent again.


For the most part, the rules are working. There are just a few places where they break down, like computer software (the state-of-the-art is advancing too fast for traditional patent terms to work properly, and patent examiners are granting large numbers of patents that the rules say they shouldn't grant).

Speaking broadly, there are three different types of IP protection: copyright, patents, and trademarks. Copyright protects original works of expression, like novels, movies, and music; patents protect inventions; trademarks protect phrases, logos, etc. used to identify businesses in the marketplace.

Wizards of the Coast holds a patent on trading card games, not a copyright. Segway is likewise protected by a patent, as Dusty said.

The U.S. Patent Office has issued a lot of patents for silly things in recent years: people have patented procedures for playing with your cat using a laser pointer, and measuring breasts to determine bra size. From what I've read, this is in large part due to budget cuts; the Patent Office now has to be self-sustaining, paying for itself with patent application fees. Thus, it can't afford to spend the time needed to really evaluate the merits of a patent application. The Patent Office has to review applications very quickly, and it shows.

(edit: Oops, cross-posted with Carnildo's post)

You mean like the Yamato temple in Dore? It was claimed by the lindens... and its not like its the first time they do something like that.

Dusty. When your account dies your land will be released and your objects slowly decay to "public", as in "public domain", so that anyone may claim or delete it. But what about the equally great objects or scripts that you made, but didnt happen to have rezzed at the moment?
Releasing people's scripts helps the world evolve, since we dont have to reinvent the wheel every time someone dies. We could take their scripts and improve them. Put them in the script library. Scripts used to be free for everyone to copy and modify as they please. But then came along the age of the money-grubbing control freak, who pressured LL into adding permissions for everything, much like the RIAA/MPAA of this second world.
You wanna know something funny? Back when I joined the game we had a "copy texture" command in the pie menus that allowed us to copy the textures from everyone's objects, and use them for our own purposes
LL has been steadily heading down the wrong path entirely.
THIS IS A GAME. It's not supposed to involve REAL money, or REAL copyrights or anything else.
You know what, just because this game now involves real money, it may well be considered a gambling game in many legal systems, and either banned or subjected to heavy regulations. Something to keep in mind if LL truly wants to expand internationally.
Copyright "protection" alone (or rather, prevention of fair use rights) is a violation of russian and ukrainian laws IIRC, which lead to the whole Dmitri Sklyarov "e-book crack" debacle.

How is not being able to use mickey mouse for your own a major problem? How is not being allowed to steal and profit from other people's creative efforts screwing things up? I don't understand these arguments. Being against copyrights is like saying that you feel that you're entitled to have the work of other people that you in no way contributed to for your own selfish ends withough compensating the creator. THAT's the problem. Nobody owes you anything... especially not their intellectual property.

Ah the issue chip, as I understand it is extremes.

No one will argue that Disney shouldn't make a profit off mickey.

Copyrights, and IP in general, are designed so that people will have incentive to create. People lose the incentive to create if they will not be able to profit from their creations. However there is also benefit in public domain - knowledge that is available to everyone to use. When things become public domain then more invention and creation are necesary to make profit. In otherwords by adding to the public domain you foster more creativity, and deter stagnation. If the creator or creators of an idea never have to make another idea to see profit then why would they?

The overall idea is to benefit mankind through advancement in ideas. Copyrights do it by offering incentive to create through profit, the public domain does the same thing in a different manner - new things must be made to make a profit once old stuff is public domain.

The issue lies in the ballance. How long is it reasonable to denay the public domain of an idea to grant the necessary profit? Is 20 years too short? Is 75 too long? No one argues that there needs to be a time durring which the creator can get profit or that eventually it should handed over to benefit everyone through the public domain. It is a question of how much time.

My personal pet peve is how the copyrights extend to software. The terms of copyright are so rediculous for software its really not funny. The public domain actually very recently (the last couple of years) actually started getting the first of the 'expired copyrights' material - stuff from 75 years ago or so. Technology has moved so far past that being usefull as more than history. When was the last time MS made a profit from Windows? From teh first version of DOS? And yet none of that will be public domain for a long, long time. The public suffers when the public domain suffers and the right balance should be found.

The problem is, while coorporations have lots and lots of $$ to throw at extending the copyright terms, the public domain has essentially none.

I guess I tend to look at copyright as protection for creative works... writing, art, music, and so on. More often than not these things are created by individuals, not corporations, and they need to be protected. And having strong enforcable copyright protection actualy spurs innovation. If you can't copy someone else's work you're forced to innovate.

I think the much bigger problem is patents. They're being awarded for ridiculously vague and broad concepts. This actually does hurt innovation. I believe patents should have a strict time limit and not be extendable. And the criteria for being granted a patent needs to be strengthened.

But back to the original thread topic... SL should not have a forced public domain. That doesn't prevent people from putting their stuff into the public domain if they choose to. If it's freel to copy and modify, it's public domain. If it's not, it's not.

We all benefit from the existence of the public domain. Disney in particular has benefited from the fact that fairy tales like Cinderella, Snow White, etc. are in the public domain. Shakespeare, the Bible, and others works of literature published between 1900 and the dawn of civilization would all be unavailable for borrowing if they weren't in the public domain. The same is true about the Mona Lisa, Beethoven's symphonies, and countless other works.

The proposed Eldred Act would make works enter the public domain after fifty years, unless the copyright holders pay a tax of perhaps $1 a year. This would allow people interested in retaining their copyright to do so, while the vast majority of works would enter public domain and potentially offer inspiration to others.

See http://eldred.cc/

I could definitely live with that. The tax is negligible, and the individual retains the right to protect their work.